Journal of neurology · 2019
Economic evaluation of deep-brain stimulation for Tourette's syndrome: an initial exploration.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dang Tho T H, Rowell David, Liddle Jacki, Coyne Terry, Silburn Peter, Connelly Luke B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Deep-brain stimulation (DBS) can be effective in controlling medically intractable symptoms of Tourette's syndrome (TS). There is no evidence to date, though, of the potential cost-effectiveness of DBS for this indication.
OBJECTIVE: To provide the first estimates of the likely cost-effectiveness of DBS in the treatment of severe TS.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using clinical data from 17 Australian patients receiving DBS. Direct medical costs for DBS using non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries and for the alternative best medical treatment (BMT), and health utilities for BMT were sourced from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated using a Markov models with a 10-year time horizon and 5% discount rate.
RESULTS: DBS increased quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from 2.76 to 4.60 over a 10-year time horizon. The ICER for DBS with non-rechargeable (rechargeable) batteries, compared to BMT, was A$33,838 (A$15,859) per QALY. The ICER estimates are sensitive to DBS costs and selected time horizon.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that DBS may be a cost-effective treatment for severe TS, based on the very limited clinical data available and under particular assumptions. While the limited availability of data presents a challenge, we also conduct sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results to the assumptions used in the analysis. We nevertheless recommend the implementation of randomised controlled trials that collect a comprehensive range of costs and the use of a widely accepted health-related quality of life instrument to enable more definitive statements about the cost-effectiveness of DBS for TS.
OBJECTIVE: To provide the first estimates of the likely cost-effectiveness of DBS in the treatment of severe TS.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using clinical data from 17 Australian patients receiving DBS. Direct medical costs for DBS using non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries and for the alternative best medical treatment (BMT), and health utilities for BMT were sourced from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated using a Markov models with a 10-year time horizon and 5% discount rate.
RESULTS: DBS increased quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from 2.76 to 4.60 over a 10-year time horizon. The ICER for DBS with non-rechargeable (rechargeable) batteries, compared to BMT, was A$33,838 (A$15,859) per QALY. The ICER estimates are sensitive to DBS costs and selected time horizon.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that DBS may be a cost-effective treatment for severe TS, based on the very limited clinical data available and under particular assumptions. While the limited availability of data presents a challenge, we also conduct sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results to the assumptions used in the analysis. We nevertheless recommend the implementation of randomised controlled trials that collect a comprehensive range of costs and the use of a widely accepted health-related quality of life instrument to enable more definitive statements about the cost-effectiveness of DBS for TS.