A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy (IDET) Compared with Circumferential Lumbar Fusion

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy (IDET) Compared with Circumferential Lumbar Fusion

AU - Stamuli, Eugena

AU - Kesornsak, Withawin

AU - Grevitt, Michael P

AU - Posnett, John

AU - Claxton, Karl

N1 - This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details

PY - 2017/9/12

Y1 - 2017/9/12

N2 - STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) relative to circumferential lumbar fusion with femoral ring allograft (FRA) in UK.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Circumferential lumbar fusion is an established treatment for discogenic low back pain. However, IDET could be a cost-effective treatment alternative as it can be carried out as a day case.METHODS: Patient-level data were available for patients with discogenic low back pain treated with FRA (n=37) in a randomized trial of FRA vs titanium cage, and for patients recruited to a separate study evaluating the use of IDET (n=85). Both studies were carried out at a single institution in the UK. Patients were followed-up for 24 months, with data collected on low back disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back and leg pain (visual analogue scale), quality of life (SF-36), radiographic evaluations, and NHS resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.RESULTS: Both treatments produced statistically significant improvements in outcome at 24-month follow-up. NHS costs were significantly lower with IDET due to a shorter mean procedure time (377.4 minutes vs 49.9 minutes) and length of stay (7 days vs 1.2 days). At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability that IDET is cost-effective is high.CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes which were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with IDET, and for appropriate patients IDET is an effective and cost-effective treatment alternative. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

AB - STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) relative to circumferential lumbar fusion with femoral ring allograft (FRA) in UK.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Circumferential lumbar fusion is an established treatment for discogenic low back pain. However, IDET could be a cost-effective treatment alternative as it can be carried out as a day case.METHODS: Patient-level data were available for patients with discogenic low back pain treated with FRA (n=37) in a randomized trial of FRA vs titanium cage, and for patients recruited to a separate study evaluating the use of IDET (n=85). Both studies were carried out at a single institution in the UK. Patients were followed-up for 24 months, with data collected on low back disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back and leg pain (visual analogue scale), quality of life (SF-36), radiographic evaluations, and NHS resource use. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.RESULTS: Both treatments produced statistically significant improvements in outcome at 24-month follow-up. NHS costs were significantly lower with IDET due to a shorter mean procedure time (377.4 minutes vs 49.9 minutes) and length of stay (7 days vs 1.2 days). At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability that IDET is cost-effective is high.CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments led to significant improvements in patient outcomes which were sustained for at least 24 months. Costs were lower with IDET, and for appropriate patients IDET is an effective and cost-effective treatment alternative. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1111/papr.12641

DO - 10.1111/papr.12641

M3 - Article

C2 - 28898530

SN - 1530-7085

JO - Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain

JF - Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain

ER -