Cargando…

Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis

INTRODUCTION: Symptomatic chronic low back and leg pain resulting from lumbar spinal stenosis is expensive to treat and manage. A randomized, controlled, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial assessed treatment-related patient outcomes comparing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmier, Jordana Kate, Halevi, Marci, Maislin, Greg, Ong, Kevin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24672250
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S59194
_version_ 1782308591330394112
author Schmier, Jordana Kate
Halevi, Marci
Maislin, Greg
Ong, Kevin
author_facet Schmier, Jordana Kate
Halevi, Marci
Maislin, Greg
Ong, Kevin
author_sort Schmier, Jordana Kate
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Symptomatic chronic low back and leg pain resulting from lumbar spinal stenosis is expensive to treat and manage. A randomized, controlled, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial assessed treatment-related patient outcomes comparing the Coflex® Interlaminar Stabilization Device, an interlaminar stabilization implant inserted following decompressive surgical laminotomy in the lumbar spine, to instrumented posterolateral fusion among patients with moderate to severe spinal stenosis. This study uses patient-reported outcomes and clinical events from the trial along with costs and expected resource utilization to determine cost effectiveness. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared outcomes over 5 years. Clinical input parameters were derived from the trial. Oswestry Disability Index scores were converted to utilities. Treatment patterns over 5 years were estimated based on claims analyses and expert opinion. A third-party payer perspective was used; costs (in $US 2013) and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of key parameters. Analyses were conducted using Medicare payment rates and typical commercial reimbursements. RESULTS: Five-year costs were lower for patients implanted with Coflex compared to those undergoing fusion. Average Medicare payments over 5 years were estimated at $15,182 for Coflex compared to $26,863 for the fusion control, a difference of $11,681. Mean quality-adjusted life years were higher for Coflex patients compared to controls (3.02 vs 2.97). Results indicate that patients implanted with the Coflex device derive more utility, on average, than those treated with fusion, but at substantially lower costs. The cost advantage was greater when evaluating commercial insurance payments. Subgroup analyses found that the cost advantage for Coflex relative to fusion was even larger for two-level procedures compared to one-level procedures. CONCLUSION: The Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization Device was found to be cost effective compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. It provided higher utility at substantially lower cost.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3964032
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39640322014-03-26 Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis Schmier, Jordana Kate Halevi, Marci Maislin, Greg Ong, Kevin Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research INTRODUCTION: Symptomatic chronic low back and leg pain resulting from lumbar spinal stenosis is expensive to treat and manage. A randomized, controlled, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial assessed treatment-related patient outcomes comparing the Coflex® Interlaminar Stabilization Device, an interlaminar stabilization implant inserted following decompressive surgical laminotomy in the lumbar spine, to instrumented posterolateral fusion among patients with moderate to severe spinal stenosis. This study uses patient-reported outcomes and clinical events from the trial along with costs and expected resource utilization to determine cost effectiveness. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared outcomes over 5 years. Clinical input parameters were derived from the trial. Oswestry Disability Index scores were converted to utilities. Treatment patterns over 5 years were estimated based on claims analyses and expert opinion. A third-party payer perspective was used; costs (in $US 2013) and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of key parameters. Analyses were conducted using Medicare payment rates and typical commercial reimbursements. RESULTS: Five-year costs were lower for patients implanted with Coflex compared to those undergoing fusion. Average Medicare payments over 5 years were estimated at $15,182 for Coflex compared to $26,863 for the fusion control, a difference of $11,681. Mean quality-adjusted life years were higher for Coflex patients compared to controls (3.02 vs 2.97). Results indicate that patients implanted with the Coflex device derive more utility, on average, than those treated with fusion, but at substantially lower costs. The cost advantage was greater when evaluating commercial insurance payments. Subgroup analyses found that the cost advantage for Coflex relative to fusion was even larger for two-level procedures compared to one-level procedures. CONCLUSION: The Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization Device was found to be cost effective compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. It provided higher utility at substantially lower cost. Dove Medical Press 2014-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3964032/ /pubmed/24672250 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S59194 Text en © 2014 Schmier et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Schmier, Jordana Kate
Halevi, Marci
Maislin, Greg
Ong, Kevin
Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
title Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
title_full Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
title_fullStr Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
title_short Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
title_sort comparative cost effectiveness of coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24672250
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S59194
work_keys_str_mv AT schmierjordanakate comparativecosteffectivenessofcoflexinterlaminarstabilizationversusinstrumentedposterolaterallumbarfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspinalstenosisandspondylolisthesis
AT halevimarci comparativecosteffectivenessofcoflexinterlaminarstabilizationversusinstrumentedposterolaterallumbarfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspinalstenosisandspondylolisthesis
AT maislingreg comparativecosteffectivenessofcoflexinterlaminarstabilizationversusinstrumentedposterolaterallumbarfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspinalstenosisandspondylolisthesis
AT ongkevin comparativecosteffectivenessofcoflexinterlaminarstabilizationversusinstrumentedposterolaterallumbarfusionforthetreatmentoflumbarspinalstenosisandspondylolisthesis