A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation Comparing Spinal Cord Stimulation With Best Medical Treatment in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy - 18/04/17
, Catharina G. Faber †, Nicolaas C. Schaper ‡, Elbert A. Joosten ∗, Robert T. van Dongen §, Alfons G. Kessels ¶, Maarten van Kleef ∗, Carmen D. Dirksen ¶, ‖Abstract |
The objective was to perform an economic evaluation comparing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in combination with best medical treatment (BMT) with BMT in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients. Alongside a prospective 2-center randomized controlled trial, involving 36 painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients with severe lower limb pain not responding to conventional therapy, an economic evaluation was performed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were based on: 1) societal costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and 2) direct health care costs and the number of successfully treated patients, respectively, both with a time horizon of 12 months. Bootstrap and secondary analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Total societal cost amounted to €26,539.18 versus €5,313.45 per patient in the SCS and BMT group, respectively. QALYs were .58 versus .36 and the number of successfully treated patients was 55% versus 7% for the SCS and BMT group, respectively. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €94,159.56 per QALY and €34,518.85 per successfully treated patient, respectively. Bootstrap analyses showed that the probability of SCS being cost-effective ranges from 0 to 46% with willingness to pay threshold values ranging between €20,000 and €80,000 for a QALY. Secondary analyses showed that cost-effectiveness of SCS became more favorable after correcting for baseline cost imbalance between the 2 groups, extending the depreciation period of SCS material to 4 years, and extrapolation of the data up to 4 years. Although SCS was considerably more effective compared with BMT, the substantial initial investment that is required resulted in SCS not being cost-effective in the short term. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to baseline cost imbalances between the groups and the depreciation period of the SCS material.
Perspective |
Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy is a common complication of diabetes mellitus and the humanistic and economic burden is high. This article presents the cost-effectiveness of SCS in patients suffering from painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from a societal and health care perspective with a time horizon of 12 months.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Highlights |
• | Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy carries a high (economic) burden. |
• | Spinal cord stimulation is not cost-effective at the short term due to substantial initial investment. |
• | Extended follow-up and a decision model are needed to estimate long term cost-effectiveness. |
Key words : Economic evaluation, cost-utility analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, diabetic neuropathy, painful diabetic neuropathy, quality of life
Plan
| This study was supported by Medtronic for providing a grant for the employment of 1 researcher for 3 years. Medtronic was not involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data or in writing the report. |
|
| The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. |
|
| Supplementary data accompanying this article are available online at www.jpain.org and www.sciencedirect.com. |
|
| Trial registry number at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01162993. |
Vol 18 - N° 4
P. 405-414 - avril 2017 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
