Scott L Parker1, Louise H Anderson2, Teresa Nelson2, Vikas V Patel3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville TN. 2. Technomics Research, Minneapolis MN. 3. University of Colorado Hospital, Denver CO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a painful and debilitating condition resulting in healthcare costs totaling tens of billions of dollars annually. Initial treatment consists of conservative care modalities such as physical therapy, NSAIDs, opioids, and steroid injections. Patients refractory to these therapies can undergo decompressive surgery, which has good long-term efficacy but is more traumatic and can be associated with high post-operative adverse event (AE) rates. Interspinous spacers have been developed to offer a less-invasive alternative. The objective of this study was to compare the costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained of conservative care (CC) and decompressive surgery (DS) to a new minimally-invasive interspinous spacer. METHODS: A Markov model was developed evaluating 3 strategies of care for lumbar spinal stenosis. If initial therapies failed, the model moved patients to more invasive therapies. Data from the Superion FDA clinical trial, a prospective spinal registry, and the literature were used to populate the model. Direct medical care costs were modeled from 2014 Medicare reimbursements for healthcare services. QALYs came from the SF-12 PCS and MCS components. The analysis used a 2-year time horizon with a 3% discount rate. RESULTS: CC had the lowest cost at $10,540, while Spacers and DS were nearly identical at about $13,950. CC also had the lowest QALY increase (0.06), while Spacers and DS were again nearly identical (.28). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for Spacers compared to CC was $16,300 and for DS was $15,200. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Spacer and DS strategies are far below the commonly cited $50,000/QALY threshold and produced several times the QALY increase versus CC, suggesting that surgical care provides superior value (cost / effectiveness) versus sustained conservative care in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
BACKGROUND:Lumbar spinal stenosis is a painful and debilitating condition resulting in healthcare costs totaling tens of billions of dollars annually. Initial treatment consists of conservative care modalities such as physical therapy, NSAIDs, opioids, and steroid injections. Patients refractory to these therapies can undergo decompressive surgery, which has good long-term efficacy but is more traumatic and can be associated with high post-operative adverse event (AE) rates. Interspinous spacers have been developed to offer a less-invasive alternative. The objective of this study was to compare the costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained of conservative care (CC) and decompressive surgery (DS) to a new minimally-invasive interspinous spacer. METHODS: A Markov model was developed evaluating 3 strategies of care for lumbar spinal stenosis. If initial therapies failed, the model moved patients to more invasive therapies. Data from the Superion FDA clinical trial, a prospective spinal registry, and the literature were used to populate the model. Direct medical care costs were modeled from 2014 Medicare reimbursements for healthcare services. QALYs came from the SF-12 PCS and MCS components. The analysis used a 2-year time horizon with a 3% discount rate. RESULTS: CC had the lowest cost at $10,540, while Spacers and DS were nearly identical at about $13,950. CC also had the lowest QALY increase (0.06), while Spacers and DS were again nearly identical (.28). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for Spacers compared to CC was $16,300 and for DS was $15,200. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Spacer and DS strategies are far below the commonly cited $50,000/QALY threshold and produced several times the QALY increase versus CC, suggesting that surgical care provides superior value (cost / effectiveness) versus sustained conservative care in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Authors: James F Zucherman; Ken Y Hsu; Charles A Hartjen; Thomas F Mehalic; Dante A Implicito; Michael J Martin; Donald R Johnson; Grant A Skidmore; Paul P Vessa; James W Dwyer; Stephen T Puccio; Joseph C Cauthen; Richard M Ozuna Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Scott L Parker; Erin C Fulchiero; Brandon J Davis; Owoicho Adogwa; Oran S Aaronson; Joseph S Cheng; Clinton J Devin; Matthew J McGirt Journal: Spine J Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Anna N A Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Harry Herkowitz; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Keith Bridwell; Michael Longley; Gunnar B Andersson; Emily A Blood; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: R Beynon; J Hawkins; R Laing; N Higgins; P Whiting; C Jameson; J A C Sterne; P Vergara; W Hollingworth Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Mark P Arts; Ronald Brand; M Elske van den Akker; Bart W Koes; Ronald H M A Bartels; Wilco C Peul Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Derek P Lindsey; Kyle E Swanson; Paul Fuchs; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: A Aichmair; J M Burgstaller; M Schwenkglenks; J Steurer; F Porchet; F Brunner; M Farshad Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Catherine T Schmidt; Rachel E Ward; Pradeep Suri; Laura Kurlinski; Dennis E Anderson; Dan K Kiely; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Geriatr Phys Ther Date: 2017 Jul/Sep Impact factor: 3.381
Authors: Christoph Wipplinger; Eliana Kim; Sara Lener; Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez; Sertac Kirnaz; R Nick Hernandez; Carolin Melcher; Michelle Paolicelli; Farah Maryam; Franziska Anna Schmidt; Roger Härtl Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-05-28