BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent cancer pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain due owing to cancer. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library databases, National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database, and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity. The cost burden of publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain was estimated for a 5-year timeframe using a combination of published literature, information from the device manufacturer, administrative data, and expert opinion for the inputs. RESULTS: We included one randomized trial that examined effectiveness and harms, and one case series that reported an eligible economic evaluation. We found very low quality evidence that intrathecal drug delivery systems added to comprehensive pain management reduce overall drug toxicity; no significant reduction in pain scores was observed. Weak conclusions from economic evidence suggested that intrathecal drug delivery systems had the potential to be more cost-effective than high-cost oral therapy if administered for 7 months or longer. The cost burden of publicly funding this therapy is estimated to be $100,000 in the first year, increasing to $500,000 by the fifth year. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence could not establish the benefit, harm, or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems compared with current standards of care for managing refractory cancer pain in adults. Publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain would result in a budget impact of several hundred thousand dollars per year.
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent cancer pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain due owing to cancer. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library databases, National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database, and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity. The cost burden of publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain was estimated for a 5-year timeframe using a combination of published literature, information from the device manufacturer, administrative data, and expert opinion for the inputs. RESULTS: We included one randomized trial that examined effectiveness and harms, and one case series that reported an eligible economic evaluation. We found very low quality evidence that intrathecal drug delivery systems added to comprehensive pain management reduce overall drug toxicity; no significant reduction in pain scores was observed. Weak conclusions from economic evidence suggested that intrathecal drug delivery systems had the potential to be more cost-effective than high-cost oral therapy if administered for 7 months or longer. The cost burden of publicly funding this therapy is estimated to be $100,000 in the first year, increasing to $500,000 by the fifth year. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence could not establish the benefit, harm, or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems compared with current standards of care for managing refractory cancer pain in adults. Publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain would result in a budget impact of several hundred thousand dollars per year.
Authors: Z Philips; L Ginnelly; M Sculpher; K Claxton; S Golder; R Riemsma; N Woolacoot; J Glanville Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Peter Tugwell; Andre Knottnerus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: S J Hassenbusch; P K Pillay; M Magdinec; K Currie; J W Bay; E C Covington; M Z Tomaszewski Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Timothy Deer; Elliot S Krames; Samuel J Hassenbusch; Allen Burton; David Caraway; Stuart Dupen; James Eisenach; Michael Erdek; Eric Grigsby; Phillip Kim; Robert Levy; Gladstone McDowell; Nagy Mekhail; Sunil Panchal; Joshua Prager; Richard Rauck; Michael Saulino; Todd Sitzman; Peter Staats; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Lisa Stearns; K Dean Willis; William Witt; Kenneth Follett; Marc Huntoon; Leong Liem; James Rathmell; Mark Wallace; Eric Buchser; Michael Cousins; Anne Ver Donck Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2007-10