Rui V Duarte1, Tosin Lambe2, Jon H Raphael3,4, Sam Eldabe5, Lazaros Andronis2,6. 1. Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K. 2. Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K. 3. Faculty of Health, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, U.K. 4. Department of Pain Management, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, U.K. 5. Department of Pain and Anaesthesia, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, U.K. 6. Populations, Evidence and Technologies Group, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) systems are one of a limited number of management options for chronic noncancer pain, cancer pain, and spasticity. Concerns over their effectiveness and high initial costs led National Health Service (NHS) England to decommission ITDD for patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, the extent to which this decision is in line with existing economic evidence is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and review the existing evidence on the cost effectiveness of ITDD for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Full and partial economic evaluations on ITDD were identified through systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the NHS for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Database searches were complemented by hand searching of reference lists of relevant studies and searches of grey literature. Study selection was carried out by 2 assessors, independently. Study quality assessment was performed to inform critical appraisal of health economics studies. Data were extracted using a data extraction form developed for the purposes of this study. RESULTS: Four thousand four hundred and sixty-four unique studies were identified, of which 7 met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of 1 study, the studies found ITDD to be either cost saving or cost effective compared to conventional medical management. ITDD became cost ineffective in 1 further study following price year adjustment to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings showed ITDD to be not cost effective only in extremely conservative scenarios. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of ITDD in noncancer pain; however, the available economic evidence controverts arguments to refute the treatment on economic grounds.
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) systems are one of a limited number of management options for chronic noncancer pain, cancer pain, and spasticity. Concerns over their effectiveness and high initial costs led National Health Service (NHS) England to decommission ITDD for patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, the extent to which this decision is in line with existing economic evidence is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and review the existing evidence on the cost effectiveness of ITDD for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Full and partial economic evaluations on ITDD were identified through systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the NHS for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Database searches were complemented by hand searching of reference lists of relevant studies and searches of grey literature. Study selection was carried out by 2 assessors, independently. Study quality assessment was performed to inform critical appraisal of health economics studies. Data were extracted using a data extraction form developed for the purposes of this study. RESULTS: Four thousand four hundred and sixty-four unique studies were identified, of which 7 met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of 1 study, the studies found ITDD to be either cost saving or cost effective compared to conventional medical management. ITDD became cost ineffective in 1 further study following price year adjustment to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings showed ITDD to be not cost effective only in extremely conservative scenarios. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of ITDD in noncancer pain; however, the available economic evidence controverts arguments to refute the treatment on economic grounds.
Authors: Ryan S D'Souza; Matthew A Warner; Oludare O Olatoye; Brendan J Langford; Danette L Bruns; Darrell R Schroeder; William D Mauck; Kalli K Schaefer; Nafisseh S Warner Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 5.108