Tho Thi Hai Dang1, David Rowell2, Luke B Connelly1,2,3. 1. The University of Queensland, Asia-Pacific Centre for Neuromodulation, Queensland Brain Institute Brisbane Queensland Australia. 2. The University of Queensland, Centre for the Business and Economics of Health Brisbane Queensland Australia. 3. The University of Bologna, Departimento di Sociologia e Diritto dell'Economia Bologna Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Movement disorders (MDs) are increasingly being managed with deep brain stimulation (DBS). High-quality economic evaluations (EEs) are necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBS. We conducted a systematic review of published EEs of the treatment of MDs with DBS. The review compares and contrasts the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and methodology employed by trial-based evaluations (TBEs) and model-based evaluations (MBEs). METHODS: MeSH and search terms relevant to "MDs," "DBS," and "EEs" were used to search biomedical and economics databases. Studies that used a comparative design to evaluate DBS, including before-after studies, were included. Quality and reporting assessments were conducted independently by 2 authors. Seventeen studies that targeted Parkinson's disease (PD), dystonia, and essential tremor (ET), met our selection criteria. RESULTS: Mean scores for methodological and reporting quality were 73% and 76%, respectively. The ICERs for DBS compared with best medical therapy to treat PD patients obtained from MBEs had a lower mean and range compared with those obtained from TBEs ($55,461-$735,192 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] vs. $9,301-$65,111 per QALY). Pre-post ICER for DBS to treat dystonia was $64,742 per QALY. DBS was not cost-effective in treating ET compared with focused-ultrasound surgery. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were sensitive to assumptions in health utilities, surgical costs, battery life-span, model time horizons, and the discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: The infrequent use of randomized, controlled trials to evaluate DBS efficacy, the paucity of data reporting the long-term effectiveness and/or utility of DBS, and the uncertainty surrounding cost data limit our ability to report cost-effectiveness summaries that are robust.
BACKGROUND: Movement disorders (MDs) are increasingly being managed with deep brain stimulation (DBS). High-quality economic evaluations (EEs) are necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBS. We conducted a systematic review of published EEs of the treatment of MDs with DBS. The review compares and contrasts the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and methodology employed by trial-based evaluations (TBEs) and model-based evaluations (MBEs). METHODS: MeSH and search terms relevant to "MDs," "DBS," and "EEs" were used to search biomedical and economics databases. Studies that used a comparative design to evaluate DBS, including before-after studies, were included. Quality and reporting assessments were conducted independently by 2 authors. Seventeen studies that targeted Parkinson's disease (PD), dystonia, and essential tremor (ET), met our selection criteria. RESULTS: Mean scores for methodological and reporting quality were 73% and 76%, respectively. The ICERs for DBS compared with best medical therapy to treat PD patients obtained from MBEs had a lower mean and range compared with those obtained from TBEs ($55,461-$735,192 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] vs. $9,301-$65,111 per QALY). Pre-post ICER for DBS to treat dystonia was $64,742 per QALY. DBS was not cost-effective in treating ET compared with focused-ultrasound surgery. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were sensitive to assumptions in health utilities, surgical costs, battery life-span, model time horizons, and the discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: The infrequent use of randomized, controlled trials to evaluate DBS efficacy, the paucity of data reporting the long-term effectiveness and/or utility of DBS, and the uncertainty surrounding cost data limit our ability to report cost-effectiveness summaries that are robust.
Entities:
Keywords:
cost‐effectiveness; deep brain stimulation; economic evaluation; movement disorders; systematic review
Authors: P R Schuurman; D A Bosch; P M Bossuyt; G J Bonsel; E J van Someren; R M de Bie; M P Merkus; J D Speelman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E A Spottke; J Volkmann; D Lorenz; P Krack; A M Smala; V Sturm; A Gerstner; K Berger; D Hellwig; G Deuschl; H J Freund; W H Oertel; R C Dodel Journal: J Neurol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Han Yan; Lauren Siegel; Sara Breitbart; Carolina Gorodetsky; Hernan D Gonorazky; Ivanna Yau; Cristina Go; Elizabeth Donner; Suneil K Kalia; Alfonso Fasano; Alexander G Weil; Aria Fallah; George M Ibrahim Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 1.475