Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson Disease in Taiwan

How Long Does Deep Brain Stimulation Give Patients Benefit?

INTRODUCTION

One of the most common questions patients ask when they are contemplating deep brain stimulation (DBS) is how long it will last. To guide physicians in answering this query, we performed a scoping review to assess the current state of the literature and to identify the gaps that need to be addressed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors performed a MEDLINE search inclusive of articles from January 1987 (advent of DBS literature) to June 2023 including human and modeling studies written in English. For longevity of therapy data, only studies with a mean follow-up of ≥three years were included. Using the Rayyan platform, two reviewers (JP and RM) performed a title screen. Of the 734 articles, 205 were selected by title screen and 109 from abstract review. Ultimately, a total of 122 articles were reviewed. The research questions we explored were 1) how long can the different components of the DBS system maintain functionality? and 2) how long can DBS remain efficacious in treating Parkinson's disease (PD), essential tremor (ET), dystonia, and other disorders?

RESULTS

We showed that patients with PD, ET, and dystonia maintain a considerable long-term benefit in motor scores seven to ten years after implant, although the percentage improvement decreases over time. Stimulation off scores in PD and ET show worsening, consistent with disease progression. Battery life varies by the disease treated and the programming settings used. There remains a paucity of literature after ten years, and the impact of new device technology has not been classified to date.

CONCLUSION

We reviewed existing data on DBS longevity. Overall, outcomes data after ten years of therapy are substantially limited in the current literature. We recommend that physicians who have data for patients with DBS exceeding this duration publish their results.

Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Parkinson's disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson's disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6-12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement.

Objectives

To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson's disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON.

Methods

We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device.

Results

Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.

Limitations

The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology.

Conclusions

Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Global Economic Evaluation of the Reported Costs of Deep Brain Stimulation

INTRODUCTION

Despite the known benefits of deep brain stimulation (DBS), the cost of the procedure can limit access and can vary widely. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of the reported costs associated with DBS, as well as the variability in reporting cost-associated factors to ultimately increase patient access to this therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature for cost of DBS treatment was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Embase databases were queried. Olsen & Associates (OANDA) was used to convert all reported rates to USD. Cost was corrected for inflation using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, correcting to April 2022.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles on the cost of DBS surgery from 2001 to 2021 were included. The median number of patients across studies was 193, the mean reported age was 60.5 ± 5.6 years, and median female prevalence was 38.9%. The inflation- and currency-adjusted mean cost of the DBS device was USD 21,496.07 ± USD 8,944.16, the cost of surgery alone was USD 14,685.22 ± USD 8,479.66, the total cost of surgery was USD 40,942.85 ± USD 17,987.43, and the total cost of treatment until 1 year of follow-up was USD 47,632.27 ± USD 23,067.08. There were no differences in costs observed across surgical indication or country.

CONCLUSION

Our report describes the large variation in DBS costs and the manner of reporting costs. The current lack of standardization impedes productive discourse as comparisons are hindered by both geographic and chronological variations. Emphasis should be put on standardized reporting and analysis of reimbursement costs to better assess the variability of DBS-associated costs in order to make this procedure more cost-effective and address areas for improvement to increase patient access to DBS.

Cost Effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) in patients with advanced motor symptoms with an inadequate response to pharmacotherapies. Despite its effectiveness, the cost effectiveness of DBS remains a subject of debate. This systematic review aims to update and synthesize evidence on the cost effectiveness of DBS for PD.

METHODS

To identify full economic evaluations that compared the cost effectiveness of DBS with other best medical treatments, a comprehensive search was conducted of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry databases. The selected papers were systematically reviewed, and the results were summarized. For the quality appraisal, we used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist. The review protocol was a priori registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022345508.

RESULTS

Sixteen identified cost-utility analyses that reported 19 comparisons on the use of DBS for PD were systematically reviewed. The studies were primarily conducted in high-income countries and employed Markov models. The costs considered were direct costs: surgical expenses, calibration, pulse generator replacement, and annual drug expenses. The majority of studies used country-specific thresholds. Fourteen comparisons from 12 studies reported on the cost effectiveness of DBS compared to best medical treatments. Eleven comparisons reported DBS as cost effective based on incremental cost-utility ratio results.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost effectiveness of DBS for PD varies by time horizon, costs considered, threshold utilized, and stage of PD progression. Standardizing approaches and comparing DBS with other treatments are needed for future research on effective PD management.

Economic Evaluations Comparing Deep Brain Stimulation to Best Medical Therapy for Movement Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Movement disorders (Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, primary dystonia) are a debilitating group of conditions that are progressive in nature. The mainstay of treatment is best medical therapy; however, a number of surgical therapies are available, including deep brain stimulation. Economic evaluations are an important aspect of evidence to inform decision makers regarding funding allocated to these therapies.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of including deep brain stimulation compared with best medical therapy for movement disorder indications in the adult population.

METHODS

Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried. Only economic evaluations reporting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for including deep brain stimulation versus best medical therapy for movement disorders were included. Studies were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion and data abstraction. Data were harmonized using the Consumer Price Index and Purchasing Power Parity to standardize values to 2022 US dollars. For inclusion in meta-analyses, studies were required to have sufficient data available to calculate an estimate of the incremental net benefit. Meta-analyses of pooled incremental net benefit based on the time horizon were performed. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022335436).

RESULTS

There were 2190 studies reviewed, with 14 economic evaluations included following a title/abstract and full-text review. Only studies considering Parkinson's disease were available for the meta-analysis. Quality of the identified studies was low, with moderate transferability to the American Healthcare System, and certainty of evidence was low. However, studies with a longer time horizon (15 years to lifetime) were found to have significant positive incremental net benefit (indicating cost effectiveness) for including deep brain stimulation with a mean difference of US$40,504.81 (95% confidence interval 2422.42-78,587.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Deep brain stimulation was cost effective for Parkinson's disease when considered over the course of the patient's remaining life after implantation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022335436).

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Parkinson's Disease: An Updated Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

This article systematically reviewed the methodological quality of modelling approaches for economic evaluations of the treatment of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease in studies published after 2010.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EconLit, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment databases of the UK National Health Service Centre for Review and Dissemination (March 2010 to July 2022). Quality was assessed using a checklist from the German Scientific Working Group.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were evaluated, with the majority based on Markov models (n = 18). Studies assessed the cost effectiveness of medical (n = 12) or surgical (n = 8) treatment, and included costs from a payer or healthcare provider's perspective (n = 17). Furthermore, all studies included quality-adjusted life-years as an effect measure. In the quality assessment of the literature, a mean score of 42.1 points (out of 56 points) on the checklist of the German Scientific Working Group was achieved. Seventeen studies concluded the intervention under study was (likely) cost effective. No intervention was classified as cost ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of economic evaluation models in Parkinson's disease has improved in terms of calculating cost and transition parameters, as well as carrying out probabilistic sensitivity analyses, compared with the published literature of previous systematic reviews up to 2010. However, there is still potential for further development in terms of the integration of non-motor complications and treatment changes, the transparent presentation of parameter estimates, as well as conducting sensitivity analyses and validations to support the interpretation of results.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Advanced Parkinson Disease in Developing Countries: A Cost-Effectiveness Study From China

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation (DBS) is more favorable than best medical treatment (BMT) for advanced Parkinson disease (PD) in developed countries. However, it remains unclear in developing countries, where the cost of DBS may not be reimbursed by health care system.

OBJECTIVE

To model and evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of DBS for advanced PD in China from a patient payer perspective.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model representing the clinical progress of PD to predict the disease progression and related medical costs in a 15-year time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net benefit were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DBS vs BMT.

RESULTS

DBS treatment led to discounted total costs of ¥370 768 ($56 515.20) (95% CI, ¥369 621.53-371 914.88), compared with ¥48 808 ($7439.68) (95% CI, ¥48 502.63-49 114.21) for BMT, with an additional 1.51 quality-adjusted life years gained, resulting in an ICER of ¥213 544 ($32 549.96)/quality-adjusted life years (95% CI, ¥208 177.35-218 910.10). Sensitivity analysis showed that DBS-related cost has the most substantial impact on ICER. Nation-wide net benefit of BMT and DBS were ¥33 819 ($5154.94) (95% CI, ¥30 211.24-37 426) and ¥30 361 ($4627.85) (95% CI, ¥25 587.03-39 433.66), respectively. Patient demographic analysis showed that more favorable DBS cost-effectiveness was associated with younger age and less severe disease stage.

CONCLUSION

DBS is cost-effective for patients with advanced PD over a 15-year time horizon in China. However, compared with developed countries, DBS remains a substantial economic burden for patients when no reimbursement is provided. Our findings may help inform cost-effectiveness-based decision making for clinical care of PD in developing countries.