Cost-effectiveness of total disc replacement versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain: a Norwegian multicenter RCT

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

OBJECTIVES

The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.

RESULTS

130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Cost-effectiveness of pain management services for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of published studies

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies.

RESULTS

Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.

DATA EXTRACTION

Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increasing importance of tracking clinical outcomes using valid patient-reported outcome measures, most providers do not routinely obtain baseline preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in patients undergoing spine surgery, precluding objective outcomes analysis in individual practices. We conducted a meta-analysis of pre- and postoperative HRQoL data obtained from the most commonly published instruments to use as reference values.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and an institutional registry for studies reporting EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions published between 2000 and 2014. Observational data was pooled meta-analytically using an inverse variance-weighted, random-effects model, and statistical comparisons were performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles were included in the final analysis. Baseline HRQoL scores varied by diagnosis for each of the 3 instruments. On average, postoperative HRQoL scores significantly improved following surgical intervention for each diagnosis using each instrument. There were statistically significant differences in baseline utility values between the EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments for all lumbar diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled HRQoL values presented in this study may be used by practitioners who would otherwise be precluded from quantifying their surgical outcomes due to a lack of baseline data. The results highlight differences in HRQoL between different degenerative spinal diagnoses, as well as the discrepancy between 2 common utility-based instruments. These findings emphasize the need to be cognizant of the specific instruments used when comparing the results of outcome studies.

Comparison of therapies in lumbar degenerative disc disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of total disc replacement, lumbar fusion, and conservative care in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Materials & methods: A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative impact of lumbar DDD therapies on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) success, back pain score, patient satisfaction, employment status, and reoperation. Odds ratios or mean differences and 95% credible intervals were reported. Results: Six studies were included (1417 participants). Overall, the activL total disc replacement device had the most favorable results for ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction. Results for employment status and reoperation were similar across therapies. Conclusion: activL substantially improves ODI success, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared with other therapies for single-level lumbar DDD.

Defining the Ideal Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Patient and Standard of Care

: Lumbar total disc replacement, now in use since 2004, was determined by the panel to be a standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease in the active patient subpopulation as outlined by the investigational device exemption study criteria. The large body of evidence supporting this statement, including surgeons' experiences, was presented and discussed. Consensus statements focusing on decision-making criteria reflected that efficacy, long-term safety, clinical outcomes with validated measures, and cost-effectiveness should form the basis of decision-making by payers. Diagnostic challenges with lumbar degenerative disc disease patients were discussed among the panel, and it was concluded that although variably used among surgeons, reliable tools exist to appropriately diagnose discogenic back pain.

Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass has become an established treatment option for symptomatic aortoiliac obstructive disease at dedicated centers. Minimally invasive surgical techniques like laparoscopic surgery have often been shown to reduce expenses and increase patients' health-related quality of life. The main objective of our study was to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs after totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a within trial analysis in a larger ongoing randomized controlled prospective multicenter trial, Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial. Fifty consecutive patients suffering from symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease suitable for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either totally laparoscopic (n=25) or open surgical procedure (n=25). One patient dropped out of the study before surgery. We measured health-related quality of life using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire at 4 different time points, before surgery and for 6 months during follow-up. We calculated the QALYs gained by using the area under the curve for both groups. Costs were calculated based on prices for surgical equipment, vascular prosthesis and hospital stay.

RESULTS

We found a significantly higher increase in QALYs after laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery, with a difference of 0.07 QALYs, (p=0.001) in favor of laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass. The total cost of surgery, equipment and hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery (9,953 €) was less than open surgery (17,260 €), (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass seems to be cost-effective compared with open surgery, due to an increase in QALYs and lower procedure-related costs.

Describing the characteristics, treatment pathways, outcomes, and costs of people with persistent noncancer pain managed by community pain clinics and generating an indicative estimate of cost-effectiveness: feasibility study protocol

Background

Low back pain (LBP) and fibromyalgia (FM), also known as chronic widespread pain (CWP), are highly prevalent chronic painful conditions that have substantial impact on patients, health care systems, and society. Diagnosis is complex and management strategies are associated with various levels of evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Multidisciplinary pain services have been shown to be effective in some settings and therefore are recommended by clinical practice guidelines as a rational treatment option to manage these patients. Knowing that these services are resource intensive, evidence is needed to demonstrate their cost-effectiveness. This study aims to describe the management of patients with LBP and FM in two community pain clinics to derive an indicative estimate of cost-effectiveness compared with standard practice.

Methods

This is a prospective observational multicenter study, using patient-level data. The data from this study will be combined with modelling of the long-term economic impact of community pain clinics in treating people with LBP and FM. Newly referred patients with LBP and FM who provide written consent will be included. We will collect data on functional disability, pain intensity, quality of life, and health resource utilization. Follow-up data at the 3- and 6-month points will be collected by patient-completed questionnaires and health care contact diaries. Health care resource use from diaries will be compared with patient electronic records to assess the agreement between these recording methods. Patient cohort characteristics, treatment pathways, resource use, and outcomes derived from this study will be integrated in a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of community pain clinics compared with standard care. This feasibility study will address key methodological issues such as sample estimates and retention rate to inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial.

Productivity benefits of minimally invasive surgery in patients with chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Introduction

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is associated with a marked decrease in quality of life. Increasing evidence supports minimally invasive SIJ fusion as a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of chronic SIJ dysfunction. The impact of SIJ fusion on worker productivity is not known.

Methods

Regression modeling using data from the National Health Interview Survey was applied to determine the relationship between responses to selected interview questions related to function and economic outcomes. Regression coefficients were then applied to prospectively collected, individual patient data in a randomized trial of SIJ fusion (INSITE, NCT01681004) to estimate expected differences in economic outcomes across treatments.

Results

Patients who receive SIJ fusion using iFuse Implant System^® have an expected increase in the probability of working of 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11%–21%) relative to nonsurgical patients. The expected change in earnings across groups was US $3,128 (not statistically significant). Combining the two metrics, the annual increase in worker productivity given surgical vs nonsurgical care was $6,924 (95% CI $1,890–$11,945).

Conclusion

For employees with chronic, severe SIJ dysfunction, minimally invasive SIJ fusion may improve worker productivity compared to nonsurgical treatment.

Pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care: costs and benefits in a pilot randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To explore differences in mean costs (from a UK National Health Service perspective) and effects of pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care evaluated in a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), and to estimate optimal sample size for a definitive RCT.

DESIGN

Regression analysis of costs and effects, using intention-to-treat and expected value of sample information analysis (EVSI).

SETTING

Six general practices: Grampian (3); East Anglia (3).

PARTICIPANTS

125 patients with complete resource use and short form-six-dimension questionnaire (SF-6D) data at baseline, 3 months and 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to either pharmacist medication review with face-to-face pharmacist prescribing or pharmacist medication review with feedback to general practitioner or treatment as usual (TAU).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Differences in mean total costs and effects measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months and EVSI for sample size calculation.

RESULTS

Unadjusted total mean costs per patient were £452 for prescribing (SD: £466), £570 for review (SD: £527) and £668 for TAU (SD: £1333). After controlling for baseline costs, the adjusted mean cost differences per patient relative to TAU were £77 for prescribing (95% CI -82 to 237) and £54 for review (95% CI -103 to 212). Unadjusted mean QALYs were 0.3213 for prescribing (SD: 0.0659), 0.3161 for review (SD: 0.0684) and 0.3079 for TAU (SD: 0.0606). Relative to TAU, the adjusted mean differences were 0.0069 for prescribing (95% CI -0.0091 to 0.0229) and 0.0097 for review (95% CI -0.0054 to 0.0248). The EVSI suggested the optimal future trial size was between 460 and 690, and between 540 and 780 patients per arm using a threshold of £30,000 and £20,000 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TAU, pharmacist-led interventions for chronic pain appear more costly and provide similar QALYs. However, these estimates are imprecise due to the small size of the pilot trial. The EVSI indicates that a larger trial is necessary to obtain more precise estimates of differences in mean effects and costs between treatment groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN06131530.

ISASS Policy Statement - Lumbar Artificial Disc

PURPOSE

The primary goal of this Policy Statement is to educate patients, physicians, medical providers, reviewers, adjustors, case managers, insurers, and all others involved or affected by insurance coverage decisions regarding lumbar disc replacement surgery.

PROCEDURES

This Policy Statement was developed by a panel of physicians selected by the Board of Directors of ISASS for their expertise and experience with lumbar TDR. The panel's recommendation was entirely based on the best evidence-based scientific research available regarding the safety and effectiveness of lumbar TDR.