Browsing by Author "Lurie, Jon"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cost-effectiveness of Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment of Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis an Intent-to-treat Analysis at 5-year Follow-up.
    (Spine, 2019-11) Carreon, Leah Y; Glassman, Steven D; Lurie, Jon; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Kelly, Michael P; Baldus, Christine R; Bratcher, Kelly R; Crawford, Charles H; Yanik, Elizabeth L; Bridwell, Keith H
    STUDY DESIGN:Secondary analysis using data from the NIH-sponsored study on adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) that included randomized and observational arms. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to perform an intent-to-treat cost-effectiveness study comparing operative (Op) versus nonoperative (NonOp) care for ASLS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:The appropriate treatment approach for ASLS continues to be ill-defined. NonOp care has not been shown to improve outcomes. Surgical treatment has been shown to improve outcomes, but is costly with high revision rates. METHODS:Patients with at least 5-year follow-up data were included. Data collected every 3 months included use of NonOp modalities, medications, and employment status. Costs for index and revision surgeries and NonOp modalities were determined using Medicare Allowable rates. Medication costs were determined using the RedBook and indirect costs were calculated based on reported employment status and income. Qualityadjusted life year (QALY) was determined using the SF6D. RESULTS:There were 81 of 95 cases in the Op and 81 of 95 in the NonOp group with complete 5-year follow-up data. Not all patients were eligible 5-year follow-up at the time of the analysis. All patients in the Op and 24 (30%) in the NonOp group had surgery by 5 years. At 5 years, the cumulative cost for Op was $96,000 with a QALY gain of 2.44 and for NonOp the cumulative cost was $49,546 with a QALY gain of 0.75 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,480 per QALY gain. CONCLUSION:In an intent-to-treat analysis, neither treatment was dominant, as the greater gains in QALY in the surgery group come at a greater cost. The ICER for Op compared to NonOp treatment was above the threshold generally considered cost-effective in the first 3 years of the study but improved over time and was highly cost-effective at 4 and 5 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:2.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Patient Factors That Influence Decision Making: Randomization Versus Observational Nonoperative Versus Observational Operative Treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis.
    (Spine, 2016-03) Neuman, Brian J; Baldus, Christine; Zebala, Lukas P; Kelly, Michael P; Shaffrey, Christopher; Edwards, Charles; Koski, Tyler; Schwab, Frank; Glassman, Steven; Parent, Stefan; Lewis, Stephen; Lenke, Lawrence G; Buchowski, Jacob M; Smith, Justin S; Crawford, Charles H; Kim, Han Jo; Lafage, Virginia; Lurie, Jon; Carreon, Leah; Bridwell, Keith H

    Study design

    A prospective study with randomized and observational cohorts.

    Objective

    The aim of this study was to determine baseline variables affecting adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) decision making to participate in randomization (RAND), observational nonsurgical (OBS-NS), or observational surgical (OBS-S) cohorts.

    Summary of background data

    Multiple factors play a key role in a patient's decision to be randomized or to choose an OBS-NS or OBS-S course for ASLS. Studies evaluating these factors are limited.

    Methods

    Eligible candidates (patients with ASLS and no prior spinal fusion deformity surgery) from 9 centers participated in a RAND, OBS-NS, or OBS-S cohort study. Baseline variables (demographics, socioeconomics, patient-reported outcomes [PROs], Functional Treadmill Test, radiographs) were analyzed.

    Results

    Two hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled: 67 RAND, 115 OBS-NS, 113 OBS-S. Subanalysis of older patients (60-80 years) found 54% of OBS-NS had college degrees compared with 82% of RAND and 71% of OBS-S (P = 0.010). Patients deciding to be part of a RAND cohort have similar clinical characteristics to the OBS-S cohort. OBS-S had more symptomatic spinal stenosis (57% vs. 39%, P = 0.029) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of PROs (Back Pain Numerical Rating Scale [NRS 6.3 vs. 5.5, P = 0.007]; Scoliosis Research Society [SRS] Pain [2.8 vs. 3.0, P = 0.018], Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.019] and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.002]; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [36.9 vs. 31.8, P = 0.029]; post-Treadmill back [5.8 vs. 4.4, P = 0.002] and leg [4.3 vs. 3.1, P = 0.037] pain NRS and larger lumbar coronal Cobb angles (56.5 degrees vs. 48.8 degrees, P < 0.001). RAND had more baseline motor deficits (10.4% vs. 1.7%, P = 0.036) and worse scores than OBS-NS on the basis of ODI (38.8 vs. 31.8, P = 0.006), SRS Function [3.1 vs. 3.4, P = 0.034], and Self-Image [2.7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.007].

    Conclusion

    Patients with worse PROs, more back pain, more back and leg pain with ambulation, and larger lumbar Cobb angles are more inclined to select surgical over nonsurgical management.