Cost-effectiveness of Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment of Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis an Intent-to-treat Analysis at 5-year Follow-up.
Date
2019-11
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Repository Usage Stats
views
downloads
Citation Stats
Abstract
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.
Type
Department
Description
Provenance
Subjects
Citation
Permalink
Published Version (Please cite this version)
Publication Info
Carreon, Leah Y, Steven D Glassman, Jon Lurie, Christopher I Shaffrey, Michael P Kelly, Christine R Baldus, Kelly R Bratcher, Charles H Crawford, et al. (2019). Cost-effectiveness of Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment of Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis an Intent-to-treat Analysis at 5-year Follow-up. Spine, 44(21). pp. 1499–1506. 10.1097/brs.0000000000003118 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/19583.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
Scholars@Duke
Christopher Ignatius Shaffrey
I have more than 25 years of experience treating patients of all ages with spinal disorders. I have had an interest in the management of spinal disorders since starting my medical education. I performed residencies in both orthopaedic surgery and neurosurgery to gain a comprehensive understanding of the entire range of spinal disorders. My goal has been to find innovative ways to manage the range of spinal conditions, straightforward to complex. I have a focus on managing patients with complex spinal disorders. My patient evaluation and management philosophy is to provide engaged, compassionate care that focuses on providing the simplest and least aggressive treatment option for a particular condition. In many cases, non-operative treatment options exist to improve a patient’s symptoms. I have been actively engaged in clinical research to find the best ways to manage spinal disorders in order to achieve better results with fewer complications.
Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.