Tag: cost-effectiveness analysis

Posted on

Cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with an unruptured cerebral aneurysm treated with observation or surgery

J Neurosurg 135:1608–1616, 2021

The main goal of preventive treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) is to avoid the morbidity and mortality associated with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A comparison between the conservative approach and the surgical approach combining endovascular treatment and microsurgical clipping is currently lacking. This study aimed to conduct an updated evaluation of cost-effectiveness comparing the two approaches in patients with UIA.

METHODS A decision tree with a Markov model was developed. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with living with UIA before and after treatment were prospectively collected from a cohort of patients with UIA at a tertiary center. Other inputs were obtained from published literature. Using Monte Carlo simulation for patients aged 55, 65, and 75 years, the authors modeled the conservative management in comparison with preventive treatment. Different proportions of endovascular and microsurgical treatment were modeled to reflect existing practice variations between treatment centers. Outcomes were assessed in terms of QALYs. Sensitivity analyses to assess the model’s robustness and completed threshold analyses to examine the influence of input parameters were performed.

RESULTS Preventive treatment of UIAs consistently led to higher utility. Models using a higher proportion of endovascular therapy were more cost-effective. Models with older cohorts were less cost-effective than those with younger cohorts. Treatment was cost-effective (willingness to pay < 100,000 USD/QALY) if the annual rupture risk exceeded a threshold between 0.8% and 1.9% in various models based on the proportion of endovascular treatment and cohort age. A higher proportion of endovascular treatments and younger age lowered this threshold, making the treatment of aneurysms with a lower risk of rupture more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS Preventive treatment of aneurysms led to higher utility compared with conservative management. Models with a higher proportion of endovascular treatment and younger patient age were most cost-effective.

Posted on

Cost-effectiveness analysis of shunt surgery for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

Acta Neurochir (2017) 159:995–1003

We showed that ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt and lumboperitoneal (LP) shunt surgeries are beneficial for patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) in the Study of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus on Neurological Improvement (SINPHONI; a multicenter prospective cohort study) and in SINPHONI-2 (a multicenter randomized trial). Although therapeutic efficacy is important, cost-effectiveness analysis is equally valuable.

Methods Using both a set of assumptions and using the data from SINPHONI and SINPHONI-2, we estimated the total cost of treatment for iNPH, which consists of medical expenses (e.g., operation fees) and costs to the long-term care insurance system (LCIS) in Japan. Regarding the natural course of iNPH patients, 10% or 20% of patients on each modified Rankin Scale (mRS) show aggravation (aggravation rate: 10% or 20%) every 3 months if the patients do not undergo shunt surgery, as described in a previous report. We performed cost-effectiveness analyses for the various scenarios, calculating the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER). Then, based on the definition provided by a previous report, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of shunt surgery for iNPH.

Results In the first year after shunt surgery, the ICER of VP shunt varies from 29,934 to 40,742 USD (aggravation rate 10% and 20%, respectively) and the ICER of LP shunt varies from 58,346 to 80,392 USD (aggravation rate 10% and 20%, respectively), which indicates that the shunt surgery for iNPH is a cost-effective treatment. In the 2nd postoperative year, the cost to the LCIS will continue to decrease because of the lasting improvement of the symptoms due to the surgery. The total cost for iNPH patients will show a positive return on investment in as soon as 18 months (VP) and 21 months (LP), indicating that shunt surgery for iNPH is a cost-effective treatment.

Conclusions Because the total cost for iNPH patients will show a positive return on investment within 2 years, shunt surgery for iNPH is a cost-effective treatment and therefore recommended. The SINPHONI-2 study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials registry: UMIN000002730) SINPHONI was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00221091.

Posted on

Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery

Cost-effectiveness analysis in MISS

Neurosurg Focus 36 (6):E4, 2014

Medical care has been evolving with the increased influence of a value-based health care system. As a result, more emphasis is being placed on ensuring cost-effectiveness and utility in the services provided to patients. This study looks at this development in respect to minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) costs.

Methods. A literature review using PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) was performed. Papers were included in the study if they reported costs associated with minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). If there was no mention of cost, CEA, cost-utility analysis (CUA), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), quality, or outcomes mentioned, then the article was excluded.

Results. Fourteen studies reporting costs associated with MISS in 12,425 patients (3675 undergoing minimally invasive procedures and 8750 undergoing open procedures) were identified through PubMed, the CEA Registry, and NHS EED. The percent cost difference between minimally invasive and open approaches ranged from 2.54% to 33.68%—all indicating cost saving with a minimally invasive surgical approach. Average length of stay (LOS) for minimally invasive surgery ranged from 0.93 days to 5.1 days compared with 1.53 days to 12 days for an open approach. All studies reporting EBL reported lower volume loss in an MISS approach (range 10–392.5 ml) than in an open approach (range 55–535.5 ml).

Conclusions. There are currently an insufficient number of studies published reporting the costs of MISS. Of the studies published, none have followed a standardized method of reporting and analyzing cost data. Preliminary findings analyzing the 14 studies showed both cost saving and better outcomes in MISS compared with an open approach. However, more Level I CEA/CUA studies including cost/QALY evaluations with specifics of the techniques utilized need to be reported in a standardized manner to make more accurate conclusions on the cost effectiveness of minimally invasive spine surgery.

Proudly powered by WordPress