Matthew Smuck, Zachary L McCormick, Chris Gilligan, Mary K Hailey, Michelle L Quinn, Anthony Bentley, Kaylie Metcalfe, Benjamin Bradbury, Dylan J Lukes, Rod S Taylor
{"title":"A cost-effectiveness analysis of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain.","authors":"Matthew Smuck, Zachary L McCormick, Chris Gilligan, Mary K Hailey, Michelle L Quinn, Anthony Bentley, Kaylie Metcalfe, Benjamin Bradbury, Dylan J Lukes, Rod S Taylor","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2024.09.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA) compared with sham and standard care in terms of improvements in pain, disability, and health-related quality of life in patients with vertebrogenic chronic low back pain (cLBP).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the cost effectiveness of BVNA in patients with vertebrogenic cLBP compared to standard care alone.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>A model-based economic analysis.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>Base case analysis used INTRACEPT, a randomized trial comparing BVNA with standard care in 140 patients with vertebrogenic cLBP, recruited from 23 sites across the United States, with a follow-up, up to 5 years. Scenario analyses compared data from the Surgical Multicenter Assessment of Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Vertebrogenic Back Pain (SMART) randomized trial against a sham control, and a single-arm study.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cost-effectiveness model was built in Microsoft Excel to evaluate the costs and health outcomes of patients undergoing BVNA using the Intracept Procedure (Relievant Medsystems) to treat vertebrogenic cLBP from a US payor perspective. Alternative scenario sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model results. QALYs were discounted at 3.0% per year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Base case analysis showed that BVNA relative to standard care alone was a cost-effective strategy for the management of patients with vertebrogenic cLBP, with an ICER of US$11,376 per QALY at a 5-year time horizon from introduction of the procedure. Modeling demonstrated a >99% probability that this was cost effective in the US, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 to US$150,000. Various sensitivity and scenario analyses produced ICERs that all remained below this threshold.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BVNA with the Intracept Procedure offers patients with vertebrogenic cLBP, clinicians, and healthcare systems a cost-effective treatment compared to standard care alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"201-210"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.09.016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background context: Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA) compared with sham and standard care in terms of improvements in pain, disability, and health-related quality of life in patients with vertebrogenic chronic low back pain (cLBP).
Purpose: To assess the cost effectiveness of BVNA in patients with vertebrogenic cLBP compared to standard care alone.
Study design/setting: A model-based economic analysis.
Patient sample: Base case analysis used INTRACEPT, a randomized trial comparing BVNA with standard care in 140 patients with vertebrogenic cLBP, recruited from 23 sites across the United States, with a follow-up, up to 5 years. Scenario analyses compared data from the Surgical Multicenter Assessment of Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Vertebrogenic Back Pain (SMART) randomized trial against a sham control, and a single-arm study.
Outcome measures: Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was built in Microsoft Excel to evaluate the costs and health outcomes of patients undergoing BVNA using the Intracept Procedure (Relievant Medsystems) to treat vertebrogenic cLBP from a US payor perspective. Alternative scenario sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model results. QALYs were discounted at 3.0% per year.
Results: Base case analysis showed that BVNA relative to standard care alone was a cost-effective strategy for the management of patients with vertebrogenic cLBP, with an ICER of US$11,376 per QALY at a 5-year time horizon from introduction of the procedure. Modeling demonstrated a >99% probability that this was cost effective in the US, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 to US$150,000. Various sensitivity and scenario analyses produced ICERs that all remained below this threshold.
Conclusions: BVNA with the Intracept Procedure offers patients with vertebrogenic cLBP, clinicians, and healthcare systems a cost-effective treatment compared to standard care alone.
期刊介绍:
The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.