Cost-Utility Analysis of a pre-, peri- and postoperative rehabilitation pathway versus usual care in patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery

IF 1.9 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Liedewij Bogaert , Olivier Nachtergaele , Tinne Thys , Peter Van Wambeke , Lotte Janssens , Thijs Willem Swinnen , Lieven Moke , Sebastiaan Schelfaut , Joost Dejaegher , Sieglinde Bogaert , Koen Peers , Ann Spriet , Wim Dankaerts , Simon Brumagne , Bart Depreitere
{"title":"Cost-Utility Analysis of a pre-, peri- and postoperative rehabilitation pathway versus usual care in patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery","authors":"Liedewij Bogaert ,&nbsp;Olivier Nachtergaele ,&nbsp;Tinne Thys ,&nbsp;Peter Van Wambeke ,&nbsp;Lotte Janssens ,&nbsp;Thijs Willem Swinnen ,&nbsp;Lieven Moke ,&nbsp;Sebastiaan Schelfaut ,&nbsp;Joost Dejaegher ,&nbsp;Sieglinde Bogaert ,&nbsp;Koen Peers ,&nbsp;Ann Spriet ,&nbsp;Wim Dankaerts ,&nbsp;Simon Brumagne ,&nbsp;Bart Depreitere","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2025.104221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The REACT trial demonstrated that a pre-, peri- and postoperative rehabilitation pathway (i.e. REACT rehabilitation) was associated with greater improvements in disability, back pain, and return-to-work rate, compared with usual care, after lumbar fusion surgery (LFS).</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>To assess the potential cost-utility of the REACT rehabilitation relative to usual care in patients undergoing LFS for degenerative conditions.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A cost-utility analysis over a six-month time horizon was conducted using data from the REACT trial from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare system. A secondary analysis from a societal perspective included indirect costs associated with productivity losses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated uncertainty. Primary outcomes were differences in costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The main analysis included 72 patients (mean age 55.1 years [SD 14.1], 59.7% female). The REACT rehabilitation reduced outpatient medical costs (p &lt; 0.0001) and indirect costs (p &lt; 0.0001), with a trend toward lower hospitalization costs (p = 0.07), despite higher rehabilitation costs (p = 0.002). There was no significant QALY improvement. The resulting ICER of −87,762.78€/QALY indicated that REACT rehabilitation was more effective and less costly than usual care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a high probability of being cost-effective (92.8%).</div><div>Secondary analysis confirmed the cost-utility of REACT rehabilitation when including indirect costs.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><div>In this cost-utility analysis, the REACT rehabilitation was cost-effective compared to usual care for patients undergoing LFS. Although the REACT rehabilitation did not significantly enhance QALY or decrease total direct costs, it significantly reduced indirect costs, which outweighed direct costs in patients undergoing LFS.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 104221"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772529425000402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The REACT trial demonstrated that a pre-, peri- and postoperative rehabilitation pathway (i.e. REACT rehabilitation) was associated with greater improvements in disability, back pain, and return-to-work rate, compared with usual care, after lumbar fusion surgery (LFS).

Research question

To assess the potential cost-utility of the REACT rehabilitation relative to usual care in patients undergoing LFS for degenerative conditions.

Materials and methods

A cost-utility analysis over a six-month time horizon was conducted using data from the REACT trial from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare system. A secondary analysis from a societal perspective included indirect costs associated with productivity losses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated uncertainty. Primary outcomes were differences in costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

The main analysis included 72 patients (mean age 55.1 years [SD 14.1], 59.7% female). The REACT rehabilitation reduced outpatient medical costs (p < 0.0001) and indirect costs (p < 0.0001), with a trend toward lower hospitalization costs (p = 0.07), despite higher rehabilitation costs (p = 0.002). There was no significant QALY improvement. The resulting ICER of −87,762.78€/QALY indicated that REACT rehabilitation was more effective and less costly than usual care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a high probability of being cost-effective (92.8%).
Secondary analysis confirmed the cost-utility of REACT rehabilitation when including indirect costs.

Discussion and conclusion

In this cost-utility analysis, the REACT rehabilitation was cost-effective compared to usual care for patients undergoing LFS. Although the REACT rehabilitation did not significantly enhance QALY or decrease total direct costs, it significantly reduced indirect costs, which outweighed direct costs in patients undergoing LFS.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain & spine
Brain & spine Surgery
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
71 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信