对慢性轴性腰痛患者进行 60 天外周神经刺激治疗的潜在成本节约。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1007/s40122-024-00630-5
Samir J Sheth, William D Mauck, David P Russo, Eric L Keuffel, Candace L Gunnarsson, Mark Stultz, Meredith J McGee, Marc A Huntoon
{"title":"对慢性轴性腰痛患者进行 60 天外周神经刺激治疗的潜在成本节约。","authors":"Samir J Sheth, William D Mauck, David P Russo, Eric L Keuffel, Candace L Gunnarsson, Mark Stultz, Meredith J McGee, Marc A Huntoon","doi":"10.1007/s40122-024-00630-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic axial low back pain (CLBP) that is not responsive to medication management or physical therapy often requires significant clinical intervention. Several interventional pain management options exist, including a 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment. This economic evaluation investigated the potential for projected cost savings associated with prioritizing 60-day PNS treatment relative to a 'standard of care' (SOC) approach (where patients do not have access to 60-day PNS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision tree (supervised machine learning) model tracked treatment progression across two hypothetical cohorts of US patients with CLBP in whom non-interventional options were ineffective (Cohort A: treatment starting with 60-day PNS followed by any additional interventional and surgical treatments versus Cohort B: standard of care interventional and surgical treatments without access to 60-day PNS). Treatment efficacy estimates were based on published success rates. Conditional on treatment failure, up to two additional interventions were considered within the 12-month time frame in both cohorts. SOC treatment options included epidural injection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA), PNS permanent implant (PNS-PI), spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial/implant, and spinal fusion surgery. Treatment choice probabilities in both cohort algorithms were based on clinician interviews. Costs were based on national Medicare reimbursement levels in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) setting. Savings reflected the difference in projected costs between cohorts. A Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted to generate confidence intervals and identify important inputs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The treatment algorithm which prioritized initial 60-day PNS treatment was projected to save $8056 (95% CI $6112-$9981) per patient during the first year of interventional treatment relative to the SOC approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of the 60-day PNS treatment as an initial interventional treatment in patients with CLBP may result in significant savings for Medicare. Projected savings may be even larger for commercial payers covering non-Medicare patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1187-1202"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393265/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potential Cost Savings with 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment in Chronic Axial Low Back Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Samir J Sheth, William D Mauck, David P Russo, Eric L Keuffel, Candace L Gunnarsson, Mark Stultz, Meredith J McGee, Marc A Huntoon\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40122-024-00630-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic axial low back pain (CLBP) that is not responsive to medication management or physical therapy often requires significant clinical intervention. Several interventional pain management options exist, including a 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment. This economic evaluation investigated the potential for projected cost savings associated with prioritizing 60-day PNS treatment relative to a 'standard of care' (SOC) approach (where patients do not have access to 60-day PNS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision tree (supervised machine learning) model tracked treatment progression across two hypothetical cohorts of US patients with CLBP in whom non-interventional options were ineffective (Cohort A: treatment starting with 60-day PNS followed by any additional interventional and surgical treatments versus Cohort B: standard of care interventional and surgical treatments without access to 60-day PNS). Treatment efficacy estimates were based on published success rates. Conditional on treatment failure, up to two additional interventions were considered within the 12-month time frame in both cohorts. SOC treatment options included epidural injection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA), PNS permanent implant (PNS-PI), spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial/implant, and spinal fusion surgery. Treatment choice probabilities in both cohort algorithms were based on clinician interviews. Costs were based on national Medicare reimbursement levels in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) setting. Savings reflected the difference in projected costs between cohorts. A Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted to generate confidence intervals and identify important inputs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The treatment algorithm which prioritized initial 60-day PNS treatment was projected to save $8056 (95% CI $6112-$9981) per patient during the first year of interventional treatment relative to the SOC approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of the 60-day PNS treatment as an initial interventional treatment in patients with CLBP may result in significant savings for Medicare. Projected savings may be even larger for commercial payers covering non-Medicare patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1187-1202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393265/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00630-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00630-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:对药物治疗或物理治疗无效的慢性轴性腰背痛(CLBP)通常需要大量的临床干预。目前有多种介入性疼痛治疗方案,包括为期 60 天的周围神经刺激(PNS)治疗。这项经济评估调查了相对于 "标准护理"(SOC)方法(患者无法接受为期 60 天的 PNS 治疗)而言,优先考虑 60 天 PNS 治疗的预计成本节约潜力:一个决策树(监督机器学习)模型追踪了两个假定队列的治疗进展情况,这两个队列均为非介入治疗无效的美国 CLBP 患者(队列 A:先接受 60 天 PNS 治疗,然后再接受任何其他介入治疗和手术治疗;队列 B:接受标准护理介入治疗和手术治疗,但不接受 60 天 PNS 治疗)。疗效估计基于已公布的成功率。在治疗失败的情况下,两个队列均考虑在 12 个月的时间内进行最多两次额外干预。SOC 治疗方案包括硬膜外注射、射频消融 (RFA)、椎基神经消融 (BVNA)、PNS 永久植入 (PNS-PI)、脊髓刺激器 (SCS) 试验/植入和脊柱融合手术。两种队列算法中的治疗选择概率均以临床医生访谈为基础。成本基于非住院手术中心(ASC)的国家医疗保险报销水平。节省的费用反映了组群间预计成本的差异。我们进行了蒙特卡罗模拟和敏感性分析,以得出置信区间并确定重要的输入:结果:与 SOC 方法相比,优先考虑最初 60 天 PNS 治疗的治疗算法预计可在介入治疗的第一年为每位患者节省 8056 美元(95% CI 为 6112-9981 美元):使用 60 天 PNS 治疗作为 CLBP 患者的初始介入治疗可为医疗保险节省大量费用。对于承保非医疗保险患者的商业支付方而言,预计节省的费用可能会更多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Potential Cost Savings with 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment in Chronic Axial Low Back Pain.

Potential Cost Savings with 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment in Chronic Axial Low Back Pain.

Introduction: Chronic axial low back pain (CLBP) that is not responsive to medication management or physical therapy often requires significant clinical intervention. Several interventional pain management options exist, including a 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment. This economic evaluation investigated the potential for projected cost savings associated with prioritizing 60-day PNS treatment relative to a 'standard of care' (SOC) approach (where patients do not have access to 60-day PNS).

Methods: A decision tree (supervised machine learning) model tracked treatment progression across two hypothetical cohorts of US patients with CLBP in whom non-interventional options were ineffective (Cohort A: treatment starting with 60-day PNS followed by any additional interventional and surgical treatments versus Cohort B: standard of care interventional and surgical treatments without access to 60-day PNS). Treatment efficacy estimates were based on published success rates. Conditional on treatment failure, up to two additional interventions were considered within the 12-month time frame in both cohorts. SOC treatment options included epidural injection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA), PNS permanent implant (PNS-PI), spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial/implant, and spinal fusion surgery. Treatment choice probabilities in both cohort algorithms were based on clinician interviews. Costs were based on national Medicare reimbursement levels in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) setting. Savings reflected the difference in projected costs between cohorts. A Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted to generate confidence intervals and identify important inputs.

Results: The treatment algorithm which prioritized initial 60-day PNS treatment was projected to save $8056 (95% CI $6112-$9981) per patient during the first year of interventional treatment relative to the SOC approach.

Conclusions: Use of the 60-day PNS treatment as an initial interventional treatment in patients with CLBP may result in significant savings for Medicare. Projected savings may be even larger for commercial payers covering non-Medicare patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
×
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