Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: This study aims to examine if1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.

Etudes Coût-efficacité: ce que devraient retenir les médecins [Cost-effectiveness analyses: what doctors should know]

The resources of our heath care system are limited. Choices in the attribution of resources are necessary to ensure its stability. A cost-effectiveness analysis compares the effects of one health intervention to another, taking into account the costs (including the saved costs) and the saved life years, adjusted for the quality of life (cost-utility). Cost-effectiveness analyses should take the societal perspective and the studied intervention should be compared to a relevant intervention actually in use. Physicians, at the interface between patients and payers, are in an ideal position to interpret, or even perform cost-effectiveness analysis, and to promote the interventions that are most effective and that have a reasonable cost.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: According to recent guidelines, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo revascularization if significant myocardial ischemia is present. Both, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) allow for a reliable ischemia assessment and in combination with anatomical information provided by invasive coronary angiography (CXA), such a work-up sets the basis for a decision to revascularize or not. The cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies is compared. METHODS: Strategy 1) CMR to assess ischemia followed by CXA in ischemia-positive patients (CMR + CXA), Strategy 2) CXA followed by FFR in angiographically positive stenoses (CXA + FFR). The costs, evaluated from the third party payer perspective in Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), included public prices of the different outpatient procedures and costs induced by procedural complications and by diagnostic errors. The effectiveness criterion was the correct identification of hemodynamically significant coronary lesion(s) (= significant CAD) complemented by full anatomical information. Test performances were derived from the published literature. Cost-effectiveness ratios for both strategies were compared for hypothetical cohorts with different pretest likelihood of significant CAD. RESULTS: CMR + CXA and CXA + FFR were equally cost-effective at a pretest likelihood of CAD of 62% in Switzerland, 65% in Germany, 83% in the UK, and 82% in the US with costs of CHF 5'794, euro 1'517, £ 2'680, and $ 2'179 per patient correctly diagnosed. Below these thresholds, CMR + CXA showed lower costs per patient correctly diagnosed than CXA + FFR. CONCLUSIONS: The CMR + CXA strategy is more cost-effective than CXA + FFR below a CAD prevalence of 62%, 65%, 83%, and 82% for the Swiss, the German, the UK, and the US health care systems, respectively. These findings may help to optimize resource utilization in the diagnosis of CAD.

Cost effectiveness and cost utility of risedronate for osteoporosis treatment and fracture prevention in women: a Swiss perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of risedronate compared to no intervention in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in a Swiss perspective. METHODS: A previously validated Markov model was populated with epidemiological and cost data specific to Switzerland and published utility values, and run on a population of 1,000 women of 70 years with established osteoporosis and previous vertebral fracture, treated over 5 years with risedronate 35 mg weekly or no intervention (base case), and five cohorts (according to age at therapy start) with eight risk factor distributions and three lengths of residual effects. RESULTS: In the base case population, the ICER of averting a hip fracture and the ICUR per quality-adjusted life year gained were both dominant. In the presence of a previous vertebral fracture, the ICUR was below euro45,000 (pound30,000) in all the scenarios. For all osteoporotic women>or=70 years of age with at least one risk factor, the ICUR was below euro45,000 or the intervention may even be cost saving. Age at the start of therapy and the fracture risk profile had a significant impact on results. CONCLUSION: Assuming a 2-year residual effect, that ICUR of risedronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis is below accepted thresholds from the age of 65 and even cost saving above the age of 70 with at least one risk factor.

Cost-utility analysis of a three-month exercise programme vs usual care following multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-utility of an exercise programme vs usual care after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: A total of 105 patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Chronic low back pain patients completing a 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation were randomized to either a 3-month exercise programme (n = 56) or usual care (n = 49). The exercise programme consisted of 24 training sessions during 12 weeks. At the end of functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation and at 1-year follow-up quality of life was measured with the SF-36 questionnaire, converted into utilities and transformed into quality--adjusted life years. Direct and indirect monthly costs were measured using cost diaries. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the incremental cost of the exercise programme divided by the difference in quality-adjusted life years between both groups. RESULTS: Quality of life improved significantly at 1-year follow-up in both groups. Similarly, both groups significantly reduced total monthly costs over time. No significant difference was observed between groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 79,270 euros. CONCLUSION: Adding an exercise programme after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared with usual care does not offer significant long-term benefits in quality of life and direct and indirect costs.

Simulation-based cost-utility analysis of population screening-based alendronate use in Switzerland

A simulation model adopting a health system perspective showed population-based screening with DXA, followed by alendronate treatment of persons with osteoporosis, or with anamnestic fracture and osteopenia, to be cost-effective in Swiss postmenopausal women from age 70, but not in men. INTRODUCTION: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population-based screen-and-treat strategy for osteoporosis (DXA followed by alendronate treatment if osteoporotic, or osteopenic in the presence of fracture), compared to no intervention, from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. METHODS: A published Markov model assessed by first-order Monte Carlo simulation was refined to reflect the diagnostic process and treatment effects. Women and men entered the model at age 50. Main screening ages were 65, 75, and 85 years. Age at bone densitometry was flexible for persons fracturing before the main screening age. Realistic assumptions were made with respect to persistence with intended 5 years of alendronate treatment. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In women, costs per QALY were Swiss francs (CHF) 71,000, CHF 35,000, and CHF 28,000 for the main screening ages of 65, 75, and 85 years. The threshold of CHF 50,000 per QALY was reached between main screening ages 65 and 75 years. Population-based screening was not cost-effective in men. CONCLUSION: Population-based DXA screening, followed by alendronate treatment in the presence of osteoporosis, or of fracture and osteopenia, is a cost-effective option in Swiss postmenopausal women after age 70.

Quantifying uncertainty in cost effectiveness analyses

This study compared four alternative approaches (Taylor, Fieller, percentile bootstrap, and bias-corrected bootstrap methods) to estimating confidence intervals (CIs) around cost-effectiveness (CE) ratio. The study consisted of two components: (1) Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to identify characteristics of hypothetical cost-effectiveness data sets which might lead one CI estimation technique to outperform another. These results were matched to the characteristics of an (2) extant data set derived from the National AIDS Demonstration Research (NADR) project. The methods were used to calculate (CIs) for data set. These results were then compared. The main performance criterion in the simulation study was the percentage of times the estimated (CIs) contained the “true” CE. A secondary criterion was the average width of the confidence intervals. For the bootstrap methods, bias was estimated. ^ Simulation results for Taylor and Fieller methods indicated that the CIs estimated using the Taylor series method contained the true CE more often than did those obtained using the Fieller method, but the opposite was true when the correlation was positive and the CV of effectiveness was high for each value of CV of costs. Similarly, the CIs obtained by applying the Taylor series method to the NADR data set were wider than those obtained using the Fieller method for positive correlation values and for values for which the CV of effectiveness were not equal to 30% for each value of the CV of costs. ^ The general trend for the bootstrap methods was that the percentage of times the true CE ratio was contained in CIs was higher for the percentile method for higher values of the CV of effectiveness, given the correlation between average costs and effects and the CV of effectiveness. The results for the data set indicated that the bias corrected CIs were wider than the percentile method CIs. This result was in accordance with the prediction derived from the simulation experiment. ^ Generally, the bootstrap methods are more favorable for parameter specifications investigated in this study. However, the Taylor method is preferred for low CV of effect, and the percentile method is more favorable for higher CV of effect. ^

Diagnostic motor vehicle inspection demonstration projects, program engineering support. Volume 6 - appendix E: technical basis for cost benefit analyses. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Military base closures : lack of data inhibits cost-effectiveness analyses of privatization-in-place initiatives : report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives /

"B-283515"--P. 3.

Cost-benefit analyses for your group and yourself: The rationality of decision-making in conflict

Two studies in the context of English-French relations in Québec suggest that individuals who strongly identify with a group derive the individual-level costs and benefits that drive expectancy-value processes (rational decision-making) from group-level costs and benefits. In Study 1, high identifiers linked group- and individual-level outcomes of conflict choices whereas low identifiers did not. Group-level expectancy-value processes, in Study 2, mediated the relationship between social identity and perceptions that collective action benefits the individual actor and between social identity and intentions to act. These findings suggest the rational underpinnings of identity-driven political behavior, a relationship sometimes obscured in intergroup theory that focuses on cognitive processes of self-stereotyping. But the results also challenge the view that individuals' cost-benefit analyses are independent of identity processes. The findings suggest the importance of modeling the relationship of group and individual levels of expectancy-value processes as both hierarchical and contingent on social identity processes