Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up

Jared D Ament, Zhuo Yang, Pierce Nunley, Marcus B Stone, Darrin Lee, Kee D Kim, Jared D Ament, Zhuo Yang, Pierce Nunley, Marcus B Stone, Darrin Lee, Kee D Kim

Abstract

Background: The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.

Objective: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.

Methods: Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.

Results: The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was -$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (-$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY).

Conclusion: This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.

Abbreviations: ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionAWP, average wholesale priceCE, cost-effectivenessCEA, cost-effectiveness analysisCPT, Current Procedural TerminologycTDR, cervical total disc replacementCUA, cost-utility analysisDDD, degenerative disc diseaseDRG, diagnosis-related groupFDA, US Food and Drug AdministrationICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratioIDE, Investigational Device ExemptionNDI, neck disability indexQALY, quality-adjusted life yearsRCT, randomized controlled trialRTW, return-to-workSF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health SurveyVAS, visual analog scaleWTP, willingness-to-pay.

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Markov model schematic. ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; cTDR, cervical total disc replacement.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: cost-effectiveness acceptability curve of cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) in comparison with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) from a societal perspective and a health system perspective. The curve shows the probability that cTDR is cost-effective in comparison with ACDF for a range of maximum willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The probability was derived from 3000 rounds of simulation that randomly sample parameter values from the parameter distributions assigned. Societal perspective includes both direct medical cost and productivity loss. Health system perspective includes only direct medical cost. Color version available online only.
Figure
Figure
No available caption

References

    1. Hisey MS, Bae HW, Davis R, et al. Multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled investigational device exemption clinical trial comparing Mobi-C Cervical Artificial Disc to anterior discectomy and fusion in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease in the cervical spine. Int J Spine Surg. 2014;8. 10.14444/1007. eCollection 2014.
    1. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):101-107.
    1. McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, et al. A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: Results from 4 Prospective Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trials and Up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(11):943-952.
    1. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(3):198-209.
    1. Zigler JE, Delamarter R, Murrey D, et al. ProDisc-C and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as surgical treatment for single-level cervical symptomatic degenerative disc disease: five-year results of a Food and Drug Administration study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(3):203-209.
    1. Fallah A, Akl EA, Ebrahim S, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for single-level cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43407.
    1. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, et al. Clinical experience with the new artificial cervical PCM (Cervitech) disc. Spine J. 2004;4(6 suppl):315S-321S.
    1. McAnany SJ, Overley S, Baird EO, et al. The 5-year cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and cervical disc replacement: a Markov analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(23):1924-1933.
    1. Davis RJ, Nunley PD, Kim KD, et al. Two-level total disc replacement with Mobi-C cervical artificial disc versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter clinical trial with 4-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(1):15-25.
    1. Ament JD, Yang Z, Nunley P, Stone MB, Kim KD. Cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(12):1231-1239.
    1. Sarich M, Prinz JH, Schütte C. Markov model theory. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;797:23-44.
    1. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253-1258.
    1. National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR) “Deaths: Final Data for 2013.” The Complete Version of this Report (NVSR Volume 64, Number 2). Available at: . Accessed January 21, 2015.
    1. National Average Wage Index. Social Security Administration; Available at: . Accessed December 21, 2014.
    1. SF-6D. Health Economics and Decision Science. The University of Sheffield; Available at: . Accessed September 21, 2015.
    1. Ament JD, Yang Z, Chen Y, Green RS, Kim KD. A novel quality of life utility index in patients with multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with total disc replacement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(14):1072-1078.
    1. Marketscan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases. Available at: . Accessed January 6, 2015.
    1. Medical Consumer Price Index. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington, DC: United States Department of Labor; 2014. Available at: . Accessed May 14, 2014.
    1. Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):781-798.
    1. Qureshi SA, McAnany S, Goz V, Koehler SM, Hecht AC. Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):546-554.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner