Cost‐Effectiveness of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Issue 4 (9th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mekhail, Nagy; Deer, Timothy R.; Poree, Lawrence; Staats, Peter S.; Burton, Allen W.; Connolly, Allison T.; Karst, Edward; Mehanny, Diana S.; Saweris, Youssef; Levy, Robert M.
• Is Part Of: Neuromodulaton. Volume 24:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 708
• Page End: 718
• Publication Date: 2020-03-09
• Subjects: Chronic pain -- complex regional pain syndrome -- conventional medical management -- cost‐effectiveness -- dorsal root ganglion stimulation -- incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio -- neuromodulation -- quality‐adjusted life years -- spinal cord stimulation; Central nervous system -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Central nervous system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1111/ner.13134
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1094-7159

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial, compared safety and effectiveness of stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) vs. conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS‐I and II) of the lower extremities. This analysis compares cost‐effectiveness of three modalities of treatment for CRPS, namely DRG stimulation, SCS, and comprehensive medical management (CMM). Materials and Methods: The retrospective cost‐utility analysis combined ACCURATE study data with claims data to compare cost‐effectiveness between DRG stimulation, SCS, and CMM. Cost‐effectiveness was evaluated using a Markov cohort model with ten‐year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost in 2017 U.S. dollars per gain in quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). Willingness‐to‐pay thresholds of $50, 000/QALY and $100, 000/QALY were used to define highly cost‐effective and cost‐effective therapies. Results: Both DRG and SCS provided an increase in QALYs (4.96 ± 1.54 and 4.58 ± 1.35 QALYs, respectively) and an increase in costs ($153, 992 ± $36, 651 and $128, 269 ± $27, 771, respectively) compared to CMM (3.58 ± 0.91 QALYs, $106, 173 ± $27, 005) over the ten‐year model lifetime. Both DRG stimulation ($34, 695 per QALY) and SCS ($22, 084 per QALY) were cost‐effective compared to CMM. In the base case, ICER for DRG v SCS was $68, 095/QALY. Conclusions: DRG and SCS are cost‐effective treatments for chronic pain secondary to CRPS‐I and II compared to CMM. DRG accrued higher cost due to higher conversion from trial to permanent implant and shorter battery life, but DRG was the most beneficial therapy due to more patients receiving permanent implants and experiencing higher quality of life compared to SCS. New DRG technology has improved battery life, which we expect to make DRG more cost‐effective compared to both CMM and SCS in the future.