Therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Related to escalating health care costs and the questionable effectiveness of multiple interventions including lumbar facet joint interventions, cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis has become the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine influencing coverage decisions. METHODS: Cost utility of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain was performed utilizing data from a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up, with direct payment data from 2016. Based on the data from surgical interventions, utilizing the lowest proportion of direct procedural costs of 60%, total cost utility per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was determined by multiplying the derived direct cost at 1.67. RESULTS: Patients in this trial on average received 5.6 ± 2.6 procedures over a period of 2 years, with average relief over a period of 2 years of 82.8 ± 29.6 weeks with 19 ± 18.77 weeks of improvement per procedure. Procedural cost for one-year improvement in quality of life showed USD $2,654.08. Estimated total costs, including indirect costs and drugs with multiplication of direct costs at 1.67, showed a cost of USD $4,432 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain shows clinical effectiveness and cost utility at USD $2,654.08 for the direct costs of the procedures, and USD $4,432 for the estimated overall cost per one year of QALY, in chronic persistent low back pain non-responsive to conservative management.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Screening Strategies for Diabetic Retinopathy in Korea

This study involved a cost-utility analysis of early diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy depending on the screening strategy used. The four screening strategies evaluated were no screening, opportunistic examination, systematic fundus photography, and systematic examination by an ophthalmologists. Each strategy was evaluated in 10,000 adults aged 40 yr with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus (hypothetical cohort). The cost of each strategy was estimated in the perspective of both payer and health care system. The utility was estimated using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for the different screening strategies was analyzed. After exclusion of the weakly dominating opportunistic strategy, the ICER of systematic photography was 57,716,867 and that of systematic examination by ophthalmologists was 419,989,046 from the perspective of the healthcare system. According to the results, the systematic strategy is preferable to the opportunistic strategy from the perspective of both a payer and a healthcare system. Although systematic examination by ophthalmologists may have higher utility than systematic photography, it is associated with higher cost. The systematic photography is the best strategy in terms of cost-utility. However systematic examination by ophthalmologists can also be a suitable policy alternative, if the incremental cost is socially acceptable.