Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation: A UK Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this economic analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM-SCS) for treating chronic intractable low back pain, compared with conventional spinal cord stimulation (C-SCS) and conservative medical management (CMM), by updating and expanding the inputs for a previously published cross-industry model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This model comprised a 12-month decision-tree phase followed by a long-term Markov model. Costs and outcomes were calculated from a UK National Health Service perspective, over a base-case horizon of 15 years and up to a maximum of 40 years. All model inputs were derived from published literature or other deidentified sources and updated to reflect recent clinical trials and costs. Deterministic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to calculate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across the 15-year time horizon and to explore the impact of individual parameter variability on the cost-effectiveness results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of joint parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: DTM-SCS was the most cost-effective option from a payer perspective. Compared with CMM alone, DTM-SCS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6101 per QALY gained (incremental net benefit [INB] = £21,281). The INB for C-SCS compared with CMM was lower than for DTM-SCS, at £8551. For the comparison of DTM-SCS and C-SCS, an ICER of £897 per QALY gained was calculated, with a 99.5% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20,000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with low back pain treated over a 15-year follow-up period, DTM-SCS and C-SCS are cost-effective compared with CMM, from both payer and societal perspectives. DTM-SCS is associated with a lower ICER than that of C-SCS. Wider uptake of DTM-SCS in the UK health care system is warranted to manage chronic low back pain.

Healthcare costs and medical utilization patterns associated with painful and severe painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

PURPOSE: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common complication in patients with diabetes. It is associated with a poor quality of life and high costs of care. This study investigated the impact of painful DPN on healthcare costs and resource utilization. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of administrative claims of adult patients with diabetes (type 1 or 2) from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. Patients were assigned to four cohorts by presence of DPN and pain severity, based on diagnoses and prescription patterns in a one-year baseline. All-cause and diabetes-associated costs were calculated for the year following the index DPN diagnosis. Risk factors associated with presence of severely painful DPN were evaluated. RESULTS: Relative to those without DPN, patients who had DPN without pain, painful DPN (PDPN), or severe PDPN incurred respective increases of $3,093, $9,349, and $20,887 in average annual all-cause costs. More than half of costs from painful/severe DPN were for prescriptions and inpatient hospitalization. Severe PDPN was associated with elevated odds of diabetic amyotrophy (OR: 8.09; 95% CI: 6.84-9.56), diabetic foot ulcers (OR: 6.54, 95% CI: 6.32-6.76), and loss of mobility (OR: 2.54, 95% CI: 2.48-2.60), among other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Painful DPN is associated with higher healthcare costs and resource utilization, and a greater risk of debilitating conditions that limit quality of life. Future research should focus on better treatment options and more aggressive pain management strategies to reduce the negative impacts of DPN.

Real-world onabotulinumtoxinA treatment patterns in patients with overactive bladder.

PURPOSE: Utilization patterns of third-line onabotulinumtoxinA for overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms-including discontinuation and use of other therapeutic options during or after treatment-are not well understood. This retrospective analysis of administrative claims was designed to characterize the unmet need for OAB treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of Optum's deidentified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (2009-2021) was performed among patients with diagnosis of OAB newly starting onabotulinumtoxinA injection (2015-2017). Study measures were evaluated during an 18-month pretreatment baseline and over a minimum of 36 months of follow-up. These included number of injections, days between injections, other measures of onabotulinumtoxinA utilization, use of second-line pharmacologic treatments, use of device and surgical treatment options, and complications. RESULTS: Of 2505 eligible patients, 535 (21.4%; 66.8 ± 13.3 y, 87.3% females) continued onabotulinumtoxinA throughout the study. The remaining 1970 (78.6%; 71.4 ± 11.6 y, 79.1% females) were considered discontinuers. Of continuers, 57% received ≥5 treatments. Of discontinuers, 84% received ≤2 treatments. Anticholinergics and ß3-adrenoceptor agonist medication use declined in all patients from baseline to follow-up; however, the absolute reduction in the proportion with any medication fill was similar across continuers versus discontinuers (21% vs. 18%, p < 0.0001). Sacral neuromodulation was initiated by 15/535 (3%) of continuers and 137/1970 (7%) of discontinuers (p < 0.0001). No patients initiated percutaneous tibial neuromodulation. CONCLUSIONS: Early discontinuation of onabotulinumtoxinA therapy for OAB is common and most discontinuers do not receive alternative treatments. Providers have the opportunity to educate OAB patients with un- or undertreated symptoms regarding alternative options.

Effect of Provider Specialty on Medical Resource Utilization and Costs in Chronic Spinal-Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Poorly managed chronic spinal pain encumbers medical resources and drives healthcare costs, suggesting a target for improvement. OBJECTIVES: To determine how specialist-care pathways influence healthcare costs in the first year after a referral for chronic spine pain. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of administrative claims from a large commercial health insurance provider, analyzing a 6-month baseline, a variable "pre-referral period," and a one-year period of specialist care. SETTING: US patients covered by private commercial insurers. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with chronic, spine-related pain between July 2016 and February 2018 and under the active care of a specialist were eligible. Patients with neurological deficits or cancer-related pain were excluded. Patients were categorized based on sequence-dependent exposure to a pain specialist, a surgeon, or both specialties. Key measures were pain-related and all-cause medical resource use and costs and opioid prescription fills. RESULTS: Of 306,080 eligible patients (mean age 61.6; 61.5% women), 13% saw a pain specialist, 71% a surgeon, 7% a pain specialist then a surgeon, and 9% a surgeon then a pain specialist. Referral to a pain specialist alone was associated with lower resource use and per-patient adjusted cost savings of $3,311 (pain-related) and $6,447 (all-cause) compared to patients referred to a surgeon alone. The pain specialist pathway was associated with increased indicators of prescription opioid use. LIMITATIONS: Cohort design constraints temper the results' generalizability, given the need to simultaneously examine specialty pathway and medical resource incurred over the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: We observed meaningful savings in cost and resource use when chronic spine-pain patients were managed by pain specialists. Pain-management referrals should be an element of a thoughtfully designed care pathway.

Systemic Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Total Cost of Care in Patients Initiating Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated patterns of systemic opioid use among patients initiating spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic pain. This study evaluated systemic opioid discontinuation and/or dose reduction and total health care cost after the start of spinal cord stimulation therapy. METHODS: Using a commercial insurance claims database (2008-2017), we analyzed opioid utilization patterns in patients initiating spinal cord stimulation therapy over a 1-year baseline and 2-year follow-up. The primary end point was defined as either discontinuation (≥365-day gap between prescription fills or total days' supply in follow-up ≤30 days) or ≥50% reduction in average daily morphine milligram equivalent dose. "Costs" were defined as total payer plus patient out-of-pocket payments. RESULTS: A total of 5,878 patients met the selection criteria. Of these, 152 (2.6%) showed no opioid prescription data at any point in the study period. Among patients with one or more prescriptions, 42.0% met the primary end point (22.0% discontinued, and 20.0% reduced their dose by 50% or more). Mean total adjusted costs were significantly reduced in years 1 and 2 of follow-up relative to baseline (excluding device insertion costs). The average time to breakeven when accounting for device trial and permanent insertion cost was 3.1 years among those who met the composite end point and 4.2 years among those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that among patients who continued spinal cord stimulation therapy for at least 2 years, a significant proportion were able to reduce and/or discontinue systemic opioid use, with costs after the start of therapy significantly reduced relative to baseline.