Suppr超能文献

一项基于试验的经济学评估:比较脊髓刺激与最佳药物治疗对疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变的疗效

A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation Comparing Spinal Cord Stimulation With Best Medical Treatment in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

作者信息

Slangen Rachel, Faber Catharina G, Schaper Nicolaas C, Joosten Elbert A, van Dongen Robert T, Kessels Alfons G, van Kleef Maarten, Dirksen Carmen D

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Department of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Pain. 2017 Apr;18(4):405-414. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.11.014. Epub 2016 Dec 11.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

The objective was to perform an economic evaluation comparing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in combination with best medical treatment (BMT) with BMT in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients. Alongside a prospective 2-center randomized controlled trial, involving 36 painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients with severe lower limb pain not responding to conventional therapy, an economic evaluation was performed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were based on: 1) societal costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and 2) direct health care costs and the number of successfully treated patients, respectively, both with a time horizon of 12 months. Bootstrap and secondary analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Total societal cost amounted to €26,539.18 versus €5,313.45 per patient in the SCS and BMT group, respectively. QALYs were .58 versus .36 and the number of successfully treated patients was 55% versus 7% for the SCS and BMT group, respectively. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €94,159.56 per QALY and €34,518.85 per successfully treated patient, respectively. Bootstrap analyses showed that the probability of SCS being cost-effective ranges from 0 to 46% with willingness to pay threshold values ranging between €20,000 and €80,000 for a QALY. Secondary analyses showed that cost-effectiveness of SCS became more favorable after correcting for baseline cost imbalance between the 2 groups, extending the depreciation period of SCS material to 4 years, and extrapolation of the data up to 4 years. Although SCS was considerably more effective compared with BMT, the substantial initial investment that is required resulted in SCS not being cost-effective in the short term. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to baseline cost imbalances between the groups and the depreciation period of the SCS material.

PERSPECTIVE

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy is a common complication of diabetes mellitus and the humanistic and economic burden is high. This article presents the cost-effectiveness of SCS in patients suffering from painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from a societal and health care perspective with a time horizon of 12 months.

摘要

未标注

目的是对脊髓刺激(SCS)联合最佳药物治疗(BMT)与单纯BMT治疗疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变患者进行经济学评估。除了一项前瞻性2中心随机对照试验外,还对36例对传统治疗无反应的严重下肢疼痛的疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变患者进行了经济学评估。增量成本效益比分别基于:1)社会成本和质量调整生命年(QALY),以及2)直接医疗保健成本和成功治疗的患者数量,时间跨度均为12个月。进行了自举法和二次分析以解决不确定性问题。SCS组和BMT组的患者人均社会总成本分别为26,539.18欧元和5,313.45欧元。SCS组和BMT组的QALY分别为0.58和0.36,成功治疗的患者数量分别为55%和7%。这导致每获得一个QALY的增量成本效益比为94,159.56欧元,每成功治疗一名患者的增量成本效益比为34,518.85欧元。自举法分析表明,对于一个QALY,支付意愿阈值在20,000欧元至80,000欧元之间时,SCS具有成本效益的概率为0至46%。二次分析表明,在纠正两组之间的基线成本不平衡、将SCS材料的折旧期延长至4年以及将数据外推至4年后,SCS的成本效益变得更有利。尽管与BMT相比,SCS的疗效显著更高,但所需的大量初始投资导致SCS在短期内不具有成本效益。成本效益结果对两组之间的基线成本不平衡和SCS材料的折旧期敏感。

观点

疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变是糖尿病的常见并发症,人文和经济负担都很高。本文从社会和医疗保健角度,以12个月为时间跨度,介绍了SCS在疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变患者中的成本效益。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验