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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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 qualityadjusted 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 2$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 (2$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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)135-144
Number of pages10
JournalClinical Neurosurgery
Volume79
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Total Disc Replacement
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Diskectomy
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Return to Work
Diagnosis-Related Groups
Health
Medicare
Health Surveys
Multivariate Analysis

Keywords

  • Cervical artificial disc
  • Cervical spondylosis
  • Cost analysis
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Decision analysis
  • Spine fusion
  • Total disc replacement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Cost utility analysis of the cervical artificial disc vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease : 5-year follow-up. / Ament, Jared D.; Yang, Zhuo; Nunley, Pierce; Stone, Marcus B.; Lee, Darrin; Kim, Kee D.

In: Clinical Neurosurgery, Vol. 79, No. 1, 2016, p. 135-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ament, Jared D. ; Yang, Zhuo ; Nunley, Pierce ; Stone, Marcus B. ; Lee, Darrin ; Kim, Kee D. / Cost utility analysis of the cervical artificial disc vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease : 5-year follow-up. In: Clinical Neurosurgery. 2016 ; Vol. 79, No. 1. pp. 135-144.
@article{fc743a53d93740d7a8ff19517786c435,
title = "Cost utility analysis of the cervical artificial disc vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: 5-year follow-up",
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 qualityadjusted 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 2$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 (2$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.",
keywords = "Cervical artificial disc, Cervical spondylosis, Cost analysis, Cost-effectiveness, Decision analysis, Spine fusion, Total disc replacement",
author = "Ament, {Jared D.} and Zhuo Yang and Pierce Nunley and Stone, {Marcus B.} and Darrin Lee and Kim, {Kee D}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1227/NEU.0000000000001208x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "135--144",
journal = "Neurosurgery",
issn = "0148-396X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost utility analysis of the cervical artificial disc vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease

T2 - 5-year follow-up

AU - Ament, Jared D.

AU - Yang, Zhuo

AU - Nunley, Pierce

AU - Stone, Marcus B.

AU - Lee, Darrin

AU - Kim, Kee D

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - 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 qualityadjusted 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 2$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 (2$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.

AB - 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 qualityadjusted 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 2$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 (2$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.

KW - Cervical artificial disc

KW - Cervical spondylosis

KW - Cost analysis

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - Decision analysis

KW - Spine fusion

KW - Total disc replacement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979763491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979763491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001208x

DO - 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001208x

M3 - Article

C2 - 26855020

AN - SCOPUS:84979763491

VL - 79

SP - 135

EP - 144

JO - Neurosurgery

JF - Neurosurgery

SN - 0148-396X

IS - 1

ER -