Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies
- PMID: 26824587
- DOI: 10.3171/2015.10.SPINE15505
Seven-year cost-effectiveness of ProDisc-C total disc replacement: results from investigational device exemption and post-approval studies
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 7-year cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. A change in the spending trajectory for spine care is to be achieved, in part, through the selection of interventions that have been proven effective yet cost less than other options. This analysis complements and builds upon findings from other cost-effectiveness evaluations of CTDR through the use of long-term, patient-level data from a randomized study. METHODS This was a 7-year health economic evaluation comparing CTDR versus ACDF from the US commercial payer perspective. Prospectively collected health care resource utilization and treatment effects (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from individual patient-level adverse event reports and SF-36 data, respectively, from the randomized, multicenter ProDisc-C total disc replacement investigational device exemption (IDE) study and post-approval study. Statistical distributions for unit costs were derived from a commercial claims database and applied using Monte Carlo simulation. Patient-level costs and effects were modeled via multivariate probabilistic analysis. Confidence intervals for 7-year costs, effects, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were obtained using the nonparametric percentile method from results of 10,000 bootstrap simulations. The robustness of results was assessed through scenario analysis and within a parametric regression model controlling for baseline variables. RESULTS Seven-year follow-up data were available for more than 70% of the 209 randomized patients. In the base-case analysis, CTDR resulted in mean per-patient cost savings of $12,789 (95% CI $5362-$20,856) and per-patient QALY gains of 0.16 (95% CI -0.073 to 0.39) compared with ACDF over 7 years. CTDR was more effective and less costly in 90.8% of probabilistic simulations. CTDR was cost-effective in 99.8% of sensitivity analysis simulations and generated a mean incremental NMB of $20,679 (95% CI $6053-$35,377) per patient at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS Based on this modeling evaluation, CTDR was found to be more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with single-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. These results are robust across a range of scenarios and perspectives and are intended to support value-based decision making.
Keywords: ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; AE = adverse event; CTDR = cervical total disc replacement; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; IDE = investigational device exemption; NIS = Nationwide Inpatient Sample; NMB = net monetary benefit; QALYs = quality-adjusted life years; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; WTP = willingness to pay; anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; cervical total disc replacement; cost-effectiveness; single-level degenerative disc disease.
Similar articles
-
Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up.Neurosurgery. 2016 Jul;79(1):135-45. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001208. Neurosurgery. 2016. PMID: 26855020 Free PMC article.
-
The 5-year cost-effectiveness of two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or cervical disc replacement: a Markov analysis.Spine J. 2018 Jan;18(1):63-71. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.036. Epub 2017 Jun 30. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 28673826
-
Cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease.JAMA Surg. 2014 Dec;149(12):1231-9. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.716. JAMA Surg. 2014. PMID: 25321869 Clinical Trial.
-
Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019 Feb 19;19(3):1-223. eCollection 2019. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019. PMID: 30847009 Free PMC article.
-
Cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Sep 1;30(17):1989-97. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000176332.67849.ea. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005. PMID: 16135991 Review.
Cited by
-
Single-level cervical disc replacement (CDR) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): A Nationwide matched analysis of complications, 30- and 90-day readmission rates, and cost.World Neurosurg X. 2023 Oct 18;21:100242. doi: 10.1016/j.wnsx.2023.100242. eCollection 2024 Jan. World Neurosurg X. 2023. PMID: 38221950 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Multilevel cervical disc replacement versus multilevel anterior discectomy and fusion: A meta-analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Apr;96(16):e6503. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006503. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017. PMID: 28422837 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Rationale, Designs, and Results of Randomized Controlled Trials.Int J Spine Surg. 2024 Feb 27;18(3):258-76. doi: 10.14444/8586. Online ahead of print. Int J Spine Surg. 2024. PMID: 38413235 Free PMC article.
-
Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment.BMJ Open. 2023 Mar 23;13(3):e067871. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067871. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 36958779 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of Nonlordotic Sagittal Alignment on Short-term Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement.Neurospine. 2020 Sep;17(3):588-602. doi: 10.14245/ns.2040398.199. Epub 2020 Sep 30. Neurospine. 2020. PMID: 33022164 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical