4.6 Article

Determination of the Minimum Improvement in Pain, Disability, and Health State Associated With Cost-Effectiveness: Introduction of the Concept of Minimum Cost-Effective Difference

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 71, Issue 6, Pages 1149-1155

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318271ebde

Keywords

Cost-effective; Minimum clinical important difference; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Minimum clinical important difference (MCID) has been adopted as the smallest improvement in patient-reported outcome needed to achieve a level of improvement thought to be meaningful to patients. OBJECTIVE: To use a common MCID calculation method with a cost-utility threshold anchor to introduce the concept of minimum cost-effective difference (MCED). METHODS: Forty-five patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Outcome questionnaires were administered before and 2 years after surgery. Total cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated for each patient. MCED was determined from receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis with a cost-effective anchor of <$50 000/QALY and <$75 000/QALY. MCID was determined with the health transition item as the anchor. RESULTS: Significant improvement was observed 2 years after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for all outcome measures. Mean total cost per QALY gained at 2 years was $42 854. MCED was greater than MCID for each outcome measure, meaning that a greater improvement was required to represent cost-effectiveness than a clinically meaningful improvement to patients. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was consistently >= 0.70 with both cost-effective anchors, suggesting that outcome change scores were accurate predictors of cost-effectiveness. Mean cost per QALY gained was significantly lower for patients achieving compared with those not achieving an MCED in visual analog scale for leg pain ($43 560 vs $112 087), visual analog scale for back pain ($41 280 vs $129 440), Oswestry Disability Index ($30 954 vs $121 750), and EuroQol 5D ($35 800 vs $189 412). CONCLUSION: MCED serves as the smallest improvement in an outcome instrument that is associated with a cost-effective response to surgery. With the use of cost-effective anchor of < $50 000/QALY, MCED after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was 4 points for visual analog scale for low back pain, 3 points for visual analog scale for leg pain, 22 points for Oswestry Disability Index, and 0.31 QALYs for EuroQol 5D.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available