Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 6

Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis

Authors Schmier J, Halevi M, Maislin G, Ong K

Received 14 December 2013

Accepted for publication 28 January 2014

Published 18 March 2014 Volume 2014:6 Pages 125—131

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S59194

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Jordana Kate Schmier,1 Marci Halevi,2 Greg Maislin,3 Kevin Ong4

1Health Sciences, Exponent Inc., Alexandria, VA, USA; 2Paradigm LLC, New York, NY, USA; 3Biomedical Statistical Consulting, Wynnewood, PA, USA; 4Biomedical Engineering, Exponent Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA

Introduction: Symptomatic chronic low back and leg pain resulting from lumbar spinal stenosis is expensive to treat and manage. A randomized, controlled, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial assessed treatment-related patient outcomes comparing the Coflex® Interlaminar Stabilization Device, an interlaminar stabilization implant inserted following decompressive surgical laminotomy in the lumbar spine, to instrumented posterolateral fusion among patients with moderate to severe spinal stenosis. This study uses patient-reported outcomes and clinical events from the trial along with costs and expected resource utilization to determine cost effectiveness.
Methods: A decision-analytic model compared outcomes over 5 years. Clinical input parameters were derived from the trial. Oswestry Disability Index scores were converted to utilities. Treatment patterns over 5 years were estimated based on claims analyses and expert opinion. A third-party payer perspective was used; costs (in $US 2013) and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of key parameters. Analyses were conducted using Medicare payment rates and typical commercial reimbursements.
Results: Five-year costs were lower for patients implanted with Coflex compared to those undergoing fusion. Average Medicare payments over 5 years were estimated at $15,182 for Coflex compared to $26,863 for the fusion control, a difference of $11,681. Mean quality-adjusted life years were higher for Coflex patients compared to controls (3.02 vs 2.97). Results indicate that patients implanted with the Coflex device derive more utility, on average, than those treated with fusion, but at substantially lower costs. The cost advantage was greater when evaluating commercial insurance payments. Subgroup analyses found that the cost advantage for Coflex relative to fusion was even larger for two-level procedures compared to one-level procedures.
Conclusion: The Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization Device was found to be cost effective compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. It provided higher utility at substantially lower cost.

Keywords: cost analysis, spine, treatment comparison

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other articles by this author:

An updated estimate of costs of endophthalmitis following cataract surgery among Medicare patients: 2010–2014

Schmier JK, Hulme-Lowe CK, Covert DW, Lau EC

Clinical Ophthalmology 2016, 10:2121-2127

Published Date: 26 October 2016

Estimated hospital costs associated with preventable health care-associated infections if health care antiseptic products were unavailable

Schmier JK, Hulme-Lowe CK, Semenova S, Klenk JA, DeLeo PC, Sedlak R, Carlson PA

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2016, 8:197-205

Published Date: 13 May 2016

Treatment costs of cystoid macular edema among patients following cataract surgery

Schmier JK, Covert DW, Hulme-Lowe CK, Mullins A, Mahlis EM

Clinical Ophthalmology 2016, 10:477-483

Published Date: 16 March 2016

Adjunctive therapy patterns in glaucoma patients using prostaglandin analogs

Schmier JK, Hulme-Lowe CK, Covert DW

Clinical Ophthalmology 2014, 8:1097-1104

Published Date: 10 June 2014

Two-year treatment patterns and costs in glaucoma patients initiating treatment with prostaglandin analogs

Jordana K Schmier, Edmund C Lau, David W Covert

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:1137-1143

Published Date: 29 September 2010

First-year treatment costs among new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs: pooled results

Jordana K Schmier, David W Covert

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:437-445

Published Date: 6 May 2010

First-year treatment costs among new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs

Jordana K Schmier, David W Covert, Alan L Robin

Clinical Ophthalmology 2009, 3:637-644

Published Date: 16 November 2009

Characteristics of respondents with glaucoma and dry eye in a national panel survey

Jordana K Schmier, David W Covert

Clinical Ophthalmology 2009, 3:645-650

Published Date: 13 November 2009

Readers of this article also read:

Emerging and future therapies for hemophilia

Carr ME, Tortella BJ

Journal of Blood Medicine 2015, 6:245-255

Published Date: 3 September 2015

A new recombinant factor VIII: from genetics to clinical use

Santagostino E

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2014, 8:2507-2515

Published Date: 12 December 2014

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010