IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v5y2021i2d10.1007_s41669-020-00236-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Triangular Titanium Implants: Cost-Utility Analysis from NHS Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Deirdre B. Blissett

    (MedTech Economics Ltd.)

  • Rob S. Blissett

    (MedTech Economics Ltd.)

  • Matthew P. Newton Ede

    (The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital
    Precision Spine)

  • Philip M. Stott

    (Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust)

  • Daniel J. Cher

    (SI-BONE, Inc.)

  • W. Carlton Reckling

    (SI-BONE, Inc.)

Abstract

Objective The aim was to identify the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MI SIJF) surgery with titanium triangular implants for patients with sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain who have failed conservative management, compared to non-surgical management (NSM) from a National Health Service (NHS) England perspective. Methods Over a time horizon of 5 years, a cohort state transition model compared the costs and outcomes of treating patients with MI SIJF to those of traditional NSM treatment pathways. The NSM arm included two treatments: grouped physical therapy and corticosteroid injections (PTSI) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Three different strategies were considered: (1) a stepped pathway, (2) patients split between PTSI and RFA, and (3) RFA only. The outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in 2018 British pounds per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model results. Results Patients undergoing MI SIJF accrued total procedure-related and pain-management costs of £8358, while NSM treatment strategy 1 had total costs of £6880. The MI SIJF cohort had 2.98 QALYs compared to strategy 1 with 2.30 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER for MI SIJF versus strategy 1 of £2164/QALY gained. Strategy 2 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6564) and 2.26 QALYs, and this resulted in an ICER of £2468/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Strategy 3 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6580), and this resulted in 2.28 QALYs and an ICER of £2518/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a threshold of £20,000/QALY gained, MI SIJF has a probability of being cost-effective versus NSM strategies of 96%, 97%, and 91% for strategies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Conclusion MI SIJF appears to be cost-effective over a 5-year time horizon when compared to traditional NSM pathways in an NHS context.

Suggested Citation

  • Deirdre B. Blissett & Rob S. Blissett & Matthew P. Newton Ede & Philip M. Stott & Daniel J. Cher & W. Carlton Reckling, 2021. "Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Triangular Titanium Implants: Cost-Utility Analysis from NHS Perspective," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 197-209, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00236-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00236-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-020-00236-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-020-00236-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: PharmacoEconomics – Open 5(2)
      by Rita Faria in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-07-26 06:00:01

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    2. Georgia Kourlaba & Vassilis Fragoulakis & Nikos Maniadakis, 2012. "Economic Evaluation of Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients without ST-Segment Elevation in Greece," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 261-271, July.
    3. Arantzazu Arrospide & Oliver Ibarrondo & Iván Castilla & Igor Larrañaga & Javier Mar, 2022. "Development and Validation of a Discrete Event Simulation Model to Evaluate the Cardiovascular Impact of Population Policies for Obesity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 241-254, February.
    4. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    5. Kaitlyn Hastings & Clara Marquina & Jedidiah Morton & Dina Abushanab & Danielle Berkovic & Stella Talic & Ella Zomer & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2022. "Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 449-460, April.
    6. Andrea Marcellusi & Raffaella Viti & Loreta A. Kondili & Stefano Rosato & Stefano Vella & Francesco Saverio Mennini, 2019. "Economic Consequences of Investing in Anti-HCV Antiviral Treatment from the Italian NHS Perspective: A Real-World-Based Analysis of PITER Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 255-266, February.
    7. Risha Gidwani & Louise B. Russell, 2020. "Estimating Transition Probabilities from Published Evidence: A Tutorial for Decision Modelers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1153-1164, November.
    8. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2017. "A Review of Methods for Analysis of the Expected Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(7), pages 747-758, October.
    9. Elizaveta Sopina & Jan Sørensen, 2018. "Decision modelling of non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with dementia: a systematic review of methodologies," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    11. Matthew Franklin & Sebastian Hinde & Rachael Maree Hunter & Gerry Richardson & William Whittaker, 2024. "Is Economic Evaluation and Care Commissioning Focused on Achieving the Same Outcomes? Resource-Allocation Considerations and Challenges Using England as a Case Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 435-445, July.
    12. Xinyue Dong & Xiaoning He & Jing Wu, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of the First‐in‐Class ARNI (Sacubitril/Valsartan) for the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in a Chinese Setting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(12), pages 1187-1205, December.
    13. Joseph F. Levy & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2019. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Trajectories of Health Care Cost in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 593-604, July.
    14. Jisoo A Kwon & Georgina M Chambers & Fabio Luciani & Lei Zhang & Shamin Kinathil & Dennis Kim & Hla-Hla Thein & Willings Botha & Sandra Thompson & Andrew Lloyd & Lorraine Yap & Richard T Gray & Tony B, 2021. "Hepatitis C treatment strategies in prisons: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Andrea Marcellusi & Claudia Simonelli & Francesco S. Mennini & Loreta A. Kondili, 2022. "Economic Consequences of Anti-HCV Treatment of Patients Diagnosed Through Screening in Italy: A Prospective Modelling Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 133-143, January.
    16. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    17. Jorge Luis García & James J. Heckman, 2021. "Early childhood education and life‐cycle health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(S1), pages 119-141, November.
    18. Stephen Morris & Kurinchi S Gurusamy & Jessica Sheringham & Brian R Davidson, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stones," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    19. Tushar Srivastava & Nicholas R. Latimer & Paul Tappenden, 2021. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities for State-Transition Models: A Review of NICE Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(8), pages 869-878, August.
    20. Eleanor Heather & Katherine Payne & Mark Harrison & Deborah Symmons, 2014. "Including Adverse Drug Events in Economic Evaluations of Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Drugs for Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of Economic Decision Analytic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 109-134, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00236-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.