Search

Ramana K Naidu,1 Oth V Tran,2 Michael E Schatman3,4 1Pain Management, Marin Health Medical Center, Greenbrae, CA, USA; 2Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 4Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Oth V Tran, Email Oth.v.tran@gmail.comBackground: Evidence regarding the frequency and timing of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) fails to offer clear consensus. We describe the LSS care journey from initial diagnosis to first surgical intervention.Methods: Using Medicare claims database from 2009 through 2020, we identified patients who were diagnosed with LSS. The use and timing of conservative and surgical treatments during the entire follow-up from the initial diagnosis were reported.Results: Of the 143,849 patients identified, 68% received conservative care within 8.4 months and 25.3% received a surgical or minimally invasive intervention over 5.7 years following initial diagnosis, with 12.6% undergoing open decompression alone, 10.2% undergoing open decompression with fusion, and 5.1% undergoing fusion surgery alone. Fewer than 1% were provided with interspinous spacers or a percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression.Conclusion: Approximately three-quarters of patients in the study received no surgical or non-invasive interventions for approximately six years following diagnosis with LSS.Keywords: lumbar spinal stenosis, interspinous spacer, lumbar decompression, chronic pain

Robert Jason Yong,1 Oth V Tran,2 Alysha M McGovern,2 Parag G Patil,3 Christopher J Gilligan1 1Pain Management Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA; 2Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA, USA; 3Neurological Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USACorrespondence: Alysha M McGovern, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Boston Scientific Corporation, 300 Boston Scientific Way, Marlborough, MA, 01752, USA, Tel +1 774-249-5560, Email alysha.mcgovern@bsci.comPurpose: Chronic, non-cancer pain significantly and negatively impacts patient quality of life. Neuromodulation is a major component of multi-modal interdisciplinary approaches to chronic pain management, which includes opioid and nonopioid medications. In randomized controlled trials, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to reduce pain and decrease short-term opioid use for patients. This study sought to evaluate the effect of SCS on longer term opioid and non-opioid pain medication usage among patients over ≥ 3 years of follow-up.Patients and Methods: Claims analysis was conducted using the Merative™ MarketScan® Commercial Database. Patients aged ≥ 18 who initiated SCS between 1/1/2010 and 3/31/2021 with ≥ 1 year of baseline data and ≥ 3 years of follow-up data were included. Opioid discontinuation, daily dose (DD) reduction, proportion of days covered (PDC), concomitant co-medication with benzodiazepines and/or gabapentinoids, and polypharmacy were evaluated during the baseline and follow-up periods. Adjusted logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of baseline dosages on discontinuation and dose reduction.Results: During follow-up, 60% of 2,669 SCS patients either discontinued opioid use or reduced opioid DD by at least 20% from baseline; another 15% reduced DD by 1– 19%. Logistic regression showed patients with higher baseline dosages were less likely to discontinue opioids completely (odds ratio[OR] 95% confidence intervals[CI]: 0.31[0.18,0.54]) but more likely to reduce their daily dose (OR[CI]: 7.14[4.00,12.73], p< 0.001). Mean PDC with opioids decreased from 0.58 (210 of 365 days) at baseline to 0.51 at year 3 (p< 0.001). With SCS, co-medication with benzodiazepines decreased from 47.3% at baseline to 30.3% at year 3, co-medication with gabapentinoids reduced from 58.6% to 42.2%, and polypharmacy dropped from 15.6% to 9.6% (all p< 0.001).Conclusion: Approximately three-quarters of patients who received SCS therapy either discontinued or reduced systemic opioid use over the study period. SCS could assist in reducing long-term reliance on opioids and other pain medications to treat chronic non-cancer pain.Keywords: chronic pain, opioid misuse, spinal cord stimulation, opioid medication

Jeffrey D Miller,1 Xin Ye,2 Gregory M Lenhart,1 Amanda M Farr,1 Oth V Tran,1 W Jackie Kwong,2 Elizabeth A Magnuson,3 William S Weintraub41Truven Health Analytics Inc, Cambridge, MA, 2Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Parsippany, NJ, 3St Luke Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, 4Center for Heart and Vascular Health, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USABackground: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today’s cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF.Objective: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy – edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) – for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective.Materials and methods: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for “highly cost-effective”, “cost-effective”, and “not cost-effective” treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.Results: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio