Background:Operative and nonoperative treatments for spinal metastases are expensive interventions with a high rate of complications. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of a surgical procedure compared with nonoperative management as treatment for spinal metastases.Methods:We constructed a Markov state-transition model with health states defined by ambulatory status and estimated the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs for operative and nonoperative management of spine metastases. We considered 2 populations: 1 in which patients presented with independent ambulatory status and 1 in which patients presented with nonambulatory status due to acute (e.g., <48 hours) metastatic epidural compression. We defined the efficacy of each treatment as a likelihood of maintaining, or returning to, independent ambulation. Transition probabilities for the model, including the risks of mortality and becoming dependent or nonambulatory, were obtained from secondary data analysis and published literature. Costs were determined from Medicare reimbursement schedules. We conducted analyses over patients’ remaining life expectancy from a health system perspective and discounted outcomes at 3% per year. We conducted sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in data inputs.Results:Among patients presenting as independently ambulatory, QALYs were 0.823 for operative treatment and 0.800 for nonoperative treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a surgical procedure was $899,700 per QALY. Among patients presenting with nonambulatory status, those undergoing surgical intervention accumulated 0.813 lifetime QALY, and those treated nonoperatively accumulated 0.089 lifetime QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a surgical procedure was $48,600 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of a surgical procedure was most sensitive to the variability of its efficacy.Conclusions:Our data suggest that the value to society of a surgical procedure for spinal metastases varies according to the features of the patient population. In patients presenting as nonambulatory due to acute neurologic compromise, surgical intervention provides good value (ICER, $48,600 per QALY). There is a low value for a surgical procedure performed for patients who are ambulatory at presentation (ICER, $899,700 per QALY).Level of Evidence:Economic and Decision Analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background The incidence of spinal epidural abscesses is increasing. What is more, they are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Advances in diagnostic imaging and antibiotic therapies have made earlier diagnosis and nonoperative management feasible in appropriately selected patients. Nonoperative treatment also has the advantage of lower immediate healthcare charges; however, it is unknown whether initial nonoperative care leads to higher healthcare charges long term. Questions/purposes (1) Does operative intervention generate higher charges than nonoperative treatment over the course of 1 year after the initial treatment of spinal epidural abscesses? (2) Does the treatment of spinal epidural abscesses in people who actively use intravenous drugs generate higher charges than management in people who do not? Methods This retrospective comparative study at two tertiary academic centers compared adult patients with spinal epidural abscesses treated operatively and nonoperatively from January 2016 through December 2017. Ninety-five patients were identified, with four excluded for lack of billing data and one excluded for concomitant intracranial abscess. Indications for operative management included new or progressive motor deficit, lack of response to nonoperative treatment including persistent or progressive systemic illness, or initial sepsis requiring urgent source control. Of the included patients, 52% (47 of 90) received operative treatment with no differences in age, gender, BMI, and Charlson comorbidity index between groups, nor any difference in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Furthermore, 29% (26 of 90) of patients actively used intravenous drugs and were younger, with a lower BMI and lower Charlson comorbidity index, with no differences in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Cumulative charges at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge were compared based on operative or nonoperative management and secondarily by intravenous drug use status. Medical records, laboratory results, and hospital billing data were reviewed for data extraction. Demographic factors including age, gender, region of abscess, intravenous drug use, and comorbidities were extracted, along with clinical factors such as symptoms and ambulatory function at presentation, spinal instability, intensive care unit admission, and complications. The primary outcome was charges associated with care at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge. All covariates extracted were included in this analysis using negative binomial regression that accounted for Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for...

Objective. To determine the prevalence of chronic and occasional opioid use and identify risk factors of opioid use among persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods. We used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey to select a knee OA cohort. We obtained data on demographics characteristics, marital status, comorbidities, insurance, and prescription medication coverage from survey data and linked Medicare claims. We included all prescribed medication records classified as opioid under the First Databank therapeutic antiarthritics or analgesics categories. We stratified individuals with knee OA into 3 opioid use groups: 1) nonusers (0 prescriptions/year), 2) occasional users (1-5 prescriptions/year), and 3) chronic users (6+ prescriptions/year). We built multivariable logistic regression models using a generalized estimating equation to determine correlates of chronic opioid use.Results. Among 3,549 Medicare beneficiaries with knee OA and a mean ± SD age of 78 ± 7 years, 68% were female, 9% were chronic users, and 21% used opioids occasionally. Multivariable analysis showed that non-Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 4.8, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.2-10.2), divorced status (vs. married; OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.5), Medicaid eligibility (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.7), depression (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.5), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.5), and inability to walk without assistive devices (vs. no difficulty walking; OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.7) were independently associated with chronic opioid use.Conclusion. A total of 9% of persons with knee OA use opioids chronically. Efforts to find nonopioid regimens for treating knee OA pain should be tailored to patients at high risk for chronic use.

No abstract