ULNAR NEUROPATHY AT THE ELBOW: A COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS

Monday, October 24, 2011
Grand Ballroom AB (Hyatt Regency Chicago)
Poster Board # 6
(ESP) Applied Health Economics, Services, and Policy Research

Candidate for the Lee B. Lusted Student Prize Competition


Jae W. Song, M.D., M.S., Kevin C. Chung, M.D., M.S. and Lisa A. Prosser, M.S., Ph.D., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Purpose: Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) is the second most common compressive neuropathy of the upper extremity, but the most optimal treatment for this disease is uncertain. We performed a cost-utility analysis for four different surgical treatments for UNE.

Methods:  A cost-utility analysis was performed from the societal perspective. A decision analytic model was designed comparing 4 surgical treatment strategies: (a) simple decompression followed by a salvage surgery (anterior submuscular transposition) for a bad outcome; (b) anterior subcutaneous transposition followed by a salvage surgery for a bad outcome; (c) medial epicondylectomy followed by a salvage surgery for a bad outcome; and (d) anterior submuscular transposition. A bad outcome after anterior submuscular transposition as the initial surgery was considered an end-point in the model. Preferences for temporary health states for UNE, the surgeries, and surgical complications were elicited through a time trade-off survey administered to a convenience sample of 102 caregivers accompanying patients to physician visits. Probabilities of clinical outcomes and complications were derived from a Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis and a systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE search of the medical literature. Costs (2009 U.S. dollars) were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates. The model estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs for a 3-year time horizon. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of uncertainty for input parameters on model results.

Results:  In the reference-case analysis, simple decompression as an initial procedure was the most effective treatment strategy (Table 1). Multi-way sensitivity analyses varying the preferences for the surgeries supported the robustness of the results. A model structure sensitivity analysis was also performed with a surgical re-exploration following a bad outcome for an initial anterior submuscular transposition. Under all evaluated scenarios, simple decompression yielded cost-effectiveness ratios less than $2,031/QALY.

Conclusions:   These results suggest simple decompression surgery as an initial treatment option is the preferred option for treating UNE and is cost-effective according to commonly-used cost-effectiveness thresholds. However, further studies are needed to better understand whether the marginal differences in effectiveness are clinically significant.