Treatment of chronic pain with XXXX versus alternative therapies: cost-effectiveness analysis.

@entity1 @entity602 @entity1191 @entity158 @entity11252
OBJECTIVE: There is limited available research measuring the cost-effectiveness of @entity602 ( @entity602 ), compared with best medical treatment/conventional @entity158 therapy ( @entity1191 ). The purpose of this study was to tabulate the actual costs (in Canadian dollars) for a consecutive series of @entity1 treated with @entity602 in a constant health care delivery environment and to compare the costs with those for a control group treated in the same controlled environment. METHODS: We present a consecutive series of 104 @entity1 with @entity11252 . Within this group, 60 @entity1 underwent @entity602 electrode implantation, whereas 44 @entity1 were designated as control subjects. We monitored these @entity1 for a 5-year period and tabulated the actual costs incurred in diagnostic imaging, professional fees paid to physicians, implantation (including the costs for hardware), nursing visits for maintenance of the stimulators, physiotherapy, chiropractic treatments, massage therapy, and hospitalization for treatment of @entity158 . From these data, the cumulative costs for each group were calculated for a 5-year period. An analysis of Oswestry questionnaire results was also performed, to evaluate the effects of treatment on the quality of life. RESULTS: The actual mean cumulative cost for @entity602 therapy for a 5-year period was  29,123/ @entity1 , compared with  38,029 for @entity1191 . The cost of treatment for the @entity602 group was greater than that for the @entity1191 group in the first 2.5 years. The costs of treating @entity1 with @entity602 became less than those for @entity1191 after that period and remained so during the rest of the follow-up period. In addition, 15% of @entity602 -treated @entity1 were able to return to employment, because of superior @entity158 control and lower drug intake. No @entity1 in the control group were able to return to employment of any kind. CONCLUSION: @entity602 is cost-effective in the long term, despite the initial high costs of the implantable devices.
