Network Meta-analysis and Economic Evaluation of Neurostimulation Interventions for Chronic Non-surgical Refractory back Pain.

Different types of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have now been evaluated for the management of chronic non-surgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). A direct comparison between the different types of SCS or between closed-loop SCS with conventional medical management (CMM) for patients with NSRBP has not been previously conducted, and therefore, their relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, network meta-analysis (NMA) and economic evaluation of closed-loop SCS compared with fixed-output SCS and CMM for patients with NSRBP. Databases were searched to 8th September 2023. Randomised controlled trials of SCS for NSRBP were included. Results of studies were combined using fixed-effect NMA models. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service with results reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Closed-loop SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (mean difference [MD] 32.72 [95% CrI 15.69-49.78]) and improvements in secondary outcomes compared to fixed-output SCS at 6-months follow-up. Compared to CMM, both closed-loop and fixed-output SCS result in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (closed-loop SCS vs. CMM MD 101.58 [95% CrI 83.73-119.48]; fixed-output SCS versus CMM MD 68.86 [95% CrI 63.43-74.31]) and improvements in secondary outcomes. Cost-utility analysis shows that closed-loop SCS dominates fixed-output SCS and CMM, and fixed-output SCS also dominates CMM. Current evidence shows that closed-loop and fixed-output SCS provide more benefits and are cost-saving compared to CMM for patients with NSRBP.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: This work was supported by Saluda Medical. SE reports consultancy fees from Medtronic, and Mainstay Medical outside the submitted work. He has received department research funding from the National Institute of Health Research, Saluda Medical and Medtronic. SN reports consultancy fees from Saluda Medical. AB MTech Access was commissioned by Saluda Medical to participate in this project. NAM reports receiving grants from Neuros, Mesoblast, and Vivex Biologics, as well as consulting as a medical monitor for Saluda Medical, Nevro, Vivex Biologics, Mainstay, Sollis Therapeutics, and Vertos outside the submitted work. CG reports consulting fees and stock options received from Mainstay, personal fees from Mainstay, Saluda Medical, Persica, and Iliad outside the submitted work, research funded by Sollis, expert witness testimony fees, and serves as Editor-in-Chief of Pain Practice. BB reports an educational grant from Saluda Medical and consultancy fees from Salvia Bioelectronics, Medtronic and Abbott outside the submitted work. PSS has received consultancy fees from Medtronic, Saluda Medical, Nalu, and Biotronic outside the submitted work, and has stock options from Saluda Medical and Nalu. MM reports no conflicts of interest. NS, AL and RVD are employees of Saluda Medical. RVD has previously received consultancy fees from Mainstay Medical, Medtronic, and Saluda Medical outside the submitted work.