Comparative effectiveness research and policy

Experiences conducting a coverage with evidence development: Study of a therapeutic device

Judith A. Turner, William Hollingworth, Bryan Comstock, Richard (Rick) Deyo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objective: The Washington State workers' compensation agency funded a coverage with evidence development study to evaluate spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic back and leg pain after spine surgery (failed back surgery syndrome). We previously published the study outcomes. We now report results from a second patient cohort; study costs; and industry, provider, and payer responses. Research Design, Subjects, and Measures: This prospective cohort study compared patients with failed back surgery syndrome who received at least a trial of SCS (n = 51), Pain Clinic evaluation (n = 39), or Usual Care only (n = 68) on measures of pain, physical functioning, and opioid medication use at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Between the end of subject enrollment and availability of final study results, a second SCS cohort (n = 30) was followed for 12 months. Results: SCS was associated with no benefits beyond 6 months and entailed risks, including one life-threatening event. After reviewing the results, the workers' compensation program decided to maintain its SCS noncoverage policy. SCS manufacturers and providers criticized multiple aspects of the study to policy decision-makers at all stages of the study. Accumulated evidence will be reviewed by the Washington State Health Technology Assessment Program to make decisions regarding all Washington State agencies' coverage for SCS. Conclusions: Coverage with evidence development studies may yield important information not apparent from randomized clinical trials concerning long-term risks and benefits of a therapy in clinical practice for specific subpopulations, but are likely to be met with criticism from interested parties.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalMedical Care
Volume48
Issue number6 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Spinal Cord Stimulation
Equipment and Supplies
Failed Back Surgery Syndrome
Workers' Compensation
Therapeutics
Pain Clinics
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Back Pain
Administrative Personnel
Chronic Pain
Opioid Analgesics
Leg
Industry
Spine
Cohort Studies
Research Design
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Comparative effectiveness research
  • Coverage with evidence development
  • Spinal cord stimulation
  • Workers' compensation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Comparative effectiveness research and policy : Experiences conducting a coverage with evidence development: Study of a therapeutic device. / Turner, Judith A.; Hollingworth, William; Comstock, Bryan; Deyo, Richard (Rick).

In: Medical Care, Vol. 48, No. 6 SUPPL., 06.2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{08346e39c29646869b3ad58ed6a823c2,
title = "Comparative effectiveness research and policy: Experiences conducting a coverage with evidence development: Study of a therapeutic device",
abstract = "Background and Objective: The Washington State workers' compensation agency funded a coverage with evidence development study to evaluate spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic back and leg pain after spine surgery (failed back surgery syndrome). We previously published the study outcomes. We now report results from a second patient cohort; study costs; and industry, provider, and payer responses. Research Design, Subjects, and Measures: This prospective cohort study compared patients with failed back surgery syndrome who received at least a trial of SCS (n = 51), Pain Clinic evaluation (n = 39), or Usual Care only (n = 68) on measures of pain, physical functioning, and opioid medication use at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Between the end of subject enrollment and availability of final study results, a second SCS cohort (n = 30) was followed for 12 months. Results: SCS was associated with no benefits beyond 6 months and entailed risks, including one life-threatening event. After reviewing the results, the workers' compensation program decided to maintain its SCS noncoverage policy. SCS manufacturers and providers criticized multiple aspects of the study to policy decision-makers at all stages of the study. Accumulated evidence will be reviewed by the Washington State Health Technology Assessment Program to make decisions regarding all Washington State agencies' coverage for SCS. Conclusions: Coverage with evidence development studies may yield important information not apparent from randomized clinical trials concerning long-term risks and benefits of a therapy in clinical practice for specific subpopulations, but are likely to be met with criticism from interested parties.",
keywords = "Comparative effectiveness research, Coverage with evidence development, Spinal cord stimulation, Workers' compensation",
author = "Turner, {Judith A.} and William Hollingworth and Bryan Comstock and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)}",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d9e622",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6 SUPPL.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness research and policy

T2 - Experiences conducting a coverage with evidence development: Study of a therapeutic device

AU - Turner, Judith A.

AU - Hollingworth, William

AU - Comstock, Bryan

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - Background and Objective: The Washington State workers' compensation agency funded a coverage with evidence development study to evaluate spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic back and leg pain after spine surgery (failed back surgery syndrome). We previously published the study outcomes. We now report results from a second patient cohort; study costs; and industry, provider, and payer responses. Research Design, Subjects, and Measures: This prospective cohort study compared patients with failed back surgery syndrome who received at least a trial of SCS (n = 51), Pain Clinic evaluation (n = 39), or Usual Care only (n = 68) on measures of pain, physical functioning, and opioid medication use at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Between the end of subject enrollment and availability of final study results, a second SCS cohort (n = 30) was followed for 12 months. Results: SCS was associated with no benefits beyond 6 months and entailed risks, including one life-threatening event. After reviewing the results, the workers' compensation program decided to maintain its SCS noncoverage policy. SCS manufacturers and providers criticized multiple aspects of the study to policy decision-makers at all stages of the study. Accumulated evidence will be reviewed by the Washington State Health Technology Assessment Program to make decisions regarding all Washington State agencies' coverage for SCS. Conclusions: Coverage with evidence development studies may yield important information not apparent from randomized clinical trials concerning long-term risks and benefits of a therapy in clinical practice for specific subpopulations, but are likely to be met with criticism from interested parties.

AB - Background and Objective: The Washington State workers' compensation agency funded a coverage with evidence development study to evaluate spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic back and leg pain after spine surgery (failed back surgery syndrome). We previously published the study outcomes. We now report results from a second patient cohort; study costs; and industry, provider, and payer responses. Research Design, Subjects, and Measures: This prospective cohort study compared patients with failed back surgery syndrome who received at least a trial of SCS (n = 51), Pain Clinic evaluation (n = 39), or Usual Care only (n = 68) on measures of pain, physical functioning, and opioid medication use at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Between the end of subject enrollment and availability of final study results, a second SCS cohort (n = 30) was followed for 12 months. Results: SCS was associated with no benefits beyond 6 months and entailed risks, including one life-threatening event. After reviewing the results, the workers' compensation program decided to maintain its SCS noncoverage policy. SCS manufacturers and providers criticized multiple aspects of the study to policy decision-makers at all stages of the study. Accumulated evidence will be reviewed by the Washington State Health Technology Assessment Program to make decisions regarding all Washington State agencies' coverage for SCS. Conclusions: Coverage with evidence development studies may yield important information not apparent from randomized clinical trials concerning long-term risks and benefits of a therapy in clinical practice for specific subpopulations, but are likely to be met with criticism from interested parties.

KW - Comparative effectiveness research

KW - Coverage with evidence development

KW - Spinal cord stimulation

KW - Workers' compensation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953630379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953630379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d9e622

DO - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d9e622

M3 - Article

VL - 48

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 6 SUPPL.

ER -