Cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular ultrasound in focal neuropathies
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular ultrasound (NMUS) for the evaluation of focal neuropathies.
Methods A prior prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial demonstrated that NMUS, when added to electrodiagnostic testing, resulted in improved clinical outcomes after 6 months of follow-up. From this study, we abstracted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from the 36-item Short Form Health Survey and entered this health-utility estimate into a mixed trial and model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from the societal perspective. Costs of intervention (NMUS) were estimated from Medicare payment rates for Current Procedural Terminology codes. Health care use was otherwise estimated to be equal, but sensitivity analyses further examined this and other key assumptions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the primary outcome with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY.
Results The predicted mean health outcome associated with use of NMUS was 0.079 QALY, and the mean cost was $37, resulting in an ICER of $463 per QALY. Results and conclusions remained robust across all sensitivity analyses, including variations in time horizon, initial distribution of health states, costs, and effectiveness.
Conclusions From a societal perspective, the addition of NMUS to electrodiagnostic testing when evaluating a focal neuropathy is cost-effective. A study of longer follow-up incorporating total health care use would further quantify the value of NMUS.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01394822.
Glossary
- CTS=
- carpal tunnel syndrome;
- ICER=
- incremental cost-effectiveness ratio;
- NMUS=
- neuromuscular ultrasound;
- QALY=
- quality-adjusted life-year;
- SF-36=
- 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Editorial, page 1081
- Received September 24, 2018.
- Accepted in final form January 31, 2019.
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. Dennis Bourdette and Dr. Lindsey Wooliscroft
► Watch
Related Articles
Topics Discussed
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Articles
The cost-effectiveness of telestroke in the treatment of acute ischemic strokeR.E. Nelson, G.M. Saltzman, E.J. Skalabrin et al.Neurology, September 14, 2011 -
Article
Cost-effectiveness of surgery for drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy in the USShehryar R. Sheikh, Michael W. Kattan, Michael Steinmetz et al.Neurology, July 08, 2020 -
Articles
Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillationHooman Kamel, J. Donald Easton, S. Claiborne Johnston et al.Neurology, September 19, 2012 -
Articles
Cost-effectiveness of HLA-B*1502 genotyping in adult patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy in SingaporeDi Dong, Cynthia Sung, Eric Andrew Finkelstein et al.Neurology, September 05, 2012