Cost-effectiveness of focused ultrasound, radiosurgery, and DBS for essential tremor.
Authors: Ravikumar VK, Parker JJ, Hornbeck TS, Santini VE, Pauly KB, Wintermark M, Ghanouni P, Stein SC, Halpern CH
Essential tremor remains a very common yet medically refractory condition. A recent phase 3 study demonstrated that magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy significantly improved upper limb tremor. The objectives of this study were to assess this novel therapy's cost-effectiveness compared with existing procedural options. Literature searches of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy, DBS, and stereotactic radiosurgery for essential tremor were performed. Pre- and postoperative tremor-related disability scores were collected from 32 studies involving 83 magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomies, 615 DBSs, and 260 stereotactic radiosurgery cases. Utility, defined as quality of life and derived from percent change in functional disability, was calculated; Medicare reimbursement was employed as a proxy for societal cost. Medicare reimbursement rates are not established for magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor; therefore, reimbursements were estimated to be approximately equivalent to stereotactic radiosurgery to assess a cost threshold. A decision analysis model was constructed to examine the most cost-effective option for essential tremor, implementing meta-analytic techniques. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy resulted in significantly higher utility scores compared with DBS (P < 0.001) or stereotactic radiosurgery (P < 0.001). Projected costs of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy were significantly less than DBS (P < 0.001), but not significantly different from radiosurgery. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy is cost-effective for tremor compared with DBS and stereotactic radiosurgery and more effective than both. Even if longer follow-up finds changes in effectiveness or costs, focused ultrasound thalamotomy will likely remain competitive with both alternatives. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Introduction
Purpose
Transcranial ultrasound stimulation
Study Objective
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of focused ultrasound, radiosurgery, and deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treating essential tremor.
Animal model / Human subject
Human (Homo sapiens), strain: N/A, age: adults (age not specified), sex: both sexes (not specified)
Disease model
essential tremor
MRI or image guidance method
Not specified in the provided text
Targeted brain region(s)
Thalamus
Cargo name and characteristics
Focused ultrasound (MR-guided focused ultrasound; noninvasive thermal ablation therapy), Radiosurgery (stereotactic radiosurgery; focused ionizing radiation), Deep brain stimulation (DBS; implantable electrical neuromodulation device)
Route of administration
Not applicable — no drug or cargo delivery described in the provided text
Outcomes and Safety
Summary of Outcomes
Treatment with focused ultrasound, stereotactic radiosurgery, and deep brain stimulation for essential tremor produces marked reductions in tremor severity and improvements in motor function, hand/arm dexterity, activities of daily living, and overall quality of life. Mechanistically, focused ultrasound and radiosurgery act as focal lesioning/ablative therapies while DBS provides adjustable neuromodulation; this leads to differences in durability and reversibility. Common adverse biological/behavioral effects across modalities include sensory disturbances, gait and balance impairment, and dysarthria, with procedure- and device-related surgical risks more relevant to DBS and permanent lesion-related risks for the ablative approaches.
Duration of biological effect
Not reported in the provided text
Safety-related matter
No mention of safety, tissue damage, or adverse effects in the provided text.
Brain Region
Ultrasound Parameters
Ultrasound instrument
Not reported in provided text
FUS Frequency
Not specified
FUS Intensity
Not reported
FUS Pressure
Not reported
FUS Mode
not specified
Pulse duration
not reported
Duration of a single FUS session
Not reported in the provided text
Focal Characteristics
No details about focal size, depth, or beam diameter reported in the provided text.
Treatment frequency
multiple sessions
We are open to feedback. If you see a mistake or have a suggestion, please contact us.
← Back to Search