Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee Meeting on lumbar fusion surgery for treatment of chronic back pain from degenerative disc disease.
Jyme H. Schafer,Dr. O’Connor,S. Feinglass,M. Salive
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0B013E3181573841
IF: 3.241
2007-10-15
Spine
Abstract:Uncertainty is common in clinical medicine. Confidence in the benefits of a treatment can be gained from the evidence; however, this can be challenging as the same evidence may engender confidence in some and incredulity in others. The Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee (MedCAC) was convened November 2006 to provide recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) on the quality and strength of evidence for the benefits and risks of spinal fusion surgery for chronic low back pain from lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the Medicare population. This MedCAC arose from the 2006 national coverage decision on lumbar artificial disc replacement. As the comparative trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority, CMS felt it was important to identify the quality and strength of the evidence for the comparator: fusion. The MedCAC was chartered to provide independent guidance to CMS, which retains final decision-making authority. A topic such as spinal fusion is referred to the MedCAC based on criteria that include significant controversy among experts and a paucity of research addressing conditions of the elderly. Opening the meeting, Duke’s Technology Assessment focused on this question: in patients 65 years or older with DDD of the lumbar spine, what is the evidence regarding indications and outcomes of lumbar spinal fusion as compared to nonsurgical management? They identified 4 randomized controlled trials in the non-U.S. middle-aged population, which had mixed results. Two of four studies did show statistically significant differences in the Oswestry Disability Index, although the clinical significance of the latter study’s difference (4.1 points) was questioned. Differences in patient selection and intensity of rehabilitation therapy between the studies complicated comparison. Most evidence was from series/cohort studies. Limitations in these studies were acknowledged: outcomes often were not patientcentered or well-measured; nonsurgical controls were not standardized; there was variability in defining the clinical condition; few elderly patients were included; and inclusion criteria were driven not by the patient’s symptom presentation but by the procedure. Importantly, a more stringent criteria-based approach to define patient selection and choice of surgical procedures is needed. Next, an academic spine surgeon commented on the clinical outcomes of fusion for chronic low back pain. Complex clinical issues were discussed: vague symptoms, difficult differential diagnosis, questionable etiology, insufficient diagnostic tools, and inconsistent use of measurement instruments. These challenges occur within the context of an already difficult treatment decision: lack of a clear diagnosis/indication, increasing number of spinal devices cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, ethical issues in trial design, and the increasing number of fusions in the over 60 population who have more active lifestyles and increased expectations. Fusion appears to have a role in treatment of discogenic back pain, but stricter selection criteria would achieve better outcomes. A second academic spine surgeon reviewed the variation in utilization, efficacy, and safety. Regional fusion rates in the United States vary up to 20-fold, with an overall increasing trend in the number of spinal fusions performed. Although there is a lack of compelling evidence that fusion is a much better procedure than other alternatives, it is probably better than currently available nonsurgical care in the United States, where there is a lack of an available structured comprehensive nonoperative program. Safety data are limited. Advances in technology have, at the very least, improved reoperation rates. Financial conflicts were felt to bear on the rate variation. Votes on the level of confidence or likelihood, based on the evidence presented, were scored on a scale of no confidence (1) to highly confident. (5) The confidence in the ability of current measures such as ODI to determine the effectiveness of fusion for DDD was equivocal. The likelihood of improvement in clinical outcomes from fusion compared with conservative treatment during shortterm ( 2 years) and long-term ( 2 years) follow-up was From the Coverage and Analysis Group, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland. The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). The statements of the authors are personal and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the CMS or other goverment institutions. No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jyme Schafer, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Blvd., Mailstop C1-09-06, Baltimore, MD 21244.