Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for the detection of symptomatic full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound-based imaging strategies in the evaluation of a hypothetical population with a symptomatic full-thickness supraspinatus tendon (FTST) tear using formal cost-effectiveness analysis. A decision analytic model from the health care system perspective for 60-year-old patients with symptoms secondary to a suspected FTST tear was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of 3 imaging strategies during a 2-year time horizon: MRI, ultrasound, and ultrasound followed by MRI. Comprehensive literature search and expert opinion provided data on cost, probability, and quality of life estimates. The primary effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) through 2 years, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set to $100,000/QALY gained (2016 U.S. dollars). Costs and health benefits were discounted at 3%. Ultrasound was the least costly strategy ($1385). MRI was the most effective (1.332 QALYs). Ultrasound was the most cost-effective strategy but was not dominant. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for MRI was $22,756/QALY gained, below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that MRI was favored over the other imaging strategies over a wide range of reasonable costs. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, MRI was the preferred imaging strategy in 78% of the simulations. MRI and ultrasound represent cost-effective imaging options for evaluation of the patient thought to have a symptomatic FTST tear. The results indicate that MRI is the preferred strategy based on cost-effectiveness criteria, although the decision between MRI and ultrasound for an imaging center is likely to be dependent on additional factors, such as available resources and workflow.