Cost-effectiveness of upper extremity dry needling in the rehabilitation of patients with stroke

2021 ◽  
pp. 096452842110557
Author(s):  
Daniel Fernández Sanchis ◽  
Juan Nicolás Cuenca Zaldívar ◽  
Sandra Calvo ◽  
Pablo Herrero ◽  
Manuel Gómez Barrera
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Dry Needling ◽  
Levels Of Care ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Dry needling (DN) has been shown to be effective for the treatment of upper extremity hypertonia in patients with stroke. Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DN in patients with stroke. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in a research study conducted at a Spanish public hospital where patients were classified into two groups with or without DN. Hypertonia was measured using the Modified Modified Ashworth Scale (MMAS), and quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the EuroQoL 5-dimension questionnaire. Data regarding the effects and costs of physiotherapy were presented by calculating the mean and 95% confidence interval. The health outcomes were evaluated considering the rate of responders to the treatment based on the MMAS. Spanish preference weights were used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were calculated to determine the economic value of DN. Results: Eighty patients with stroke in the subacute stage of recovery were selected to participate in this study. Based on the rate of responders, the ICER of the DN group was very low. Despite the sensitivity analysis performed, the results of the ICUR were not encouraging. Discussion: Cost-effectiveness with responder rate results were favourable for the DN group and were confirmed by the sensitivity analysis according to levels of care. In addition, our findings revealed that 4 weeks of treatment could be more cost-effective than 8 weeks. DN treatment of the upper extremity appears to be cost-effective based on the rate of responders measured using the MMAS scale.

PP146 Cost Effectiveness Of Aripiprazole Orally Disintegrating Tablets For The Treatment Of Schizophrenia In China

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 17-17
Author(s):  
Ziyi Lin ◽  
Jianwei Xuan
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Discrete Event ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Brand Names ◽  
Chinese Market ◽  
Local Data ◽  
Oral Tablet ◽  
Life Years

IntroductionAlthough antipsychotic medications have been a cornerstone in the treatment of schizophrenia for decades worldwide, the orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) formulation is a new concept in China. Only four brand names exist in the Chinese market, three of which were launched recently. Patients taking ODTs have a higher rate of medication adherence and consequently experience better treatment outcomes than patients taking the same medication in standard oral tablet (SOT) formulation. This study aimed to analyze the cost effectiveness in China of aripiprazole in ODT form, compared with the SOT forms of aripiprazole and olanzapine.MethodsA discrete-event simulation model was built to represent the one-year progression of schizophrenia. On entry into the model, 100,000 people for each treatment arm were labeled fully adherent, partially adherent, or non-adherent based on medication possession ratios, and then experienced events including relapse, adverse events, changing adherence levels, and treatment switching and quitting. Parameters for adherence rates, medical costs, and utility values were derived from the published literature. The switching pattern was acquired through interviews with fifty-seven Chinese psychiatrists.ResultsThe total annual costs per patient in the aripiprazole-ODT, aripiprazole-SOT, and olanzapine-SOT arms were CNY 9,817 (USD 1,388), CNY 15,278 (USD 2,160), and CNY 10,298 (USD 1,456), respectively. The annual quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient in the aripiprazole-ODT, aripiprazole-SOT, and olanzapine-SOT arms were 0.73, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of aripiprazole-ODT being cost effective was ninety-nine percent, when compared with aripiprazole-SOT and sixty-nine percent when compared with olanzapine-SOT.ConclusionsAripiprazole-ODT was associated with lower costs and higher gains in QALYs than either aripiprazole-SOT or olanzapine-SOT in patients with schizophrenia in China. While the sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the result that aripiprazole-ODT was better economic value than aripiprazole-SOT, there is some uncertainty in the comparison between aripiprazole-ODT and olanzapine-SOT. The main limitation of this study is that some parameters were sourced from studies on Western populations because of a lack of data in China. Local data on the use of antipsychotics, especially adherence rates, is needed.

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
John H Walker ◽  
Trevor Gray ◽  
Colin Vicente ◽  
Thomas R Einarson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

scholarly journals A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambica Parmar ◽  
Narhari Timilshina ◽  
Urban Emmenegger ◽  
Martin Smoragiewicz ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality, vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. Methods: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide + ADT, as compared to ADT alone for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. Results: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219,051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions >50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. Conclusions: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

Economic rationale on the use of m-Health in uncontrolled hypertensive outpatients: from three months and beyond

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Ionov ◽  
O.V Zhukova ◽  
N.E Zvartau ◽  
A.O Konradi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cardiovascular Morbidity And Mortality

Abstract Background/Introduction Current scientific data show that blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with/without additional counseling is rather effective in hypertension (HTN) management. However, cost-effectiveness and long-term social sequelae are lacking. This is because of diverse technologies and economic climate which make results highly heterogeneous across countries. Purpose To construct predictive model of long-term outcomes and to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of BP telemonitoring and remote counseling (BPTM) using m-Health in Russian population of outpatients with HTN. Methods Total of 240 patients were randomized (2:1) to either BPTM (n=160, mean age 47 y.o.) and to usual care (UC, n=80, mean age 49 y.o.) with baseline, three-month follow-up clinic visits combined with ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). BPTM consisted of m-Health tool for patients, desktop module for clinicians. It enables BP data transfer and analysis, secure web chatting to support and counsel. Main outcomes were change in office, ambulatory systolic (S) BP and rate of BP control. A Markov cohort-based (1000 patients per study arm) model was developed and adopted a 10-year time horizon with 12-month time cycles. All patients started at a non-complicated HTN “well” state with a certain possibility of disease progression in a number of health states over a discrete time period. BPTM was compared with usual care in terms of 10-year healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) using a Ministry of Health of Russian Federation perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) represented economic analysis. Results BPTM was associated with steeper decrease in office, ambulatory SBP (−16,8 mm Hg and −8,9 mm Hg, respectively; p<0,05) with the same treatment intensity (2,4 drugs per patient). There were 102 (64%) and 11 (14%) patients with fully controlled HTN in BPTM and UC groups, respectively (OR 11,03 95% CI [5,4–22,5]). An ICER of BPTM resulted in additional 11,1 EUR/1 mm Hg/year. It is expected that BPTM will be at least 76% cost-effective as per relevant Russian willingness-to-pay threshold. In a modelled 10-year period BPTM was life-saving (9,71 vs 9,6 life years gained) and cheap (cost of illness 1,5 mln vs 2,1 mln EUR). BPTM was also more valuable (8,31 versus 7,82 QALYs gained) so the ICUR was 3601,47 EUR/QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness was further confirmed by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Conclusion BPTM seems to be clinically and economically effective when implemented into clinical practice. It provides greater BP reduction, improves BP control short-term. In a long-term it is likely to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a cost-effective way. Larger randomized studies are needed to confirm these pilot results. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): The Russian Scientific Foundation

scholarly journals A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Verses Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meiyue Li ◽  
Peili Lin ◽  
Shaohong Luo ◽  
Xiaoting Huang ◽  
Xiaojia Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health State ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background: Several studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the economics of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Ate plus Beva) remains unclear. Method: A three-state Markov model was established to simulate the life-time cost and effectiveness of advanced liver cancer, which included costs and health outcomes. Medical costs were sourced from Red Book, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and literatures. Also, the utility values of health state were deprived from references. The primary outcomes were measured by life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). The robustness of the model was verified by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Ate plus Beva generated a gain of 0.84 QALYs (1.17 LYs ), an additional incremental cost of $242,447.40 per patient as compared with sorafenib, which resulted in the ICER of $288,663.09/QALY ($206,906.76/LY) at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, and the INHB was -0.78/QALY. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most affected by the price of atezolizumab.Conclusion: From the U.S. health care payer perspective, compare with sorafenib, Ate plus Beva regimen seems unlikely to be cost-effective in advanced HCC patients at a WTP threshold of 150,000 /QALY. If the price of atezolizumab was reduced by 75%, the probability of atezolizumab being cost-effective was over 50% at the WTP threshold.

PP64 Economic Evaluation For Esophageal Cancer Screening In China

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 49-49
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Li ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Xiaoqian Hu ◽  
Shuyan Gu ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Life Years

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of esophageal cancer (EC) screening compared to non-screening in China.MethodsA Markov model was conducted that followed the history of EC. Screening strategies targeted a population aged 40-69 years, classified into six age groups. Each age group had three cohorts: screening without follow-up, screening with yearly follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN), and non-screening. Life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) presented the effectiveness and utility. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were evaluating indicators. Eighteen cohorts from 100,000 hypothetical individuals were used to run the model, until aged 79 years or death. Costs were changed into USD using the purchasing power parity of 3.506 in 2017. The willingness-to-pay was set as three times the gross domestic product per capita (USD 51,340.6) in 2017. A sensitivity analysis was introduced to assess model robustness.ResultsScreening with follow-up compared to non-screening, ages 40-44, 45-49, and 50-54 years, showed cost-effectiveness, with one LY gained costing USD 6,875.0, USD 9,204.6, and USD 25,278.6, respectively. Ages 40-44 and 45-49 years explained cost-utility, with ICURs of USD 6,709.4/QALY and USD 13,991.4/QALY, respectively. Screening without follow-up compared to non-screening, ages 40-54 years, addressed cost-effectiveness, with one LY gained costing USD 6,934.8, USD 9,760.0, and USD 35,126.0 in ages 40-44, 45-49, and 50-54 years, respectively; the 40-44 years age group demonstrated cost-utility with an ICUR of USD 8,512.3/QALY. Screening with follow-up compared to screening without follow-up, all ages, explained cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported the outcome of the base cohort analysis.ConclusionsCompared to non-screening, screening with follow-up targeting ages 40-54 years was highly recommended with the ICER as the evaluated indicator, whereas it targeting ages 40-49 years was suggested with the ICUR as indicator.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab monotherapy versus pembrolizumab monotherapy for first-line (1L) treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18847-e18847
Author(s):  
Chia-Wei Lin ◽  
Katherine Rosettie ◽  
Pinar Bilir ◽  
Hazal Celik ◽  
Seye Abogunrin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Anaplastic Lymphoma ◽  
Life Years

e18847 Background: Atezolizumab monotherapy is indicated as 1L treatment for mNSCLC patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%) and without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of 1L atezolizumab monotherapy vs. pembrolizumab monotherapy for mNSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression from a US third-party payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with progression-free, progressive disease (PD), and death states was developed in Microsoft Excel to compare clinical and cost outcomes of atezolizumab monotherapy vs. pembrolizumab monotherapy. Efficacy, safety, and utility data were derived from systematic reviews and indirect comparisons of the IMpower110, Keynote-024, and Keynote-042 trials. Product prescribing information and clinical trials informed dosing and administration. Wholesale acquisition cost (WAC, accessed in January 2021) for drugs were used while other cost inputs were derived from publicly available fee schedules and peer-reviewed literature. The key outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis with 20% variation and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to address uncertainties around input parameters. Results: In the base case, 1L atezolizumab monotherapy was projected to increase life expectancy for patients by 0.60 life-years (4.35 vs. 3.75) and 0.47 QALYs (3.46 vs. 2.98) over pembrolizumab monotherapy at an incremental cost of $27,947 (mean total cost: $396,811 vs. $368,864), resulting in an ICER of $58,841/QALY gained. Results of the deterministic sensitivity analysis were most sensitive to changes in discount rates for costs and care costs in the PD state. The PSA showed that the probability of atezolizumab being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 and $150,000 was 41% and 49%, respectively. Conclusions: First-line atezolizumab monotherapy had 0.6 life-years and 0.47 QALYs gained compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy and was estimated to be cost-effective (ICER $58,841/QALY). As the ICER falls below the US cost-effectiveness thresholds ( < $100,000-$150,000/QALY), clinicians and payers should consider atezolizumab monotherapy as a cost-effective 1L option for mNSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

Cost-effectiveness of dual-mobility components in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (12) ◽  
pp. 1783-1790
Author(s):  
Spencer Montgomery ◽  
Jonathan Bourget-Murray ◽  
Daniel Z. You ◽  
Leo Nherera ◽  
Amir Khoshbin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Physiological Age ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Dual Mobility ◽  
Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures

Aims Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with dual-mobility components (DM-THA) has been shown to decrease the risk of dislocation in the setting of a displaced neck of femur fracture compared to conventional single-bearing THA (SB-THA). This study assesses if the clinical benefit of a reduced dislocation rate can justify the incremental cost increase of DM-THA compared to SB-THA. Methods Costs and benefits were established for patients aged 75 to 79 years over a five-year time period in the base case from the Canadian Health Payer’s perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the base case model conclusions. Results DM-THA was found to be cost-effective, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $46,556 (£27,074) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis revealed DM-THA was not cost-effective across all age groups in the first two years. DM-THA becomes cost-effective for those aged under 80 years at time periods from five to 15 years, but was not cost-effective for those aged 80 years and over at any timepoint. To be cost-effective at ten years in the base case, DM-THA must reduce the risk of dislocation compared to SB-THA by at least 62%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed DM-THA was 58% likely to be cost-effective in the base case. Conclusion Treating patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture using DM-THA components may be cost-effective compared to SB-THA in patients aged under 80 years. However, future research will help determine if the modelled rates of adverse events hold true. Surgeons should continue to use clinical judgement and consider individual patients’ physiological age and risk factors for dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1783–1790.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document