TRAUMA
Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for treatment of tibial fractures: an economic evaluation of the TRUST study
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2018;6(9):19 Bone Joint J. 2017 Nov;99-B(11):1526-1532501 patients who had undergone intramedullary nail fixation for a fresh tibial fracture were randomized to either active low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) or sham LIPUS. Groups were compared for quality-adjusted life-years, based on the Health Utility Index Mark-3 (HUI-3), costs in 2015 Canadian dollars associated with treatment, and a cost-utility analysis was performed. Active LIPUS demonstrated significantly greater costs compared to the sham group, with no significant difference in QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $146,006/QALY gained to $155,443/QALY gained with the use of LIPUS, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) estimated 1% likelihood of LIPUS being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 from a payer perspective.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
4/4
Randomization
4/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/5
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is currently used as an intervention to reduce time to fracture healing and decrease the risk of nonunion. However, high-quality evidence in support of these benefits has been inconsistent, and most recent evidence has pointed to similar outcomes with and without LIPUS treatment. A cost-utility analysis, performed alongside a large randomized controlled trial (The Trial to Re-evaluate Ultrasound in the Treatment of Tibial Fractures [TRUST]) was thus needed.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Is the use of LIPUS following operative management of a fresh tibial fracture cost-effective, as measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and against willingness-to-pay thresholds of either $50,000 and $100,000?
Quels sont les résultats importants ?
- Total cost from a payer perspective (ie. not including wage loss) was significantly higher in the LIPUS group ($5656 [95%CI 5389-5923]) compared to the placebo group ($2009 [95%CI 1680-2338]) (p<0.001). Total cost from a societal perspective was also significantly higher in the LIPUS group ($13901[95%CI 12616-15186]) compared to the placebo group ($10475 [95%CI 9128-11823]) (p<0.001).
- Total QALYs gained did not significantly differ between the LIPUS group (0.686 [95%CI 0.666-0.705]) and the placebo group (0.662 [95%CI 0.639-0.685]) (p=0.47).
- From a payer perspective, ICER was $155,443/QALY gained. From a societal perspective, ICER was $146,006/QALY gained.
- From a payer perspective, CEAC demonstrated a 1% probability of LIPUS being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 and a 23% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.
- From a societal perspective, CEAC demonstrated a 5% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 and a 31% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
Following intramedullary nailing of a tibial fracture, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound did not appear to be cost-effective when compared to sham LIPUS.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
The results of this study suggest that routinely prescribing LIPUS use following intramedullary nail fixation of a fresh tibial fracture is unlikely to be a cost-effective practice.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
