Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound not cost-effective following IM nailing of fresh tibial fracture .
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)?
Sì = 1
Incerto = 0,5
Non rilevante = 0
No = 0
La valutazione dei criteri di segnalazione valuta la trasparenza con cui gli autori riportano le caratteristiche metodologiche e sperimentali dello studio all'interno della pubblicazione. La valutazione è suddivisa in cinque categorie che vengono presentate di seguito.
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 di Fragilità è uno strumento che aiuta l'interpretazione dei risultati significativi, fornendo una misura della forza di un risultato. L'Indice di Fragilità rappresenta il numero di eventi consecutivi che devono essere aggiunti a un risultato dicotomico per rendere il risultato non più significativo. Un numero piccolo rappresenta un risultato più debole, mentre un numero grande rappresenta un risultato più forte.
Perché questo studio era necessario ora?
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.
Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?
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?
- 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.
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?
Following intramedullary nailing of a tibial fracture, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound did not appear to be cost-effective when compared to sham LIPUS.
Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?
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.
DISCLAIMER
Il contenuto di questa pagina è solo a scopo informativo e non intende sostituire la consulenza, la diagnosi o il trattamento medico professionale. Se ha bisogno di cure mediche, si rivolga sempre al suo medico o al pronto soccorso più vicino. Le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista espressi dalle persone sui contenuti presenti in questa pagina non riflettono le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista di OrthoEvidence.
0 di 4 articoli mensili GRATUITI sbloccati
