Mundy Linda
HealthPACT, Health Improvement Unit, Clinical Excellence Division, Department of Health, Queensland, Level 2, 15 Butterfield Street, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia. Email.
Aust Health Rev. 2017 Mar;41(1):33-37. doi: 10.1071/AH15075.
Objective This paper discusses the potential for horizon scanning to identify low-value, inappropriate clinical practices that deliver minimal benefit to patients and represent a considerable financial burden on the health system. Methods Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was identified by routine horizon scanning as a potentially innovative treatment alternative for osteoarthritis of the knee. A rapid, non-systematic assessment of the evidence pertaining to the safety and effectiveness of PRP compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee was conducted. Results The evidence base supporting the use of PRP for the treatment of osteoarthritis was poor. No comparative studies were identified that compared the use of PRP to NSAIDs, the current treatment option for osteoarthritis of the knee in Australia. Despite the lack of effectiveness evidence, the use of PRP injections was rapidly increasing in the private sector using an inappropriate Medicare Benefits Schedule item number. Conclusions This assessment highlights the potential of using established horizon scanning methodologies to identify targets for full or partial disinvestment of ineffective, inefficient or harmful clinical practices. What is known about the topic? PRP is rapidly diffusing in the private health system in Australia, however the use of a Medicare Benefits Schedule item number meant that this practice was being subsidised by the public reimbursement of treatment fees. What does this paper add? Traditional horizon scanning tends to identify technologies for health systems to invest in. The evidence on the effectiveness of PRP was examined with the purpose of exploring investment in an innovative treatment that may have reduced the number of invasive procedures being performed in the public hospital system. The current evidence base does not support the use of PRP injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis. It does, however, support the use of horizon scanning as an inexpensive methodology to identify possible disinvestment targets associated with potential patient harm and high health service expenditure. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners should be aware that public funding for the injection of PRP should not be used for the treatment of osteoarthritis.
目的 本文探讨了前瞻性扫描识别低价值、不适当临床实践的潜力,这些实践对患者益处极小,却给卫生系统带来相当大的经济负担。方法 通过常规前瞻性扫描确定富血小板血浆(PRP)是膝关节骨关节炎一种潜在的创新治疗选择。对与PRP治疗膝关节骨关节炎的安全性和有效性相关的证据进行了快速、非系统性评估,与非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)进行比较。结果 支持使用PRP治疗骨关节炎的证据基础薄弱。未找到将PRP与NSAIDs(澳大利亚膝关节骨关节炎的当前治疗选择)进行比较的对照研究。尽管缺乏有效性证据,但在私立部门,使用不适当的医疗保险福利计划项目编号,PRP注射的使用仍在迅速增加。结论 该评估凸显了利用既定的前瞻性扫描方法识别对无效、低效或有害临床实践进行全部或部分撤资目标的潜力。关于该主题已知的情况是什么?PRP在澳大利亚私立卫生系统中迅速传播,然而,医疗保险福利计划项目编号的使用意味着这种实践通过治疗费用的公共报销得到补贴。本文补充了什么?传统的前瞻性扫描往往识别卫生系统应投资的技术。研究了PRP有效性的证据,目的是探索对一种创新治疗的投资,这种治疗可能减少公立医院系统中进行的侵入性手术数量。当前的证据基础不支持使用PRP注射治疗骨关节炎。然而,它支持将前瞻性扫描作为一种低成本方法来识别与潜在患者伤害和高卫生服务支出相关的可能撤资目标。对从业者有何影响?从业者应意识到,PRP注射的公共资金不应用于治疗骨关节炎。