Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Malawi.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Acta Orthop. 2021 Aug;92(4):436-442. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1897927. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
Background and purpose - In Malawi, both skeletal traction (ST) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are used in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures, ST being the mainstay treatment. Previous studies have found that IMN has improved outcomes and is less expensive than ST. However, no cost-effectiveness analyses have yet compared IMN and ST in Malawi. We report the results of a cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing treatment using either IMN or ST.Patients and methods - This was an economic evaluation study, where a CUA was done using a decision-tree model from the government healthcare payer and societal perspectives with an 1-year time horizon. We obtained EQ-5D-3L utility scores and probabilities from a prospective observational study assessing quality of life and function in 187 adult patients with femoral shaft fractures treated with either IMN or ST. The patients were followed up at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-injury. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from utility scores using the area under the curve method. Direct treatment costs were obtained from a prospective micro costing study. Indirect costs included patient lost productivity, patient transportation, meals, and childcare costs associated with hospital stay and follow-up visits. Multiple sensitivity analyses assessed model uncertainty.Results - Total treatment costs were higher for ST ($1,349) compared with IMN ($1,122). QALYs were lower for ST than IMN, 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.76) and 0.77 (CI 0.71-0.82) respectively. Based on lower cost and higher utility, IMN was the dominant strategy. IMN remained dominant in 94% of simulations. IMN would be less cost-effective than ST at a total procedure cost exceeding $880 from the payer's perspective, or $1,035 from the societal perspective.Interpretation - IMN was cost saving and more effective than ST in the treatment of adult femoral shaft fractures in Malawi, and may be an efficient use of limited healthcare resources.
背景与目的-在马拉维,骨骼牵引(ST)和髓内钉(IMN)均用于治疗股骨干骨折,ST 是主要治疗方法。既往研究发现 IMN 可改善预后,且成本低于 ST。然而,在马拉维,尚无比较 IMN 和 ST 的成本效益分析。我们报告了一项成本效用分析(CUA)的结果,该分析比较了使用 IMN 或 ST 治疗的结果。
患者和方法-这是一项经济学评价研究,从政府医疗保健支付方和社会角度,采用决策树模型进行 CUA,时间范围为 1 年。我们从一项前瞻性观察性研究中获得了 EQ-5D-3L 效用评分和概率,该研究评估了 187 例股骨干骨折成年患者接受 IMN 或 ST 治疗后的生活质量和功能。患者在受伤后 6 周、3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月时接受随访。使用曲线下面积法从效用评分计算质量调整生命年(QALY)。直接治疗成本来自前瞻性微观成本研究。间接成本包括与住院和随访相关的患者生产力损失、患者交通、膳食和儿童保育费用。多项敏感性分析评估了模型的不确定性。
结果-ST(1349 美元)的总治疗费用高于 IMN(1122 美元)。ST 的 QALY 低于 IMN,分别为 0.71(95%置信区间 [CI] 0.66-0.76)和 0.77(CI 0.71-0.82)。基于较低的成本和较高的效用,IMN 是主导策略。在 94%的模拟中,IMN 仍具有优势。从支付方角度看,当总治疗费用超过 880 美元,或从社会角度看,当总治疗费用超过 1035 美元时,IMN 比 ST 的成本效益低。
结论-在马拉维,IMN 治疗成人股骨干骨折既节省成本又比 ST 更有效,可能是对有限医疗资源的有效利用。