Abstract
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.
Highlights
Linda Chokotho, Claire A Donnelley, Sven Young, Brian C Lau, Hao-Hua Wu, Nyengo Mkandawire, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Geir Hallan, Kiran J Agarwal-Harding & David Shearer
We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus skeletal traction (ST) in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures in Malawi using Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as a measure of effectiveness, to determine which treatment modality best represents efficient use of healthcare resources from government healthcare payer and societal perspectives
We used data from 187 patients who completed 1-year followup to estimate utilities and probabilities, including 55 cases treated with a SIGN intramedullary nail (IMN) and 132 cases treated with ST
Summary
Linda Chokotho, Claire A Donnelley, Sven Young, Brian C Lau, Hao-Hua Wu, Nyengo Mkandawire, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Geir Hallan, Kiran J Agarwal-Harding & David Shearer. 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 EQ5D-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. Total treatment costs were higher for ST ($1,349) compared with IMN ($1,122). Based on lower cost and higher utility, IMN was the dominant strategy. 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
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.