A 24-month retrospective update: follow-up hospitalization charges and readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to build upon previously-reported 12-month findings by retrospectively comparing 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges and potentially-relevant readmissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries that employed either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a nationwide healthcare system database. METHODS: A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2 in the original study, of whom 3,792 patients (23.4%) were identified in the current study with all-cause readmissions during the 24-month follow-up period. Confounding baseline patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics found in the original study were used to adjust multivariate regression models comparing differences in 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges (in 2020 US dollars) and lengths of stay (LOS; in days) between the groups. Differences in potentially-relevant follow-up readmissions were also compared, and all analyses were repeated in the subset of patients who only received treatment at a single level of the spine. RESULTS: The adjusted cumulative mean 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges in the full cohort were significantly lower in the V-CBA group ($99,087) versus the rhBMP-2 group ($124,389; P < 0.0001), and this pattern remained in the single-level cohort (V-CBA = $104,906 vs rhBMP-2 = $125,311; P = 0.0006). There were no differences between groups in adjusted cumulative mean LOS in either cohort. Differences in the rates of follow-up readmissions aligned with baseline comorbidities originally reported for the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were significantly lower for V-CBA patients in the full cohort (10.12% vs 12.00%; P = 0.0002) and similar between groups in the single-level cohort, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of baseline comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes, including bony fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US is associated with substantially lower 24-month follow-up hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of subsequent lumbar fusion procedures and potentially-relevant readmissions.

Lumbar spine fusion outcomes using a cellular bone allograft with lineage-committed bone-forming cells in 96 patients.

BACKGROUND: Instrumented posterior lumbar fusion (IPLF) with and without transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) is a common treatment for low back pain when conservative interventions have failed. Certain patient comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors, such as obesity and smoking, are known to negatively affect these procedures. An advanced cellular bone allograft (CBA) with viable osteogenic cells (V-CBA) has demonstrated high fusion rates, but the rates for patients with severe and/or multiple comorbidities remain understudied. The purpose of this study was to assess fusion outcomes in patients undergoing IPLF/TLIF using V-CBA with baseline comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors known to negatively affect bone fusion. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of de-identified data from consecutive patients at an academic medical center who underwent IPLF procedures with or without TLIF, and with V-CBA. Baseline patient and procedure characteristics were assessed. Radiological outcomes included fusion rates per the Lenke scale. Patient-reported clinical outcomes were evaluated via the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Operating room (OR) times and intraoperative blood loss rates were also assessed. RESULTS: Data from 96 patients were assessed with a total of 222 levels treated overall (mean: 2.3 levels) and a median follow-up time of 16 months (range: 6 to 45 months). Successful fusion (Lenke A or B) was reported for 88 of 96 patients (91.7%) overall, including in all IPLF-only patients. Of 22 patients with diabetes in the IPLF+TLIF group, fusion was reported in 20 patients (90.9%). In IPLF+TLIF patients currently using tobacco (n = 19), fusion was reported in 16 patients (84.3%), while in those with a history of tobacco use (n = 53), fusion was observed in 48 patients (90.6%). Successful fusion was reported in all 6 patients overall with previous pseudarthrosis at the same level. Mean postoperative ODI and VAS scores were significantly reduced versus preoperative ratings. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that V-CBA consistently yields successful fusion and significant decreases in patient-reported ODI and VAS, despite patient comorbidities and lifestyle risk factors that are known to negatively affect such bony healing.

A large database study of hospitalization charges and follow-up re-admissions in US lumbar fusion surgeries using a cellular bone allograft (CBA) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to retrospectively compare initial procedure and 12-month follow-up hospitalization charges and resource utilization (lengths of stay; LOS) for lumbar fusion surgeries using either recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or a cellular bone allograft comprised of viable lineage-committed bone cells (V-CBA) via a large US healthcare system database. Potentially relevant re-admissions during the follow-up period were also assessed. METHODS: A total of 16,172 patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery using V-CBA or rhBMP-2, of whom 3503 (21.66%) patients had follow-up re-admission data. Initial patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics were assessed to determine confounding factors. Multivariate regression modeling compared differences in hospitalization charges (in 2018 US dollars) and LOS (in days) between the groups, as well as incidences of potentially relevant re-admissions during the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The adjusted mean initial procedure and 12-month follow-up hospital charges were significantly lower in the V-CBA group versus the rhBMP-2 group ($109,061 and $108,315 versus $160,191 and $130,406, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). This disparity remained in an ad hoc comparison of charges for initial single-level treatments only (V-CBA = $103,064, rhBMP-2 = $149,620; P < 0.0001). The adjusted mean initial LOS were significantly lower in the V-CBA group (3.77 days) versus the rhBMP-2 group (3.88 days; P < 0.0001), but significantly higher for the cumulative follow-up hospitalizations in the 12-month follow-up period (7.87 versus 7.46 days, respectively; P < 0.0001). Differences in rates of follow-up re-admissions aligned with comorbidities at the initial procedure. Subsequent lumbar fusion rates were comparable, but significantly lower for V-CBA patients who had undergone single-level treatments only, in spite of V-CBA patients having significantly higher rates of initial comorbidities that could negatively impact clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that use of V-CBA for lumbar fusion surgeries performed in the US may result in substantially lower overall hospitalization charges versus rhBMP-2, with both exhibiting similar rates of 12-month re-admissions and subsequent lumbar fusion procedures.

Multilevel instrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusion with an allogeneic cellular bone graft.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of absence from work, disability, and impaired quality of life. Fusion surgery may be indicated when non-operative treatments have failed to provide relief. Surgery may include the use of fusion-enhancing implants, such as cellular bone allografts (CBAs). The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of one CBA (V-CBA) in patients who underwent instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF). METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from 150 consecutive patients who had undergone IPLF surgery between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, in which V-CBA was used. All surgeries were performed by one surgeon. V-CBA was mixed with local autograft bone. Patient diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, or spondylolysis with or without stenosis. Standing anteroposterior (AP) and lateral images were collected prior to surgery and again at the terminal visit, which took place between 6 and 33 months post-operatively. De-identified images were assessed radiologically. Adverse events were documented. The primary composite endpoint of fusion status was dependent upon two main criteria: bridging bone per the Lenke scale (classified as "A" definitely solid or "B" possibly solid) and posterior hardware status (intact). Lenke scale C or D were categorized as pseudarthrosis. RESULTS: Eighty-seven male and 63 female patients (613 levels total) underwent IPLF in which V-CBA was implanted. An average of 4.1 levels was treated, with 59.3% of patients having undergone treatment for more than 3 levels. Twenty-nine percent of patients had diabetes. Fifty-two percent of patients had previously used nicotine products, and 12% were current smokers. Sixteen serious adverse events were recorded and included lumbar seroma, cerebrospinal fluid leak, wound dehiscence, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and myocardial infarction. Successful fusion (Lenke scale "A" or "B") was recorded in 148 out of 150 patients (98.7%), or 608 out of 613 levels. The total pseudarthrosis rate was 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of V-CBA combined with local autograft in multilevel IPLF resulted in successful fusions in 98.7% of patients. These results are particularly robust given the complex nature of many of these cases: 89 patients had 4 or more surgical levels, and many patients had multiple comorbidities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Health economics for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a cost-effectiveness analysis of eight skin substitutes.

AIM: Skin substitutes are frequently used to treat chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), and many different options are available. While the clinical efficacy of many products has been evaluated, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the most popular skin substitutes and using the most recent cost data has been lacking. METHODS: This study compared eight skin substitutes using published efficacy rates combined with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2018 cost data. The study criteria resulted in the inclusion of seven studies that described efficacy rates for treatment of DFUs using the skin substitutes. RESULTS: The results revealed wide discrepancies between these skin substitutes for the costs of treatments and healing rates in hospital outpatient departments and physician office settings. Healing rates for 12 and 16 weeks ranged from 28% to 68%, while the average cost for treating one DFU varied from $2001 to $14,507 and $1207 to $8791 in the hospital outpatient department and physician's office setting, respectively. The estimated patient share of costs for treating a single DFU ranged from $400 to $2901 and $241 to $1758 in the hospital outpatient department and physician's office setting, respectively. Most importantly, the estimated number of wounds healed out of 100 DFUs per $1000 expenditure with each patient ranged from 3.9-26.5 DFUs in the hospital outpatient department, and 4.3-36.4 DFUs in the physicians' office setting. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the costs of a skin substitute itself did not necessarily correlate with its healing efficacy. These results provide a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to enable integrated health-care systems, health professionals and reimbursement payers to make informed value decisions when treating DFUs.

A Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Arm Clinical Trial for Treatment of Complex Diabetic Foot Ulcers with Deep Exposure Using Acellular Dermal Matrix.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of an acellular dermal matrix allograft, DermACELL (D-ADM; LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, Virginia), in the treatment of large, complex diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) that probed to tendon or bone. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were Wagner grade 3 or 4 DFUs between 4 weeks and 1 year in duration. All participants received one application of D-ADM at baseline and could receive one additional application if wound healing arrested. Ulcers were assessed weekly for 16 weeks using a laser measuring device. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants were enrolled, with an average wound area of 29.0 cm; 59 of these ulcers showed exposed bone. The entire per-protocol population (n = 47) achieved 100% granulation. The mean time to 100% granulation was 4.0 weeks with an average of 1.2 applications of D-ADM. Mean percent wound area reduction was 80.3% at 16 weeks. Those DFUs 15 cm or smaller were substantially more likely to close than DFUs larger than 29 cm (P = .0008) over a 16-week duration. No complications were associated with the use of the studied matrix. CONCLUSIONS: The D-ADM demonstrated the ability to rapidly reduce the size of large, complex DFUs with exposed bone. Some wounds did not completely heal by 16 weeks; however, the significant reduction in size suggests that these large, complex wounds may heal if given more time.

A randomized clinical trial of a human acellular dermal matrix demonstrated superior healing rates for chronic diabetic foot ulcers over conventional care and an active acellular dermal matrix comparator.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of a human acellular dermal matrix (ADM), D-ADM, with a conventional care arm and an active comparator human ADM arm, GJ-ADM, for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. The study design was a prospective, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 168 diabetic foot ulcer subjects in 13 centers across 9 states. Subjects in the ADM arms received one application but could receive one additional application of ADM if deemed necessary. Screen failures and early withdrawals left 53 subjects in the D-ADM arm, 56 in the conventional care arm, and 23 in the GJ-ADM arm (2:2:1 ratio). Subjects were followed through 24 weeks with major endpoints at Weeks 12, 16, and 24. Single application D-ADM subjects showed significantly greater wound closure rates than conventional care at all three endpoints while all applications D-ADM displayed a significantly higher healing rate than conventional care at Week 16 and Week 24. GJ-ADM did not show a significantly greater healing rate over conventional care at any of these time points. A blinded, third party adjudicator analyzed healing at Week 12 and expressed "strong" agreement (κ = 0.837). Closed ulcers in the single application D-ADM arm remained healed at a significantly greater rate than the conventional care arm at 4 weeks posttermination (100% vs. 86.7%; p = 0.0435). There was no significant difference between GJ-ADM and conventional care for healed wounds remaining closed. Single application D-ADM demonstrated significantly greater average percent wound area reduction than conventional care for Weeks 2-24 while single application GJ-ADM showed significantly greater wound area reduction over conventional care for Weeks 4-6, 9, and 11-12. D-ADM demonstrated significantly greater wound healing, larger wound area reduction, and a better capability of keeping healed wounds closed than conventional care in the treatment of chronic DFUs.

SIAH and EGFR, Two RAS Pathway Biomarkers, are Highly Prognostic in Locally Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer exhibits diverse and rapidly evolving intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity. Patients with similar clinical presentations often display distinct tumor responses to standard of care (SOC) therapies. Genome landscape studies indicate that EGFR/HER2/RAS "pathway" activation is highly prevalent in malignant breast cancers. The identification of therapy-responsive and prognostic biomarkers is paramount important to stratify patients and guide therapies in clinical oncology and personalized medicine. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed matched pairs of tumor specimens collected from 182 patients who received neoadjuvant systemic therapies (NST). Statistical analyses were conducted to determine whether EGFR/HER2/RAS pathway biomarkers and clinicopathological predictors, alone and in combination, are prognostic in breast cancer. FINDINGS: SIAH and EGFR outperform ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 as two logical, sensitive and prognostic biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer. We found that increased SIAH and EGFR expression correlated with advanced pathological stage and aggressive molecular subtypes. Both SIAH expression post-NST and NST-induced changes in EGFR expression in invasive mammary tumors are associated with tumor regression and increased survival, whereas ER, PR, and HER2 were not. These results suggest that SIAH and EGFR are two prognostic biomarkers in breast cancer with lymph node metastases. INTERPRETATION: The discovery of incorporating tumor heterogeneity-independent and growth-sensitive RAS pathway biomarkers, SIAH and EGFR, whose altered expression can be used to estimate therapeutic efficacy, detect emergence of resistant clones, forecast tumor regression, differentiate among partial responders, and predict patient survival in the neoadjuvant setting, has a clear clinical implication in personalizing breast cancer therapy. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Dorothy G. Hoefer Foundation for Breast Cancer Research (A.H. Tang); Center for Innovative Technology (CIT)-Commonwealth Research Commercialization Fund (CRCF) (MF14S-009-LS to A.H. Tang), and National Cancer Institute (CA140550 to A.H. Tang).