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.

Allografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To review the relative cost-effectiveness of allografts and autografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. METHODS: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The available evidence does not show any significant difference in clinical effectiveness between autografts and allografts. Given that, only a cost analysis is provided, which shows that allografts are more costly. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of any benefit of allografts over autografts, autografts should be preferred on cost grounds, if available. However, there may be situations where an allograft is indicated, for example, in multiple ligament reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Autograft or allograft for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments. METHODS: Systematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Both autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available. CONCLUSION: In ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

The cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee.

PURPOSE: Osteochondral allografts (OCA) consist of a layer of hyaline cartilage and a layer of underlying bone. They are used to repair combined defects of articular cartilage and bone. Such defects often occur in people far too young to have knee arthroplasty, for whom the main alternative to OCA is conservative symptomatic care, which will not prevent development of osteoarthritis. The aim of this report was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. METHODS: Systematic review of evidence on clinical effectiveness and economic modelling. RESULTS: The evidence on osteochondral allograft transplantation comes from observational studies, but often based on good quality prospective registries of all patients having such surgery. Without controlled trials, it was necessary to use historical cohorts to assess the effect of osteochondral grafts. There is good evidence that OCA are clinically effective with a high graft survival rate over 20 years. If an OCA graft fails, there is some evidence that revision with a second OCA is also effective, though less so than primary OCA. Economic modelling showed that osteochondral allograft transplantation was highly cost-effective, with costs per quality adjusted life year much lower than many other treatments considered cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Osteochondral allograft transplantation appears highly cost-effective though the cost per quality adjusted life year varies according to the widely varying costs of allografts. Based on one small study, revision OCA also appears very cost-effective, but more evidence is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Intraoperative culture positive allograft bone and subsequent postoperative infections: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining intraoperative cultures of allograft bone just before use in orthopedic procedures is standard practice in many centres; however, the association between positive cultures and subsequent surgical infections is unknown. Our study had 3 goals: to determine the prevalence of positive intraoperative allograft culture and subsequent infection; to determine if, in cases of subsequent infection, organisms isolated at reoperation were the same as those cultured from the allograft at the time of the index procedure; and to assess the costs associated with performing intraoperative allograft cultures. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, we obtained data on patients receiving allograft bone between 2009 and 2012. Patients receiving allograft with positive cultures were reviewed to identify cases of significant infection. Organisms isolated at reoperation were compared with the allograft culture taken at the time of implantation, and we performed a cost assessment. RESULTS: Of the 996 allograft bone grafts used, 43 (4.3%) had positive intraoperative cultures and significant postoperative infections developed in 2, requiring reoperation. Antibiotics based on culture results were prescribed in 24% of cases. Organisms cultured at the time of reoperation differed from those isolated initially. The cost of performing 996 allograft cultures was $169 320. CONCLUSION: This series suggests that rates of positive intraoperative bone allograft culture are low, and subsequent infection is rare. In cases of postoperative infection, primary allograft culture and secondary tissue cultures isolated different organisms. Costs associated with performing cultures are high. Eliminating initial culture testing could save $42 500 per year in our health region.

CONTEXTE: L'obtention de cultures d'allogreffes osseuses peropératoires juste avant une intervention orthopédique est une pratique standard dans de nombreux centres. Or, on ignore s'il y a un lien entre des résultats de cultures positifs et les infections chirurgicales subséquentes. Notre étude avait 3 objectifs : déterminer la prévalence des cultures d'allogreffes peropératoires positives et des infections subséquentes; déterminer si, dans les cas d'infections subséquentes, les agents pathogènes isolés lors d'une réintervention étaient les mêmes que dans les spécimens prélevés sur les allogreffes au moment des interventions initiales; évaluer les coûts associés à l'obtention des cultures d'allogreffes peropératoires. MÉTHODES: Dans cette série de cas rétrospectifs, nous avons réuni des données sur des patients receveurs d'allogreffes osseuses entre 2009 et 2012. Nous avons passé en revue les cas d'allogreffes dont les résultats de culture étaient positifs pour recenser ceux qui étaient porteurs d'une infection significative. Nous avons comparé les agents pathogènes isolés lors de la réintervention à ceux de la culture de l'allogreffe effectuée lors de l'implantation, et nous avons procédé à une évaluation des coûts. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 996 allogreffes osseuses effectuées, 43 (4,3 %) avaient des résultats positifs aux cultures peropératoires; des infections postopératoires significatives se sont déclarées dans 2 de ces cas et ont nécessité une réintervention. Des antibiotiques ont été prescrits en fonction des résultats des cultures dans 24 % des cas. Les agents pathogènes isolés en culture au moment de la réintervention étaient différents de ceux qui avaient été initialement isolés. Le coût des 996 cultures d'allogreffes s'est élevé à 169 320 $. CONCLUSION: Cette série donne à penser que les taux de résultats de cultures d'allogreffes osseuses peropératoires positifs sont bas et que les infections subséquentes sont rares. Dans les cas d'infections postopératoires, les cultures des allogreffes primaires et les cultures tissulaires secondaires ont révélé la présence d'organismes pathogènes différents. Les coûts associés à la réalisation des cultures sont élevés. Éliminer les cultures initiales permettrait à notre région de santé d'économiser 42 500 $ par année.

Costo-efectividad de los tratamientos de consolidación para la leucemia mieloide aguda en niños en riesgo alto en el sistema de salud colombiano / Cost-effectiveness of consolidation treatments for acute myeloid leukemia in high-risk pediatric patients within the Colombian healthcare system

Introducción. La leucemia mieloide aguda representa alrededor del 20 % de las leucemias en menores de 18 años. Actualmente, solo existen dos alternativas de tratamiento de consolidación: la quimioterapia y el trasplante con progenitores hematopoyéticos. Objeti vo. Evaluar el costo-efectividad del trasplante alogénico con progenitores hematopoyéticos de donantes emparentados o no emparentados, en comparación con la quimioterapia de consolidación en niños de alto riesgo con leucemia mieloide aguda. Materiales y métodos. Se construyó un árbol de decisiones utilizando los años de vida ganados como resultado. Los costos y probabilidades se extrajeron de estudios y reportes que se encuentran en la literatura científica. El umbral de costo-efectividad fue tres veces el producto interno bruto per cápita de 2010. Se hicieron análisis de sensibilidad univariados y probabilísticos, así como una curva de aceptabilidad. Resultados. Al comparar el trasplante de donante emparentado o no emparentado con los ciclos de quimioterapia, se obtuvieron tasas de costo-efectividad incremental de COP$ 9´226.421 (USD$ 4.820) y COP$ 6´544.116 (USD$ 3.419), respectivamente, cifras estas inferiores al producto interno bruto per cápita: COP$ 12´047.418 (USD$ 6.294). El trasplante resultó ser costo-efectivo en 70 % de las simulaciones y con mayor probabilidad de serlo cuando había disposición a pagar cantidades superiores a COP$ 7´200.000 (USD$ 3.762). Conclusión. El trasplante alogénico (emparentado o no) en Colombia resultó ser costo-efectivo frente al tratamiento de consolidación en niños de alto riesgo con leucemia mieloide aguda.

Introduction: Acute myeloid leukemia represents about 20% of leukemias in minors under 18 years old. At present, there are only two consolidation treatment alternatives: Chemotherapy and stem-cell transplantation. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of unrelated and related hematopoietic stem cell transplantations, versus chemotherapy consolidation in pediatric patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia. Materials and methods: A decision tree was constructed with life-years gained as the outcome. Costs and probabilities were extracted from the literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and acceptability curves were computed. The cost-effectiveness threshold was three times the 2010 per capita gross domestic product. Results: When compared to consolidation chemotherapy cycles, related and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of COP$ 9,226,421 (USD$ 4,820) and COP$ 6,544,116 (USD$ 3,419) respectively, which are lower than the per capita gross domestic product (COP$ 12,047,418, USD$ 6,294). Transplant proved to be cost-effective in 70% of the simulations and had a higher probability of the willingness to pay being over than COP$ 7,200,000 (USD$ 3,762). Conclusion: In Colombia, related and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplants are cost-effective alternatives to consolidation treatment for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in pediatric patients.

[Cost-effectiveness of consolidation treatments for acute myeloid leukemia in high-risk pediatric patients within the Colombian healthcare system]. / Costo-efectividad de los tratamientos de consolidación para la leucemia mieloide aguda en niños en riesgo alto en el sistema de salud colombiano.

INTRODUCTION: Acute myeloid leukemia represents about 20% of leukemias in minors under 18 years old. At present, there are only two consolidation treatment alternatives: Chemotherapy and stem-cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of unrelated and related hematopoietic stem cell transplantations, versus chemotherapy consolidation in pediatric patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree was constructed with life-years gained as the outcome. Costs and probabilities were extracted from the literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and acceptability curves were computed. The cost-effectiveness threshold was three times the 2010 per capita gross domestic product. RESULTS: When compared to consolidation chemotherapy cycles, related and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of COP$ 9,226,421 (USD$ 4,820) and COP$ 6,544,116 (USD$ 3,419) respectively, which are lower than the per capita gross domestic product (COP$ 12,047,418, USD$ 6,294). Transplant proved to be cost-effective in 70% of the simulations and had a higher probability of the willingness to pay being over than COP$ 7,200,000 (USD$ 3,762). CONCLUSION: In Colombia, related and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplants are cost-effective alternatives to consolidation treatment for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in pediatric patients.

Cost analysis of conventional face reconstruction versus face transplantation for large tissue defects.

BACKGROUND: Large facial tissue defects are traditionally treated with staged conventional reconstruction. Facial allograft transplantation has emerged as a treatment modality. Facial allografts are procured from a dead donor and transplanted to the recipient. Recipients are then subjected to lifelong global immunosuppression to prevent immunologic rejection. This study analyzes the cost of facial allograft transplantation in comparison with conventional reconstruction. METHODS: Hospital billing records from facial allograft transplantation (2009 to 2011) and conventional reconstruction (2000 to 2010) patients were compiled. Comparative 1-year costs were calculated, segregated by physician, hospital, and hospital's department costs. Because most conventional reconstruction patients had smaller facial deficits than their facial allograft transplantation counterparts, regression models were used to estimate costs of conventional reconstruction for full facial defects, mirroring the facial transplantation cohort. All costs were adjusted using the medical consumer price index. RESULTS: One-year costs for facial allograft transplantation were significantly higher than those for conventional reconstruction (mean/median, $337,360/$313,068 versus $70,230/$64,451, respectively). One-year costs for a hypothetical full-face conventional reconstruction were $184,061 (95 percent CI, $89,358 to $278,763). The per-patient cost in a hypothetical cohort of conventional reconstruction patients with deficits identical to four facial allograft transplantation recipients was $155,475 (95 percent CI, $69,021 to $241,929). CONCLUSIONS: Initial cost comparison portrays facial allograft transplantation as significantly more costly than conventional reconstruction. However, after adjustments for case severity, the cost profiles are similar. Gains in efficiency and experience are expected to lower costs. Additional unmeasured benefits may also positively influence the cost-to-benefit ratio of facial allograft transplantation.

Cost-effectiveness of the introduction of specialized oral care with laser therapy in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the side effects of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), resulting in major morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the introduction of a specialized oral care program including laser therapy in the care of patients receiving HSCT with regard to morbidity associated with OM. Clinical information was gathered on 167 patients undergoing HSCT and divided according to the presence (n = 91) or absence (n = 76) of laser therapy and oral care. Cost analysis included daily hospital fees, parenteral nutrition (PN) and prescription of opioids. It was observed that the group without laser therapy (group II) showed a higher frequency of severe degrees of OM (relative risk = 16.8, 95% confidence interval -5.8 to 48.9, p < 0.001), with a significant association between this severity and the use of PN (p = 0.001), prescription of opioids (p < 0.001), pain in the oral cavity (p = 0.003) and fever > 37.8°C (p = 0.005). Hospitalization costs in this group were up to 30% higher. The introduction of oral care by a multidisciplinary staff including laser therapy helps reduce morbidity resulting from OM and, consequently, helps minimize hospitalization costs associated with HSCT, even considering therapy costs.