RESUMO
Objective: Chronic prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are serious complications in arthroplasty leading to prosthesis exchange and potential significant costs for health systems, especially if a subsequent new infection occurs. This study assessed the cost of chronic PJI managed with 2-stage exchange at the Lyon University Hospital, CRIOAc Lyon reference center, France. A threshold analysis was then undertaken to determine the reimbursement tariff of a hypothetical preventive device usable at the time of reimplantation, which possibly enables health insurance to save money according to the risk reduction of subsequent new infection. This analysis was also performed for a potential innovative device already available on the market, a dual antibiotic loaded bone cement used to fix cemented prosthesis that releases high concentrations of gentamicin and vancomycin locally (G+V cement). Method: Patients >18 years, admitted for a hip or knee chronic PJI managed with 2-stage exchange, between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, were retrospectively identified. Following, resource consumption in relation to inpatient hospital stay, hospitalization at home, rehabilitation care, outpatient antibiotic treatments, imaging, laboratory analysis, and consultations were identified and collected from patient records and taken into account in the evaluation. Costs were assessed from the French health insurance perspective over the 2 years following prosthesis reimplantation. Results: The study included 116 patients (median age 67 y; 47% hip prosthesis). Mean cost of chronic PJI was estimated over the 2 years following prosthesis reimplantation at 21,324 for all patients, and at 51,697 and 15,745 for patients with (n = 18) and without (n = 98) a subsequent new infection after reimplantation, respectively. According to the threshold analysis the reimbursement tariff (i) should not exceed 2,820 for a device which can reduce the risk of a new infection by 50% and (ii) was between 2,988 and 3,984 if the G + V cement can reduce the risk of a new infection by 80% (this reduction risk is speculative and has to be confirmed by clinical trials). Conclusion: This study revealed that chronic PJI requiring a 2-stage revision is costly, with significant costs in relation to the reimplantation procedure (about 15 k). However, following reimplantation the rate of subsequent new infection remained high, and the cost of reimplantation following a new infection is considerable, reaching 50k per patient. These first cost estimates of managing chronic PJI with 2-stage exchange in France underline the economic interest of preventing new infections.
RESUMO
UNLABELLED: Several studies have suggested the usefulness of a test dose of paclitaxel to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions and the resulting cost of drug wastage. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of implementing such a test dose. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients who had received one or two courses of single-agent paclitaxel or a combination chemotherapy regimen to calculate hypersensitivity reaction incidence and the cost of drug wastage. Thereafter, a paclitaxel test-dose program was routinely implemented during the first and second cycles of paclitaxel treatment for all patients. Hypersensitivity reaction incidence and drug wastage cost were again assessed. RESULTS: Before the routine use of a test dose, 162 patients received one or two paclitaxel infusions alone or in combination therapy from January 1, 1997 to February 28, 2003. Ten (6.2%) patients experienced a hypersensitivity reaction; one of them was severe. After implementation of the test-dose program, 130 patients received 244 test doses (12 mg paclitaxel/10 mL normal saline) with an intensified premedication regimen at the first and second cycles of chemotherapy from June 28, 2003 to March 2, 2005. Three patients (2.3%) experienced a minor hypersensitivity reaction, one immediately after the test dose and two during infusion of the full dose despite a well-tolerated test dose. Thus, the negative predictive value of the test dose was 98.4%. The overall incidence of hypersensitivity reactions experienced during the first or second cycle of paclitaxel chemotherapy decreased about 63% compared with the incidence before implementation of the test dose (P < 0.20). The test-dose program resulted in a 29% increase in the cost of chemotherapy (approximately 6100 dollars for 130 patients). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest study ever reported to test the potential cost-saving benefit of the implementation of a paclitaxel test-dose program to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. The results suggest that the routine use of a test dose is not a cost-effective measure.