Amir Ansaripour, Ann Thompson, Joseph F Styron, Mehdi Javanbakht
{"title":"Avance®同种异体移植治疗美国周围神经损伤的成本-效果分析","authors":"Amir Ansaripour, Ann Thompson, Joseph F Styron, Mehdi Javanbakht","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is a debilitating condition with significant associated morbidity, and which places a substantial socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Recently, allograft has emerged as a viable surgical alternative to autograft for the treatment of PNI. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of allograft (Avance<sup>®</sup> Nerve Graft) compared with autograft for the peripheral nerve repair, from a US payer perspective. <b>Methods:</b> A Markov cohort model was developed to consider the treatment pathways followed by a patient population undergoing a single transected nerve repair with either allograft, or autograft. The marginal difference in meaningful recovery (MR) (effectiveness), and costs, between the two groups were estimated over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to consider the uncertainty surrounding the base-case input parameter values and their effect on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). <b>Results:</b> The base-case analysis indicates that there is a small difference in the average probability of MR between the two groups (75.15% vs 70.46%; +4.69% with allograft). Allograft also results in cost savings ($12,677 vs $14,023; -$-1346 with allograft) compared with autograft. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the costs of the initial surgical procedures are the main drivers of incremental cost, but that the intervention is likely to be cost saving compared with autograft regardless of the parameter variations made. <b>Conclusion:</b> The use of allograft with the Avance Nerve Graft has the potential to be a cost-effective alternative to autograft for the surgical treatment of PNI in the USA.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e230113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10842286/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness analysis of Avance<sup>®</sup> allograft for the treatment of peripheral nerve injuries in the USA.\",\"authors\":\"Amir Ansaripour, Ann Thompson, Joseph F Styron, Mehdi Javanbakht\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2023-0113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is a debilitating condition with significant associated morbidity, and which places a substantial socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Recently, allograft has emerged as a viable surgical alternative to autograft for the treatment of PNI. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of allograft (Avance<sup>®</sup> Nerve Graft) compared with autograft for the peripheral nerve repair, from a US payer perspective. <b>Methods:</b> A Markov cohort model was developed to consider the treatment pathways followed by a patient population undergoing a single transected nerve repair with either allograft, or autograft. The marginal difference in meaningful recovery (MR) (effectiveness), and costs, between the two groups were estimated over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to consider the uncertainty surrounding the base-case input parameter values and their effect on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). <b>Results:</b> The base-case analysis indicates that there is a small difference in the average probability of MR between the two groups (75.15% vs 70.46%; +4.69% with allograft). Allograft also results in cost savings ($12,677 vs $14,023; -$-1346 with allograft) compared with autograft. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the costs of the initial surgical procedures are the main drivers of incremental cost, but that the intervention is likely to be cost saving compared with autograft regardless of the parameter variations made. <b>Conclusion:</b> The use of allograft with the Avance Nerve Graft has the potential to be a cost-effective alternative to autograft for the surgical treatment of PNI in the USA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e230113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10842286/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0113\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0113","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:周围神经损伤(PNI)是一种衰弱性疾病,具有显著的相关发病率,并给全球卫生保健系统带来了巨大的社会经济负担。最近,同种异体移植已成为治疗PNI的一种可行的手术选择。本研究从美国支付者的角度评估了同种异体神经移植(Avance®神经移植)与自体神经移植修复周围神经的成本效益。方法:一个马尔可夫队列模型被开发,以考虑患者群体接受单一横断神经修复的治疗途径,无论是同种异体移植还是自体移植。两组之间的有意义恢复(MR)(有效性)和成本的边际差异在整个生命周期内进行估计。进行确定性和概率敏感性分析(PSA),以考虑围绕基本情况输入参数值的不确定性及其对总体增量成本效益比(ICER)的影响。结果:基础病例分析显示,两组MR的平均概率差异较小(75.15% vs 70.46%;异体移植+4.69%)。同种异体移植还可以节省成本(12,677美元vs 14,023美元;-$-1346同种异体移植物)与自体移植物相比。确定性敏感性分析表明,初始外科手术的成本是增加成本的主要驱动因素,但无论参数如何变化,与自体移植物相比,干预措施可能节省成本。结论:在美国,同种异体移植物与Avance神经移植物联合使用有可能成为一种具有成本效益的替代自体移植物手术治疗PNI的方法。
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Avance® allograft for the treatment of peripheral nerve injuries in the USA.
Aim: Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is a debilitating condition with significant associated morbidity, and which places a substantial socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Recently, allograft has emerged as a viable surgical alternative to autograft for the treatment of PNI. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of allograft (Avance® Nerve Graft) compared with autograft for the peripheral nerve repair, from a US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to consider the treatment pathways followed by a patient population undergoing a single transected nerve repair with either allograft, or autograft. The marginal difference in meaningful recovery (MR) (effectiveness), and costs, between the two groups were estimated over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to consider the uncertainty surrounding the base-case input parameter values and their effect on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The base-case analysis indicates that there is a small difference in the average probability of MR between the two groups (75.15% vs 70.46%; +4.69% with allograft). Allograft also results in cost savings ($12,677 vs $14,023; -$-1346 with allograft) compared with autograft. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the costs of the initial surgical procedures are the main drivers of incremental cost, but that the intervention is likely to be cost saving compared with autograft regardless of the parameter variations made. Conclusion: The use of allograft with the Avance Nerve Graft has the potential to be a cost-effective alternative to autograft for the surgical treatment of PNI in the USA.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies.
Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.