手或手臂复合组织移植:健康技术评估。

Q1 Medicine
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Pub Date : 2016-06-01 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01
{"title":"手或手臂复合组织移植:健康技术评估。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Injuries to arms and legs following severe trauma can result in the loss of large regions of tissue, disrupting healing and function and sometimes leading to amputation of the damaged limb. People experiencing amputations of the hand or arm could potentially benefit from composite tissue transplant, which is being performed in some countries. Currently, there are no composite tissue transplant programs in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the literature, with no restriction on study design, examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand and arm transplant. We assessed the overall quality of the clinical evidence with GRADE. We developed a Markov decision analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of transplant versus standard care for a healthy adult with a hand amputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using a 30-year time horizon. We also estimated the impact on provincial health care costs if these transplants were publicly funded in Ontario.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to pre-transplant function, patients' post-transplant function was significantly better. For various reasons, 17% of transplanted limbs were amputated, 6.4% of patients died within the first year after the transplant, and 10.6% of patients experienced chronic rejections. GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, single-hand transplant was dominated by standard care, with increased costs ($735,647 CAD vs. $61,429) and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.96 vs. 11.82). Double-hand transplant also had higher costs compared with standard care ($633,780), but it had an increased effectiveness of 0.17 QALYs, translating to an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY gained. In most sensitivity analyses, ICERs for bilateral hand transplant were greater than $1 million per QALY gained. A hand transplant program would lead to an estimated annual budget impact of $0.9 million to $1.2 million in the next 3 years, 2016 to 2018, to treat 3 adults per year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Composite tissue transplant of the hand or arm may improve a patient's ability to function, but because the overall quality of evidence is of very low quality, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether benefits outweigh harms. Compared with standard care, both single- and double-hand transplants are not cost-effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"16 13","pages":"1-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947978/pdf/ohtas-16-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Composite Tissue Transplant of Hand or Arm: A Health Technology Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Injuries to arms and legs following severe trauma can result in the loss of large regions of tissue, disrupting healing and function and sometimes leading to amputation of the damaged limb. People experiencing amputations of the hand or arm could potentially benefit from composite tissue transplant, which is being performed in some countries. Currently, there are no composite tissue transplant programs in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the literature, with no restriction on study design, examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand and arm transplant. We assessed the overall quality of the clinical evidence with GRADE. We developed a Markov decision analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of transplant versus standard care for a healthy adult with a hand amputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using a 30-year time horizon. We also estimated the impact on provincial health care costs if these transplants were publicly funded in Ontario.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to pre-transplant function, patients' post-transplant function was significantly better. For various reasons, 17% of transplanted limbs were amputated, 6.4% of patients died within the first year after the transplant, and 10.6% of patients experienced chronic rejections. GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, single-hand transplant was dominated by standard care, with increased costs ($735,647 CAD vs. $61,429) and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.96 vs. 11.82). Double-hand transplant also had higher costs compared with standard care ($633,780), but it had an increased effectiveness of 0.17 QALYs, translating to an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY gained. In most sensitivity analyses, ICERs for bilateral hand transplant were greater than $1 million per QALY gained. A hand transplant program would lead to an estimated annual budget impact of $0.9 million to $1.2 million in the next 3 years, 2016 to 2018, to treat 3 adults per year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Composite tissue transplant of the hand or arm may improve a patient's ability to function, but because the overall quality of evidence is of very low quality, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether benefits outweigh harms. Compared with standard care, both single- and double-hand transplants are not cost-effective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series\",\"volume\":\"16 13\",\"pages\":\"1-70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947978/pdf/ohtas-16-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:严重创伤后的手臂和腿部损伤可导致大面积组织丧失,破坏愈合和功能,有时导致受损肢体截肢。手部或手臂截肢的人可能会从复合组织移植中受益,这种移植正在一些国家进行。目前,加拿大没有复合组织移植项目。方法:我们对文献进行了系统的回顾,不限制研究设计,检查手和手臂移植的有效性和成本效益。我们用GRADE评价临床证据的总体质量。我们开发了一个马尔可夫决策分析模型,以确定移植与标准护理对手部截肢的健康成人的成本效益。增量成本效益比(ICERs)采用30年时间范围计算。我们还估计了如果这些移植是在安大略省公共资助的,对省级医疗保健成本的影响。结果:与移植前相比,患者移植后的功能明显改善。由于各种原因,17%的移植肢体被截肢,6.4%的患者在移植后一年内死亡,10.6%的患者出现慢性排斥反应。所有结局的证据质量都很低。在成本-效果分析中,单手移植以标准护理为主,成本增加(735,647加元对61,429美元),质量调整生命年(QALYs)减少(10.96对11.82)。与标准治疗相比,双手移植的成本也更高(633,780美元),但它的有效性增加了0.17个QALY,转化为每获得一个QALY的ICER为380万美元。在大多数敏感性分析中,双侧手移植的ICERs大于100万美元/ QALY。手部移植项目将在2016年至2018年的未来三年里,每年治疗3名成年人,预计每年的预算影响为90万至120万美元。结论:手或手臂复合组织移植可能改善患者的功能,但由于证据的整体质量非常低,因此利大于弊是否存在相当大的不确定性。与标准护理相比,单手和双手移植都不具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Composite Tissue Transplant of Hand or Arm: A Health Technology Assessment.

Composite Tissue Transplant of Hand or Arm: A Health Technology Assessment.

Composite Tissue Transplant of Hand or Arm: A Health Technology Assessment.

Composite Tissue Transplant of Hand or Arm: A Health Technology Assessment.

Background: Injuries to arms and legs following severe trauma can result in the loss of large regions of tissue, disrupting healing and function and sometimes leading to amputation of the damaged limb. People experiencing amputations of the hand or arm could potentially benefit from composite tissue transplant, which is being performed in some countries. Currently, there are no composite tissue transplant programs in Canada.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature, with no restriction on study design, examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand and arm transplant. We assessed the overall quality of the clinical evidence with GRADE. We developed a Markov decision analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of transplant versus standard care for a healthy adult with a hand amputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using a 30-year time horizon. We also estimated the impact on provincial health care costs if these transplants were publicly funded in Ontario.

Results: Compared to pre-transplant function, patients' post-transplant function was significantly better. For various reasons, 17% of transplanted limbs were amputated, 6.4% of patients died within the first year after the transplant, and 10.6% of patients experienced chronic rejections. GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, single-hand transplant was dominated by standard care, with increased costs ($735,647 CAD vs. $61,429) and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.96 vs. 11.82). Double-hand transplant also had higher costs compared with standard care ($633,780), but it had an increased effectiveness of 0.17 QALYs, translating to an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY gained. In most sensitivity analyses, ICERs for bilateral hand transplant were greater than $1 million per QALY gained. A hand transplant program would lead to an estimated annual budget impact of $0.9 million to $1.2 million in the next 3 years, 2016 to 2018, to treat 3 adults per year.

Conclusions: Composite tissue transplant of the hand or arm may improve a patient's ability to function, but because the overall quality of evidence is of very low quality, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether benefits outweigh harms. Compared with standard care, both single- and double-hand transplants are not cost-effective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信