富血小板血浆与皮质类固醇注射治疗轻中度腕管综合征:马尔科夫成本-效果决策分析

The Hand Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-22 DOI:10.1177/15589447221092056
Kevin M Klifto, Christopher S Klifto, Tyler S Pidgeon, Marc J Richard, David S Ruch, Stephen H Colbert
{"title":"富血小板血浆与皮质类固醇注射治疗轻中度腕管综合征:马尔科夫成本-效果决策分析","authors":"Kevin M Klifto, Christopher S Klifto, Tyler S Pidgeon, Marc J Richard, David S Ruch, Stephen H Colbert","doi":"10.1177/15589447221092056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or corticosteroid injections may be used to conservatively treat mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PRP injections versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CTS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Markov modeling was used to analyze the base-case 45-year-old patient with mild-to-moderate CTS, unresponsive to conservative treatments, never previously treated with an injection or surgery, treated with a single injection of PRP, or methylprednisolone/triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Transition probabilities were derived from level-I/II studies, utility values from the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reported using visual analog scale (VAS), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom severity (BCTQ-S), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Functional status (BCTQ-F), and costs from Medicare, published studies, and industry. Analyses were performed from healthcare/societal perspectives. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50 000 and $100 000. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a healthcare perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$13.52/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), BCTQ-S: -$11.88/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$16.04/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 941.12 versus $375 788.21, BCTQ-S: $417 115.09 versus $356 614.18, and BCTQ-F: $421 706.44 versus $376 908.45. From a societal perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$1024.40/QALY, BCTQ-S: -$899.95/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$1215.51/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 171.63 versus $373 944.39, BCTQ-S: $416 345.61 versus $354 770.36, and BCTQ-F: $420 936.95 versus $375 064.63.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PRP injections were more cost-effective than methylprednisolone/triamcinolone injections from healthcare and societal perspectives for mild-to-moderate CTS.</p>","PeriodicalId":76630,"journal":{"name":"The Hand","volume":"1 1","pages":"113-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10786099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Markov Cost-Effectiveness Decision Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin M Klifto, Christopher S Klifto, Tyler S Pidgeon, Marc J Richard, David S Ruch, Stephen H Colbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15589447221092056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or corticosteroid injections may be used to conservatively treat mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PRP injections versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CTS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Markov modeling was used to analyze the base-case 45-year-old patient with mild-to-moderate CTS, unresponsive to conservative treatments, never previously treated with an injection or surgery, treated with a single injection of PRP, or methylprednisolone/triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Transition probabilities were derived from level-I/II studies, utility values from the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reported using visual analog scale (VAS), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom severity (BCTQ-S), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Functional status (BCTQ-F), and costs from Medicare, published studies, and industry. Analyses were performed from healthcare/societal perspectives. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50 000 and $100 000. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a healthcare perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$13.52/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), BCTQ-S: -$11.88/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$16.04/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 941.12 versus $375 788.21, BCTQ-S: $417 115.09 versus $356 614.18, and BCTQ-F: $421 706.44 versus $376 908.45. From a societal perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$1024.40/QALY, BCTQ-S: -$899.95/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$1215.51/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 171.63 versus $373 944.39, BCTQ-S: $416 345.61 versus $354 770.36, and BCTQ-F: $420 936.95 versus $375 064.63.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PRP injections were more cost-effective than methylprednisolone/triamcinolone injections from healthcare and societal perspectives for mild-to-moderate CTS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Hand\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"113-127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10786099/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Hand\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447221092056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Hand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447221092056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

富血小板血浆(PRP)或皮质类固醇注射可用于保守治疗轻度至中度腕管综合征(CTS)。我们评估了PRP注射与皮质类固醇注射治疗轻中度CTS的成本-效果。方法采用smarkov模型分析45岁轻至中度CTS患者的基本病例,患者对保守治疗无反应,既往未接受注射或手术治疗,单次注射PRP或甲基强的松龙/曲安奈德酮40mg /mL。转换概率来源于一级/二级研究,效用值来源于塔夫茨大学成本-效果分析注册表,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)、波士顿腕管调查问卷症状严重程度(BCTQ-S)和波士顿腕管调查问卷功能状态(BCTQ-F),以及医疗保险、已发表研究和行业的成本。从保健/社会角度进行分析。结果是增量成本-效果比(ICER)和净货币收益(NMB)。支付意愿门槛分别为5万美元和10万美元。进行确定性/概率敏感性分析。结果从医疗保健角度来看,与PRP注射相比,VAS测量皮质类固醇注射的ICER: - 13.52美元/质量调整生命年(QALY), BCTQ-S: - 11.88美元/QALY, BCTQ-F: - 16.04美元/QALY。通过VAS测量,PRP与皮质类固醇注射提供的NMB: 428 941.12美元对375 788.21美元,BCTQ-S: 417 115.09美元对356614.18美元,BCTQ-F: 421 706.44美元对376 908.45美元。从社会角度来看,与PRP注射相比,通过VAS测量皮质类固醇注射的ICER: - 1024.40美元/QALY, BCTQ-S: - 899.95美元/QALY, BCTQ-F: - 1215.51美元/QALY。通过VAS测量,PRP与皮质类固醇注射提供的NMB: 428 171.63美元对373 944.39美元,BCTQ-S: 416 345.61美元对3554 770.36美元,BCTQ-F: 420 936.95美元对375 064.63美元。结论从医疗保健和社会角度来看,sprp注射治疗轻中度CTS比甲基强的松龙/曲安奈德注射更具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Markov Cost-Effectiveness Decision Analysis.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or corticosteroid injections may be used to conservatively treat mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PRP injections versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CTS.

Methods: Markov modeling was used to analyze the base-case 45-year-old patient with mild-to-moderate CTS, unresponsive to conservative treatments, never previously treated with an injection or surgery, treated with a single injection of PRP, or methylprednisolone/triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Transition probabilities were derived from level-I/II studies, utility values from the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reported using visual analog scale (VAS), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom severity (BCTQ-S), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Functional status (BCTQ-F), and costs from Medicare, published studies, and industry. Analyses were performed from healthcare/societal perspectives. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50 000 and $100 000. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: From a healthcare perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$13.52/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), BCTQ-S: -$11.88/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$16.04/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 941.12 versus $375 788.21, BCTQ-S: $417 115.09 versus $356 614.18, and BCTQ-F: $421 706.44 versus $376 908.45. From a societal perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$1024.40/QALY, BCTQ-S: -$899.95/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$1215.51/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 171.63 versus $373 944.39, BCTQ-S: $416 345.61 versus $354 770.36, and BCTQ-F: $420 936.95 versus $375 064.63.

Conclusions: PRP injections were more cost-effective than methylprednisolone/triamcinolone injections from healthcare and societal perspectives for mild-to-moderate CTS.

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
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