STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-utility analysis using actual cost data from a randomized clinical trial of patients over 60 years old who underwent posterolateral fusion using eitherrhBMP-2/ACS or iliac crest bone graft (ICBG). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Bone morphogenetic protein has been shown to be an effective bone graft substitute for spine fusion. However, a clinical trial-based economic analysis of rhBMP-2/ACS compared with iliac crest bone graft has not been done. METHODS:Patients over 60 years old requiring decompression and posterolateral fusion were randomized to rhBMP-2/ACS (n = 50) or ICBG (n = 52). A dedicated hospital coder and research nurse tracked each patient to determine direct costs of inpatient care and all postoperative healthcare encounters up to 2 years after surgery. Preoperative and 2-year-postoperative SF-6D utility scores for each patient were determined. A decision tree was created, which included the probability of complications, need for additional treatments and revision surgery; and the costs associated with initial surgery and treatment for complications and additional treatment for continued spine symptoms; and utility scores. RESULTS: The mean total 2-year cost for care (excluding complication and additional spine treatment costs) was $34,235 in the ICBG group and $36,530 in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. For the entire group, the mean cost to treat a major complication was $10,888, the cost of revision surgery for nonunion was $46,852, and additional treatment for spine-related events was $5892. In the ICBG group, 8 patients had complications; 20 had additional interventions, 5 of whom required revision for nonunion. In the rhBMP-2/ACS group, 6 patients had complications, 10 had additional interventions, and 1 required revision for nonunion. The cost of using rhBMP-2/ACS was $39,967 with a 0.11 mean improvement in SF-6D; and for ICBG the cost was $42,286 with a mean improvement of 0.10 in SF-6D. CONCLUSION: There are more complications, increased need for additional treatment and revision surgery in patients over 60 years old receiving ICBG compared with rhBMP-2/ACS. This may account for higher costs and lower improvements in utility seen in patients receivingICBG compared with rhBMP-2/ACS in this study population.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-utility analysis using actual cost data from a randomized clinical trial of patients over 60 years old who underwent posterolateral fusion using either rhBMP-2/ACS or iliac crest bone graft (ICBG). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Bone morphogenetic protein has been shown to be an effective bone graft substitute for spine fusion. However, a clinical trial-based economic analysis of rhBMP-2/ACS compared with iliac crest bone graft has not been done. METHODS:Patients over 60 years old requiring decompression and posterolateral fusion were randomized to rhBMP-2/ACS (n = 50) or ICBG (n = 52). A dedicated hospital coder and research nurse tracked each patient to determine direct costs of inpatient care and all postoperative healthcare encounters up to 2 years after surgery. Preoperative and 2-year-postoperative SF-6D utility scores for each patient were determined. A decision tree was created, which included the probability of complications, need for additional treatments and revision surgery; and the costs associated with initial surgery and treatment for complications and additional treatment for continued spine symptoms; and utility scores. RESULTS: The mean total 2-year cost for care (excluding complication and additional spine treatment costs) was $34,235 in the ICBG group and $36,530 in the rhBMP-2/ACS group. For the entire group, the mean cost to treat a major complication was $10,888, the cost of revision surgery for nonunion was $46,852, and additional treatment for spine-related events was $5892. In the ICBG group, 8 patients had complications; 20 had additional interventions, 5 of whom required revision for nonunion. In the rhBMP-2/ACS group, 6 patients had complications, 10 had additional interventions, and 1 required revision for nonunion. The cost of using rhBMP-2/ACS was $39,967 with a 0.11 mean improvement in SF-6D; and for ICBG the cost was $42,286 with a mean improvement of 0.10 in SF-6D. CONCLUSION: There are more complications, increased need for additional treatment and revision surgery in patients over 60 years old receiving ICBG compared with rhBMP-2/ACS. This may account for higher costs and lower improvements in utility seen in patients receiving ICBG compared with rhBMP-2/ACS in this study population.
Authors: Kwang-Bok Lee; Cyrus E Taghavi; Margaret S Hsu; Kyung-Jin Song; Jeong Hyun Yoo; Gun Keorochana; Stephanie S Ngo; Jeffrey C Wang Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Ravi R Patel; Andriy Noshchenko; R Dana Carpenter; Todd Baldini; Carl P Frick; Vikas V Patel; Christopher M Yakacki Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Santoshi S Indrakanti; Michael H Weber; Steven K Takemoto; Serena S Hu; David Polly; Sigurd H Berven Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Kevin S Cahill; John H Chi; Michael W Groff; Kevin McGuire; Christopher C Afendulis; Elizabeth B Claus Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Kristen Radcliff; Raymond Hwang; Alan Hilibrand; Harvey E Smith; Jordan Gruskay; Jon D Lurie; Wenyan Zhao; Todd Albert; James Weinstein Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 5.284