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.
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.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Peter Tugwell; Andre Knottnerus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Sebastian Fischer; Christine G Lian; Maximilian Kueckelhaus; Terry B Strom; Elazer R Edelman; Rachel A Clark; George F Murphy; Anil K Chandraker; Leonardo V Riella; Stefan G Tullius; Bohdan Pomahac Journal: Curr Opin Organ Transplant Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.640
Authors: Warren C Breidenbach; N Ruben Gonzales; Christina L Kaufman; Martin Klapheke; Gordon R Tobin; Vijay S Gorantla Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Claire de Oliveira; Karen E Bremner; Reka Pataky; Nadia Gunraj; Kelvin Chan; Stuart Peacock; Murray D Krahn Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2013-01-16
Authors: Pathik Aravind; Christopher Frost; Vidhi Javia; Damon S Cooney; Gerald Brandacher; Jaimie T Shores; Carisa M Cooney Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2020-11-16