Edlin, Richard P., Tubeuf, Sandy, Achten, Juul, Parsons, Nicholas R. and Costa, Matthew L.. (2012) Cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty : economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial. BMJ Open, Volume 2 (Number 5). Article:e001162. ISSN 2044-6055

Preview

Text WRAP_Achten_BMJ Open-2012-Edlin-.pdf - Published Version Available under License ["licenses_description_cc_by_nc_2" not defined]. Download (375Kb) | Preview

Abstract

Objective: To report on the relative cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty and resurfacing arthroplasty (replacement of articular surface of femoral head only) in patients with severe arthritis suitable for hip joint resurfacing arthroplasty. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis on an intention-to-treat basis of a single-centre, single-blind randomised controlled trial of 126 adult patients within 12 months of treatment. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations with differences in baseline quality of life and gender adjusted using regression techniques. Setting: A large teaching hospital trust in the UK. Participants: A total of 126 adult patients with severe arthritis of the hip joint suitable for a resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. Results: Data were received for 126 patients, 4 of whom did not provide any resource use data. For the remainder, data were imputed for costs or quality of life in at least one time point (baseline, 3, 6 months and 1 year) for 18 patients. Patients in the resurfacing arm had higher quality of life at 12 months (0.795 vs 0.727) and received 0.032 more QALYs within the first 12 months postoperation. At an additional cost of £564, resurfacing arthroplasty offers benefits at £17 451 per QALY within the first 12 months of treatment. When covariates are considered, the health economic case is stronger in men than in women. Conclusions: Resurfacing arthroplasty appears to offer very short-term efficiency benefits over total hip arthroplasty within a selected patient group. The short-term follow-up in this trial should be noted, particularly in light of the concerns raised regarding adverse reactions to metal debris from metal-on-metal bearing surfaces in the longer term. Longer-term follow-up of resurfacing arthroplasty patients and decision analytic modelling is also advised. Trial registration Current controlled Trials: ISRCTN33354155. UKCRN 4093.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General) R Medicine > RD Surgery
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Total hip replacement -- Great Britain, Arthroplasty -- Great Britain, Medical care, Cost of -- Great Britain, Great Britain. National Health Service, Clinical trials -- Great Britain
Series Name:	Working Paper Series of the Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Science, University of Leeds
Journal or Publication Title:	BMJ Open
Publisher:	BMJ
Place of Publication:	Leeds
ISSN:	2044-6055
Date:	12 October 2012
Volume:	Volume 2
Number:	Number 5
Page Range:	Article:e001162
Identification Number:	10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001162
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain) (NIHR)
Grant number:	PB-PG-0706-10080
References:	1. Health Episodes Statistics Online. Finalised PROMs data 2009–10, 2011. 2. Health Episodes Statistics Online. PROMs Score Comparisons April 2009 to February 2011: The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care, 2011. 3. Ellams D, Forsyth O, Mistry A, et al. 7th Annual Report. National Joint Registry for England and Wales; 2010. 4. Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, et al. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: Annual Report 2008. Shortened Version. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital; 2009. 5. Bozic KJ, Morshed S, Silverstein MD, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate new technologies in orthopaedics: the case of alternative bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 2006;88:706–14. 6. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Dawson J, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of primary hip replacement: how cost-effective is the Spectron compared to the Charnley prosthesis? CHE Technical Paper Series 28. York: University of York, 2003:51. 7. Fitzpatrick R, Shortall E, Sculpher M, et al. Modelling of cost-effectiveness of THR: methods and results and discussion in primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:17–32. 8. Vale L,Wyness L, McCormack K, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease. Health Technol Assess 2002;6(15). 9. Bozic KJ, Pui CM, Ludeman MJ, et al. Do the potential benefits of metal-on-metal resurfacing justify the increased cost and risk of complications? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:2301–12. 10. Achten JA, Parsons NR, Edlin RE, et al. A randomised controlled trial of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11(8). 11. Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint: a single centre, parallel group, assessor blind, randomised control trial. BMJ 2012;344:e2147. 12. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health & Social Care 2010. Personal and Social Services Research Unit, 2010:1–253. 13. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. 14. HRG version 3.5 & HRG4 Comparative Chapter Analysis: The Health & Social Care Information Centre, 2008. 15. Department of Health. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2009–10. Appendix NSRC04: NHS Trusts and PCTs combined reference cost schedules. London: Crown Copyright, 2011. 16. NHS. Electronic Drug Tariff: May 2011. National Health Service England and Wales, 2011. 17. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. 18. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values: further update of ice, with an emphasis on interval censoring. Stata J 2007;7:445–64. 19. Royston P, Carlin JB, White IR. Multiple imputation of missing values: new features for mim. Stata J 2009;9:252–64. 20. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry 2005;187:106–8. 21. Gioe TJ, Sharma A, Tatman P, et al. Do ‘premium’ joint implants add value? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:48–54. 22. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: decision, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011;342. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d766 23. de Steiger RN, Miller LN, Prosser GH, et al. Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty. 397 cases from the Australian Joint Replacement Registry. Acta Orthop 2010;81:72–6. 24. Kärrholm J, Garellick G, Rogmark C, et al. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: Annual Report 2007. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 2008.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/49820

Request changes to a record

Available Versions of this Item

• Cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young people : economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial. (deposited 13 Sep 2012 12:22)
  • Cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty : economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial. (deposited 13 Sep 2012 12:24) [Currently Displayed]

Actions (login required)

View Item