ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Limb loss leads to significant disability. Prostheses may mitigate this disability but are not readily accessible in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cost-effectiveness data related to prosthesis provision in resource-constrained environments such as Tanzania is greatly limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prosthesis intervention compared with that of no prosthesis for persons with transfemoral amputations in an LMIC. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients were prospectively followed up. Clinical improvement with prosthesis provision was measured using EuroQuol-5D, represented as quality-adjusted life years gained. Direct and indirect costs were measured. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year, measured at 1 year and projected over a lifetime using a Markov model. Reference case was set as a single prosthesis provided without replacement from a payer perspective. Additional scenarios included the societal perspective and replacement of the prosthesis. Uncertainty was measured with one-way probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $242 for those without prosthetic replacement over a lifetime, and the ICER was $390 for those with prosthetic replacement over a lifeime. From the societal perspective, prosthesis provision was both less expensive and more effective. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the ICER remained below the willingness to pay threshold up to prosthesis costs of $763. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest prosthesis provision in an LMIC may be cost-effective, but further studies with long-term follow up are needed to validate the results.
Subject(s)
Artificial Limbs , Amputation, Surgical , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Prospective Studies , TanzaniaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The rise of diabetes and traumatic injury has increased limb loss-related morbidity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite this, the majority of amputees in LMICs have no access to prosthetic devices, and the magnitude of prosthesis impact on quality of life (QOL ) and function has not been quantified. OBJECTIVES: Quantify the impact of prostheses on QOL and function in Tanzanian transfemoral amputees. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Transfemoral amputees at Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute were assessed twice before and three times after prosthetic fitting using EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L), Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), 2-minute walk test (2MWT) and Physiologic Cost Index (PCI). Data were analysed for change over time. Subgroup analysis was performed for amputation aetiology (vascular or non-vascular) and prosthesis use. RESULTS: Amongst 30 patients, EQ-5D, PLUS-M and 2MWT improved after prosthesis provision (p < 0.001). EuroQol-5D increased from 0.48 to 0.85 at 1 year (p < 0.001). EuroQol-5D and 2MWT were higher in non-vascular subgroup (p < 0.030). At 1-year, 84% of non-vascular and 44% of vascular subgroups reported using their prosthesis (p = 0.068). CONCLUSION: Prosthesis provision to transfemoral amputees in an LMIC improved QOL and function. This benefit was greater for non-vascular amputation aetiologies. Quality of life and function returned to pre-prosthesis levels with discontinued use of prosthesis.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize extant literature on the cost-effectiveness of prosthetic interventions and explore applicability to low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature review using subject headings including "prosthetics," "amputation," and "cost analysis" was performed with PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science search engines, yielding 1194 articles. An additional 22 articles were identified via backward citation searching for 1144 total after duplicate removal. The search was last run in May of 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they conducted an economic analysis of an upper or lower extremity prosthetic device. Studies were excluded if (1) full text was unavailable in English; (2) study was a systematic review or meta-analysis; or (3) study did not have a prosthetic comparison group. Using DistillerSR software, 2 authors independently conducted title and abstract screening. One author conducted full-text screening. The proportion of initially identified studies that met final inclusion criteria was 1% (12 of 1144). DATA EXTRACTION: Data were dually extracted by 2 authors and reviewed by 3 additional authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: All included studies (N=12) examined lower extremity amputations comparing advanced technology. No studies were conducted in LMICs. Comparable data between studies demonstrated (1) the cost-effectiveness of microprocessor- over nonmicroprocessor-controlled knees for transfemoral amputation in high-income settings; (2) equivocal findings regarding osseointegrated vs socket-suspended prostheses; and (3) increased cost for ICEX and modular socket systems over patellar tendon-bearing socket systems with no functional improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There are few prosthetic cost analyses in the literature. Additional analyses are needed to determine the direct and indirect costs associated with prosthetic acquisition, fitting, and maintenance; the costs of amputee rehabilitation; and long-term economic and quality-of-life benefits. Such studies may guide future prosthetic and rehabilitative care, especially in resource-austere settings where prosthetic needs are greatest.
