Donnelley CA, von Kaeppler EP, Hetherington A, Shirley C, Haonga BT, Challa ST, Andrysek J, Lutyens EM, Mamseri L, Mwakasungula G, Morshed S, Shearer DW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of prosthesis provision for patients with transfemoral amputation in Tanzania.
Prosthet Orthot Int 2022;
46:523-531. [PMID:
35426873 DOI:
10.1097/pxr.0000000000000129]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2021] [Accepted: 02/15/2022] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
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.
Collapse