To estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with standard care alone for the treatment of early-stage Dupuytren’s disease (DD) and the value of further research from an NHS perspective. We used data from the Repurposing anti-TNF for Dupuytren’s disease (RIDD) randomized controlled trial of intranodular adalimumab injections in patients with early-stage progressive DD. RIDD found that intranodular adalimumab injections reduced nodule hardness and size in patients with early-stage DD, indicating the potential to control disease progression. A within-trial cost-utility analysis compared four adalimumab injections with no further treatment against standard care alone, taking a 12-month time horizon and using prospective data on EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use from the RIDD trial. We also developed a patient-level simulation model similar to a Markov model to extrapolate trial outcomes over a lifetime using data from the RIDD trial and a literature review. This also evaluated repeated courses of adalimumab each time the nodule reactivated (every three years) in patients who initially responded.Aims
Methods
To compare the cost-utility of standard dressing with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in adults with closed surgical wounds associated with major trauma to the lower limbs. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective based on data collected from the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) multicentre randomized clinical trial. Health resource utilization was collected over a six-month post-randomization period using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-utility was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates while uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.Aims
Methods
Although it is widely accepted that grade IIIB open tibial fractures require combined specialised orthopaedic and plastic surgery, the majority of patients in the UK initially present to local hospitals without access to specialised trauma facilities. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients presenting directly to a specialist centre (primary group) with that of patients initially managed at local centres (tertiary group). We reviewed 73 consecutive grade IIIB open tibial shaft fractures with a mean follow-up of 14 months (8 to 48). There were 26 fractures in the primary and 47 in the tertiary group. The initial skeletal fixation required revision in 22 (47%) of the tertiary patients. Although there was no statistically-significant relationship between flap timing and flap failure, all the failures (6 of 63; 9.5%) occurred in the tertiary group. The overall mean time to union of 28 weeks was not influenced by the type of skeletal fixation. Deep infection occurred in 8.5% of patients, but there were no persistently infected fractures. The infection rate was not increased in those patients debrided more than six hours after injury. The limb salvage rate was 93%. The mean limb functional score was 74% of that of the normal limb. At review, 67% of patients had returned to employment, with a further 10% considering a return after rehabilitation. The times to union, infection rates and Enneking limb reconstruction scores were not statistically different between the primary and tertiary groups. The increased complications and revision surgery encountered in the tertiary group suggest that severe open tibial fractures should be referred directly to specialist centres for simultaneous combined management by orthopaedic and plastic surgeons.
