» Articles » PMID: 37614995

A Preliminary Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prosthetic Care Innovations: Basic Framework

Overview
Date 2023 Aug 24
PMID 37614995
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A preliminary cost-utility analysis (CUA) of prosthetic care innovations can provide timely information during the early stage of product development and clinical usage. Concepts of preliminary CUAs are emerging. However, several obstacles must be overcome before these analyses are performed routinely. Disparities of methods and high uncertainty make the outcomes of usual preliminary CUAs challenging to interpret, appraise and share. These shortcomings create opportunities for a basic framework of preliminary CUAs. First, I introduced a basic framework of a preliminary CUA built around a series of constructs and hands-on recommendations. Then, I appraised this framework considering the strengths and weaknesses, barriers and facilitators, and return on investment. The design of the basic framework was determined through the review of health economic and prosthetic-specific literature. A preliminary CUA comparing the costs and utilities between usual intervention and an innovation could be achieved through a 15-step iterative process focusing on feasibility, constructs, analysis, and interpretation of outcomes. This CUA provides sufficient evidence to identify knowledge gaps and improvement areas, educate about the design of subsequent full CUAs, and obtain fast-track approval from governing bodies. Like previous CUAs, the main limitations were inherent to the constructs (e.g., narrow perspective, plausible scenarios, mid-term time horizon, substantial assumptions, data mismatch, high uncertainty). Key facilitators potentially transferable across preliminary CUAs of prosthetic care innovations included choosing abided constructs, capitalizing on prior schedules of expenses, and benchmarking baseline or incremental utilities. This new approach with preliminary CUA can simplify the selection of methods, standardize outcomes, ease comparisons between innovations, and streamline pathways for adoption. Further collegial efforts toward validating standard preliminary CUAs will facilitate access to economic prosthetic care innovations, improving the lives of individuals suffering from limb loss worldwide.

Citing Articles

Editorial: Advances in technology-assisted rehabilitation.

Kannenberg A, Rupp R, Wurdeman S, Frossard L Front Rehabil Sci. 2024; 5:1465671.

PMID: 39165605 PMC: 11334218. DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2024.1465671.


A Preliminary Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prosthetic Care Innovations: Case of the Keep Walking Implant.

Guirao L, Samitier B, Frossard L Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2023; 4(2):36366.

PMID: 37615003 PMC: 10443520. DOI: 10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.36366.


Health Service Delivery and Economic Evaluation of Limb Lower Bone-Anchored Prostheses: A Summary of the Queensland Artificial Limb Service's Experience.

Berg D, Frossard L Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2023; 4(2):36210.

PMID: 37614998 PMC: 10443483. DOI: 10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.36210.


Editorial: Bionics limb prostheses: Advances in clinical and prosthetic care.

Frossard L, Conforto S, Aszmann O Front Rehabil Sci. 2022; 3:950481.

PMID: 36189016 PMC: 9397676. DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2022.950481.


Loading characteristics data applied on osseointegrated implant by transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses fitted with state-of-the-art components during daily activities.

Frossard L, Laux S, Geada M, Heym P, Lechler K Data Brief. 2022; 41:107936.

PMID: 35242918 PMC: 8859002. DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2022.107936.

References
1.
Campbell J, Stevens P, Wurdeman S . OASIS 1: Retrospective analysis of four different microprocessor knee types. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020; 7:2055668320968476. PMC: 7649908. DOI: 10.1177/2055668320968476. View

2.
Gordon R, Magee C, Frazer A, Evans C, McCosker K . An interim prosthesis program for lower limb amputees: comparison of public and private models of service. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010; 34(2):175-83. DOI: 10.3109/03093640903510980. View

3.
Cutti A, Lettieri E, Del Maestro M, Radaelli G, Luchetti M, Verni G . Stratified cost-utility analysis of C-Leg versus mechanical knees: Findings from an Italian sample of transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016; 41(3):227-236. DOI: 10.1177/0309364616637955. View

4.
. Osseointegrated Prosthetic Implants for People With Lower-Limb Amputation: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2020; 19(7):1-126. PMC: 6939984. View

5.
IJzerman M, Steuten L . Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: a review of methods and applications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011; 9(5):331-47. DOI: 10.2165/11593380-000000000-00000. View