Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
30 November 2023

Cost–effectiveness analysis of Avance® allograft for the treatment of peripheral nerve injuries in the USA

Authors: Amir Ansaripour https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9298-6393 [email protected], Ann Thompson, Joseph F Styron, and Mehdi JavanbakhtAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 13, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0113
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is a debilitating condition with significant associated morbidity, and which places a substantial socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Recently, allograft has emerged as a viable surgical alternative to autograft for the treatment of PNI. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of allograft (Avance® Nerve Graft) compared with autograft for the peripheral nerve repair, from a US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to consider the treatment pathways followed by a patient population undergoing a single transected nerve repair with either allograft, or autograft. The marginal difference in meaningful recovery (MR) (effectiveness), and costs, between the two groups were estimated over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to consider the uncertainty surrounding the base-case input parameter values and their effect on the overall incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The base-case analysis indicates that there is a small difference in the average probability of MR between the two groups (75.15% vs 70.46%; +4.69% with allograft). Allograft also results in cost savings ($12,677 vs $14,023; -$-1346 with allograft) compared with autograft. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the costs of the initial surgical procedures are the main drivers of incremental cost, but that the intervention is likely to be cost saving compared with autograft regardless of the parameter variations made. Conclusion: The use of allograft with the Avance Nerve Graft has the potential to be a cost-effective alternative to autograft for the surgical treatment of PNI in the USA.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

This article is about finding the cost-effective way to treat peripheral nerve injuries (PNI). It looks at whether using donated nerve tissue (allograft) is a good option compared with using a patient's own nerve tissue (autograft) for treating these injuries in the United States.

What were the results?

The study revealed that employing allograft may present a marginally superior option. A greater proportion of individuals who underwent allograft treatment achieved improved recovery outcomes, and it also demonstrated a modest reduction in associated costs. Moreover, even when various scenarios were considered, the utilization of donated nerve tissue consistently appeared to be a favorable choice.

What do the results of the study mean?

The results suggest that in the US, using allograft like the Avance Nerve Graft for nerve injuries could be both cost-effective and beneficial for recovery.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary material.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
1.
Cairns C, Kang K. National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 2019 emergency department summary tables [Internet]. National Center for Health Statistics (U.S.) (2022). https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/115748
Google Scholar
2.
Kornfeld T, Vogt PM, Radtke C. Nerve grafting for peripheral nerve injuries with extended defect sizes. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 169, 240–251 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Mayo Clinic. Peripheral nerve injuries – diagnosis and treatment. (2022).
Google Scholar
4.
Carvalho CR, Oliveira JM, Reis RL. Modern trends for peripheral nerve repair and regeneration: beyond the hollow nerve guidance conduit. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7, 337 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Wojtkiewicz DM, Saunders J, Domeshek L, Novak CB, Kaskutas V, Mackinnon SE. Social impact of peripheral nerve injuries. HAND. 10(2), 161–167 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Griffin MF, Malahias M, Hindocha S, Khan WS. Peripheral nerve injury: principles for repair and regeneration. Open Orthop J. 8, 199–203 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Siemionow M, Brzezicki G. Current techniques and concepts in peripheral nerve repair. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 87, 141–172 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Grinsell D, Keating CP. Peripheral nerve reconstruction after injury: a review of clinical and experimental therapies. Biomed Res Int. 2014, 2014 (2014).
Google Scholar
9.
Kornfeld T, Borger A, Radtke C. Reconstruction of critical nerve defects using allogenic nerve tissue: a review of current approaches. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(7), 3515 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Siemionow M, Sonmez E. Nerve allograft transplantation: a review. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 23(08), 511–520 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Ducic I, Yoon J, Buncke G. Chronic postoperative complications and donor site morbidity after sural nerve autograft harvest or biopsy. Microsurgery 40(6), 710–716 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• This study reports nerve repair complication rate among 478 sural nerve procedures.
12.
Szynkaruk M, Kemp SWP, Wood MD, Gordon T, Borschel GH. Experimental and clinical evidence for use of decellularized nerve allografts in peripheral nerve gap reconstruction. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 19(1), 83–96 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Safa B, Jain S, Desai MJ, Greenberg JA, Niacaris TR, Nydick JA et al. Peripheral nerve repair throughout the body with processed nerve allografts: results from a large multicenter study. Microsurgery 40(5), 527–537 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Reports meaningful recovery rates to examine the continued use of processed nerve allograft up to 70 mm in sensory, mixed and motor nerve repair throughout the body and across a broad patient
14.
Leckenby JI, Furrer C, Haug L, Personeni BJ, Vögelin E. A retrospective case series reporting the outcomes of Avance nerve allografts in the treatment of peripheral nerve injuries. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 145(2), 368e–381e (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Means KR, Rinker BD, Higgins JP, Payne SH, Merrell GA, Wilgis EFS. A multicenter, prospective, randomized, pilot study of outcomes for digital nerve repair in the hand using hollow conduit compared with processed allograft nerve. HAND. 11(2), 144–151 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Karabekmez FE, Duymaz A, Moran SL. Early clinical outcomes with the use of decellularized nerve allograft for repair of sensory defects within the hand. HAND. 4(3), 245–249 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Lans J, Eberlin KR, Evans PJ, Mercer D, Greenberg JA, Styron JF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nerve gap repair: comparative effectiveness of allografts, autografts, and conduits. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 151(5), 814e–827e (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Sought to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis in order to compare recovery rates and postoperative complications among autograft, allograft, conduit repairs in nerve gaps of 5 mm to 70 mm in length.
18.
Styron J, Thompson A, Park L, Watson G. Nerve repair hospital index procedure costs – allograft vs. Autograft repair type. Presented at: The 75th annual meeting of the ASSH. TX, USA (2020).
Google Scholar
19.
Foster CH, Karsy M, Jensen MR, Guan J, Eli I, Mahan MA. Trends and cost-analysis of lower extremity nerve injury using the national inpatient sample. Neurosurgery 85(2), 250–256 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Raizman NM, Endress RD, Styron JF et al. Procedure costs of peripheral nerve graft reconstruction. Plas. Reconstr. Surg. Global Open. 11(4), e4908 (2023).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Provides a retrospective cross-sectional observational study (n = 1363) using the US all-payer PINC AI Healthcare Database examined facility procedure costs and cost drivers in patients undergoing allograft or autograft repair
21.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Overview | Processed nerve allografts to repair peripheral nerve discontinuities | Guidance (2022). www.nice.org.uk/guidance/IPG597
Google Scholar
22.
Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. cost–effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2016).
Google Scholar
23.
Martin E, Muskens IS, Senders JT, Cote DJ, Smith TR, Broekman MLD. A nationwide analysis of 30-day adverse events, unplanned readmission, and length of hospital stay after peripheral nerve surgery in extremities and the brachial plexus. Microsurgery 39(2), 115–123 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (2022). www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html
Google Scholar
25.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. List of CPT/HCPCS Codes | CMS [Internet] (2022). www.cms.gov/Medicare/Fraud-and-Abuse/PhysicianSelfReferral
Google Scholar
26.
Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P. Costs and outcomes in evaluating management of unhealed surgical wounds in the community in clinical practice in the UK: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 8(12), e022591 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
MD L deGraft-Johnson. How Much Does a Primary Care Visit Cost in 2022? [Internet]. K Health (2022). https://khealth.com/learn/healthcare/primary-care-visit-cost/
Google Scholar
28.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Conversion rates – purchasing power parities (PPP) (2022). http://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm
Google Scholar
29.
Unpublished data provided by Dr Ivica Ducic - Washington Nerve Institute study (Unpublished).
Google Scholar
30.
Gore M, Brandenburg NA, Hoffman DL, Tai KS, Stacey B. Burden of illness in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: the patients' perspectives. J Pain. 7(12), 892–900 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2022 ASP Drug Pricing Files (2022). www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-part-b-drug-average-sales-price/2022-asp-drug-pricing-files
Google Scholar
32.
York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC). Probabilistic/Stochastic Sensitivity Analysis (2022). http://yhec.co.uk/glossary/probabilistic-stochastic-sensitivity-analysis/
Google Scholar
33.
York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC). Monte-Carlo Simulation (2022). http://yhec.co.uk/glossary/monte-carlo-simulation/
Google Scholar
35.
Gao Y, Wang YL, Kong D et al. Nerve autografts and tissue-engineered materials for the repair of peripheral nerve injuries: a 5-year bibliometric analysis. Neural Regen. Res. 10(6), 1003–1008 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Bergmeister KD, Große-Hartlage L, Daeschler SC et al. Acute and long-term costs of 268 peripheral nerve injuries in the upper extremity. PLOS One. 15(4), e0229530 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|