Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Clostridium histolyticum collagenase injections in a subpopulation of Dupuytren's contracture patients

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties.

METHODS

Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points).

RESULTS

Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Systematic Review Comparing Cost Analyses of Fasciectomy, Needle Aponeurotomy, and Collagenase Injection for Treatment of Dupuytren's Contracture: Une analyse de coûts systématique comparant la fasciectomie, l'aponévrotomie percutanée à l'aiguille et l'injection de collagénase pou traiter la maladie de Dupuytren

Purpose

Surgeons now have a variety of treatment options for Dupuytren's contracture including traditional partial fasciectomy (PF), percutaneous needle aponeurotomy (PNA), and collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) injection. An important factor in clinical decision making is the cost-effectiveness of the various modalities, as will be discussed in this article.

Methods

A literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 14 articles and 3 abstracts met inclusion criteria. Papers were excluded for non-English language, insufficient breakdown of costs by treatment type, promotional materials, or works-in-progress. Cost data were extracted and subsequently converted to US dollars. Weighted means were used to objectively pool data that were sufficiently similar in methodology and population.

Results

Seven observational cohort studies were pooled and found to have a weighted mean cost in favour of PNA at US$3335 per patient as compared to CCH at US$3673.14 and PF at US$4734.14. Two expected-value decision analysis models were in agreement that PF is not cost-effective, but they differed on whether PNA or CCH was the most cost-effective strategy. Two cost minimization studies agreed that CCH was less costly than PF by US$486. One cost-benefit analysis found no significant cost benefit to CCH or PF, but found significant indirect benefit to CCH. Overall 10 of 17 studies found CCH to be superior with respect to direct cost, indirect cost, or both. Only 2 of the 17 studies found PF to be the most cost-effective method. Of the 7 studies that considered PNA, 4 found it to be lowest cost.

Conclusion

The vast majority of studies found PF to be the most costly treatment modality; however, it is still the treatment of choice in certain clinical scenarios. It is difficult to compare CCH to PNA, as many studies did not consider PNA. More studies, especially considering indirect costs, are required to be able to accurately determine which method is most cost-effective.

A systematic review identifying outcomes and outcome measures in Dupuytren's disease research

This systematic review summarizes the outcome reporting standards in Dupuytren's disease treatment research. A search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and CINAHL was conducted. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series published between 1997 and 2017, investigating treatment of Dupuytren's disease with fasciectomy, fasciotomy, or collagenase, were eligible for inclusion. Range of motion was the most commonly reported outcome, appearing in 77% of included studies. Outcomes, such as range of motion, recurrence, and clinical success, were frequently defined, however many different definitions were used. We identified 37 unique measurement methods for range of motion, 28 for recurrence, and 25 for clinical success. Most outcomes were assessed at multiple time points, and only a few studies reported results according to established clinical significance thresholds. Development of a core outcome set will help standardize outcome reporting, and ensure future research in this field is relevant, interpretable, and amenable to systematic review and/or meta-analysis.

Cost Comparison of Collagenase Clostridium Histolyticum and Fasciectomy for Treatment of Dupuytren's Contracture in the Australian Health System

BACKGROUND

Dupuytren's disease results in contracted cords in the hand that lead to deformity and disability. Current treatment options include fasciectomy and an injectable, collagenase clostridium histolyticum. No cost comparison studies have been published within the Australian health care environment.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients treated for Dupuytren's disease in a major teaching hospital was undertaken to compare the costs of treatment by fasciectomy or collagenase injection.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients underwent fasciectomy and 21 collagenase clostridium histolyticum injections were performed during the study period and were eligible for inclusion under the review criteria. Of the 39 patients, 36 were male and 3 were female with an average age 66.4 years (50-85). Twenty-five digits were treated by fasciectomy in 18 patients, and 23 digits were treated by collagenase in 21 patients. The fasciectomy group attended an average 9.2 visits (5-22), incurring an average costing of US$5738.12 per patient ($3181.18-$9618.10). The collagenase group attended an average 3.8 visits (3-8), incurring an average costing of US$2076.83 per patient ($1842.24-$3929.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Collagenase treatment of Dupuytren's contracture represents a significant reduction in cost relative to fasciectomy, with 64% savings, length of follow up and number of visits. This is a similar finding to studies in other countries.

One year follow-up after treatment with CCH for Dupuytren's disease: A prospective view

Aim Clostridium histolyticum collagenase (CCH) is nowadays an alternative treatment for the contracture of Dupuytren. Our objective is to assess its effectiveness at one year in a series of consecutive patients.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Prospective study with minimum follow-up of one year. Evaluation of results and adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 75 joints treated in 51 patients were included. The average age was 65.18years (SD: 7.288) and 82.7% were males. The initial mean contraction of the MCP was 34.0 degrees (SD: 27.37), PIP 41.5 degrees (SD: 31.33) and combined impairment (MCF+IFP) of 75.5 degrees (SD: 35.2). Efficacy was achieved in 68 patients (90.7%). Adverse effects were mild and self-limiting. The mean correction for the MCP joint was 28.96 degrees (SD: 26.90) and for PIP it was 28.72 degrees (SD: 24.30). The recurrence rate was 18 (24.0%) joints in 14 patients, being more frequent in severe cases. QuickDASH score showed minimal differences measured before the intervention and once a year.

DISCUSSION

Our results show a better outcome in mild cases; the outcome was more favourable and with a higher success rate in the MCP joint. QuickDASH score is not a useful tool for the assessment of Dupuytren's contracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with CCH for Dupuytren's contracture is an effective treatment in the medium term. It has a poorer outcome in combined joint disorders, 5th finger, PIP and severe cases.

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Dupuytren's disease is a slowly progressive condition of the hand, characterised by the formation of nodules in the palm that gradually develop into fibrotic cords. Contracture of the cords produces deformities of the fingers. Surgery is recommended for moderate and severe contractures, but complications and/or recurrences are frequent. Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) has been developed as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for some patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collagenase as an alternative to surgery for adults with Dupuytren's contracture with a palpable cord.

DATA SOURCES

We searched all major electronic databases from 1990 to February 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative studies and observational studies involving collagenase and/or surgical interventions were considered. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. A de novo Markov model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of collagenase, percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF) and limited fasciectomy (LF). Results were reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate model and parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comparing collagenase with placebo (493 participants), three RCTs comparing surgical techniques (334 participants), two non-randomised studies comparing collagenase and surgery (105 participants), five non-randomised comparative studies assessing various surgical procedures (3571 participants) and 15 collagenase case series (3154 participants) were included. Meta-analyses of RCTs assessing CCH versus placebo were performed. Joints randomised to collagenase were more likely to achieve clinical success. Collagenase-treated participants experienced significant reduction in contracture and an increased range of motion compared with placebo-treated participants. Participants treated with collagenase also experienced significantly more adverse events, most of which were mild or moderate. Four serious adverse events were observed in the collagenase group: two tendon ruptures, one pulley rupture and one complex regional pain syndrome. Two tendon ruptures were also reported in two collagenase case series. Non-randomised studies comparing collagenase with surgery produced variable results and were at high risk of bias. Serious adverse events across surgery studies were low. Recurrence rates ranged from 0% (at 90 days) to 100% (at 8 years) for collagenase and from 0% (at 2.7 years for fasciectomy) to 85% (at 5 years for PNF) for surgery. The results of the de novo economic analysis show that PNF was the cheapest treatment option, whereas LF generated the greatest QALY gains. Collagenase was more costly and generated fewer QALYs compared with LF. LF was £1199 more costly and generated an additional 0.11 QALYs in comparison with PNF. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £10,871 per QALY gained. Two subgroup analyses were conducted for a population of patients with moderate and severe disease and up to two joints affected. In both subgroup analyses, collagenase remained dominated.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of the review was the lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing collagenase with surgery and the limited evidence base for estimating the effects of specific surgical procedures (fasciectomy and PNF). Substantial differences across studies further limited the comparability of available evidence. The economic model was derived from a naive indirect comparison and was hindered by a lack of suitable data. In addition, there was considerable uncertainty about the appropriateness of many assumptions and parameters used in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Collagenase was significantly better than placebo. There was no evidence that collagenase was clinically better or worse than surgical treatments. LF was the most cost-effective choice to treat moderate to severe contractures, whereas collagenase was not. However, the results of the cost-utility analysis are based on a naive indirect comparison of clinical effectiveness, and a RCT is required to confirm or refute these findings.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006248.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.