A break-even analysis of tranexamic acid for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection following total hip and knee arthroplasty

Purpose

Despite the commonplace use of tranexamic acid in total joint arthroplasty, much of the current data regarding its cost-effectiveness examines savings directly related to its hemostatic properties, without considering its protective effect against periprosthetic joint infections. Using break-even economic modeling, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of routine tranexamic acid administration for infection prevention in total joint arthroplasty.

Materials and methods

The cost of intraoperative intravenous tranexamic acid, the cost of revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infections, and the baseline rates of periprosthetic joint infections in patients who did not receive intraoperative tranexamic acid were obtained from the literature and institutional purchasing records. Break-even economic modeling incorporating these variables was performed to determine the absolute risk reduction in infection rate to make routine intraoperative tranexamic acid use economically justified. The number needed to treat was calculated from the absolute risk reduction.

Results

Routine use of intraoperative tranexamic acid is economically justified if it prevents at least 1 infection out of 3125 total joint arthroplasties (absolute risk reduction = 0.032%). Cost-effectiveness was maintained with varying costs of tranexamic acid, infection rates, and periprosthetic joint infection costs.

Conclusion

The routine use of intraoperative tranexamic acid is a highly cost-effective practice for infection prevention in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. The use of tranexamic acid is warranted across a wide range of costs of tranexamic acid, initial infection rates, and costs of periprosthetic joint infection treatment.

Where does TIPS fit in the management of patients with cirrhosis?

In this review, we summarise the current knowledge on the indications and contraindications of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement for the treatment of the complications of portal hypertension in cirrhosis, specifically variceal haemorrhage and ascites. Moreover, we discuss the role of TIPS for the treatment of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and the prevention of complications after extrahepatic surgery ('preoperative TIPS') in patients with cirrhosis. The position of TIPS in the treatment hierarchy depends on the clinical setting and on patient characteristics. In acute variceal haemorrhage, preemptive TIPS is indicated in patients at a high risk of failing standard therapy, that is those with a Child-Pugh score of 10-13 points or Child-Pugh B with active bleeding at endoscopy, although the survival benefit in the latter group still remains to be established. Non-preemptive TIPS is a second-line therapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal haemorrhage and for the treatment of ascites. Of note, TIPS may also improve sarcopenia. Contraindications to TIPS placement, independent of clinical setting, include very advanced disease (Child-Pugh >13 points), episodes of recurrent overt hepatic encephalopathy without an identifiable precipitating factor, heart failure, and pulmonary hypertension. In patients with PVT, TIPS placement not only controls complications of portal hypertension, but also promotes portal vein recanalisation. Although the severity of portal hypertension correlates with poor outcomes after extrahepatic surgery, there is no evidence to recommend preoperative TIPS placement.

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted.

Results

The MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) (P < 0.001), whilst calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had no effect compared to controls (79% vs 75%) (P = 0.38). In the subgroup analysis, α-blockers had a shorter time to stone expulsion vs the control group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in expulsion rates between the treatment groups and control group for stones <5 mm in size (P = 0.48), proximal or mid-ureteric stones (P = 0.63 and P = 0.22, respectively). However, α-blockers increased stone expulsion in stones >5 mm (P = 0.02), as well as distal ureteric stones (P < 0.001). The α-blocker group developed more side-effects (6.6% of patients; P < 0.001). The numbers needed to treat for α-blockers was one in 14, for stones >5 mm one in eight, and for distal stones one in 10.

Conclusion

The primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (>5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Alcoholic Hepatitis: Examining Outcomes Based on Disease Severity Stratification

OBJECTIVES

Maddrey discriminant function (MDF) score is a measure of disease prognosis in alcoholic hepatitis (AH) used to identify patients at highest risk of mortality and determine the need for initiation of pharmacologic treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of pharmacologic therapy for hospitalized AH patients as stratified by MDF score.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with an AH diagnosis admitted to a Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare adult hospital between 06/2009 and 06/2014 was conducted. Patients ≥18 years of age with an ICD-9 code for AH were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 493 patients screened, 234 met the inclusion criteria, comprised of 62 patients with an MDF ≥ 32 (treatment, n = 42 vs. no treatment, n = 20) and 172 patients with an MDF < 32 (treatment, n = 15 vs. no treatment, n = 157). For the patients with an MDF ≥ 32, there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group vs. non-treatment group regarding 28-day mortality (31% vs. 11%, respectively; P = 0.18) and 6-month mortality (45% treatment vs. 38% non-treatment; P = 0.75). For the patients with an MDF <32, there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group vs. non-treatment group regarding 28-day mortality (0% vs. 7%, respectively; P > 0.99) and 6-month mortality (11% treatment vs. 13% non-treatment; P > 0.99). There was no difference in incidence of acute kidney injury, hepatorenal syndrome, development of infection or hepatic encephalopathy between the treatment vs. non-treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacologic treatment showed no survival benefit, regardless of disease severity. Given the mortality risk seen in mild-moderate AH patients not receiving treatment and concern for a possible treatment ceiling effect in severe AH patients, more data are needed to adequately assess the utility of MDF in selecting appropriate candidates for AH treatment.