Cargando…

How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?

BACKGROUND: Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However, concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nandra, Rajpal S, Ahmed, Usman, Berryman, Fiona, Brash, Lesley, Dunlop, David J, Matharu, Gulraj S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33445979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120700020983297
_version_ 1784728747107155968
author Nandra, Rajpal S
Ahmed, Usman
Berryman, Fiona
Brash, Lesley
Dunlop, David J
Matharu, Gulraj S
author_facet Nandra, Rajpal S
Ahmed, Usman
Berryman, Fiona
Brash, Lesley
Dunlop, David J
Matharu, Gulraj S
author_sort Nandra, Rajpal S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However, concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in “at-risk” Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients; and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed without patient recall. METHODS: All BHR patients eligible for the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes ⩽46 mm, regardless of symptoms) at one centre were invited for review (hips = 707; patients = 593). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data. RESULTS: The surveillance cost £105,921.79 (range £147.76–£257.50/patient). Radiographs (£39,598) and nurse practitioner time/assistance (£23,618) accounted for 60% of overall costs. 31 hips had ARMD on imaging (12 revised; 19 under surveillance). All revisions were symptomatic. 7 hips with ARMD under surveillance were asymptomatic and remain under regular review. The number needed to treat to avoid missing one asymptomatic ARMD case was 101 patients, representing a cost of £18,041 to avoid one asymptomatic case. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing MHRA surveillance for “at-risk” BHR patients was extremely costly. The risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low with the BHR (1%), suggesting recommended follow-up in asymptomatic patients is not cost efficient. This raises concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for metal-on-metal hip patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9203671
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92036712022-06-18 How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost? Nandra, Rajpal S Ahmed, Usman Berryman, Fiona Brash, Lesley Dunlop, David J Matharu, Gulraj S Hip Int Original Research Articles BACKGROUND: Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However, concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in “at-risk” Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients; and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed without patient recall. METHODS: All BHR patients eligible for the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes ⩽46 mm, regardless of symptoms) at one centre were invited for review (hips = 707; patients = 593). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data. RESULTS: The surveillance cost £105,921.79 (range £147.76–£257.50/patient). Radiographs (£39,598) and nurse practitioner time/assistance (£23,618) accounted for 60% of overall costs. 31 hips had ARMD on imaging (12 revised; 19 under surveillance). All revisions were symptomatic. 7 hips with ARMD under surveillance were asymptomatic and remain under regular review. The number needed to treat to avoid missing one asymptomatic ARMD case was 101 patients, representing a cost of £18,041 to avoid one asymptomatic case. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing MHRA surveillance for “at-risk” BHR patients was extremely costly. The risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low with the BHR (1%), suggesting recommended follow-up in asymptomatic patients is not cost efficient. This raises concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for metal-on-metal hip patients. SAGE Publications 2021-01-14 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9203671/ /pubmed/33445979 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120700020983297 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Nandra, Rajpal S
Ahmed, Usman
Berryman, Fiona
Brash, Lesley
Dunlop, David J
Matharu, Gulraj S
How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?
title How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?
title_full How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?
title_fullStr How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?
title_full_unstemmed How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?
title_short How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?
title_sort how much does a medical and healthcare products regulatory agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33445979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120700020983297
work_keys_str_mv AT nandrarajpals howmuchdoesamedicalandhealthcareproductsregulatoryagencymedicaldevicealertformetalonmetalhiparthroplastypatientsreallycost
AT ahmedusman howmuchdoesamedicalandhealthcareproductsregulatoryagencymedicaldevicealertformetalonmetalhiparthroplastypatientsreallycost
AT berrymanfiona howmuchdoesamedicalandhealthcareproductsregulatoryagencymedicaldevicealertformetalonmetalhiparthroplastypatientsreallycost
AT brashlesley howmuchdoesamedicalandhealthcareproductsregulatoryagencymedicaldevicealertformetalonmetalhiparthroplastypatientsreallycost
AT dunlopdavidj howmuchdoesamedicalandhealthcareproductsregulatoryagencymedicaldevicealertformetalonmetalhiparthroplastypatientsreallycost
AT matharugulrajs howmuchdoesamedicalandhealthcareproductsregulatoryagencymedicaldevicealertformetalonmetalhiparthroplastypatientsreallycost