Download the full report (130 p.)
Download the full report (130 p.)
Download the full report (130 p.)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
50 Hyperbaric Oxygenation Therapy KCE Reports 74<br />
Costs for <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>tical conservative <strong>the</strong>rapy group, including costs of medications,<br />
sequestrectomies, dental extractions, out-patient visits, in-patient days and<br />
reconstructive surgery, were also calculated based on expected outcomes obtained<br />
from <strong>the</strong> literature.<br />
The cost for one dive in <strong>the</strong> chamber was CAD350.59, including <strong>the</strong> capital and<br />
operational cost, <strong>the</strong> fees charged to <strong>the</strong> Ontario Health Insurance and <strong>the</strong> patient cost<br />
per dive. Cost per day, average number of in-patient days and cost of reconstructive<br />
surgery were changed in sensitivity analyses.<br />
The total cost to treat <strong>the</strong> 21 hypo<strong>the</strong>tical patients was found to be CAD1 327 444, or<br />
an average of CAD63 211 per patient. In contrast, this was CAD211 362 for <strong>the</strong> 21<br />
patients treated with HBOT or an average cost of CAD10 064 per patient. The number<br />
of days in <strong>the</strong> hospital was an important cost driver. The osteoradionecrosis of <strong>the</strong> 21<br />
patients in <strong>the</strong> treatment group healed, whereas, based on expected outcomes from <strong>the</strong><br />
literature, three cases would not be resolved under conservative <strong>the</strong>rapy in <strong>the</strong><br />
hypo<strong>the</strong>tical patient group.<br />
According to <strong>the</strong> authors of this study, HBOT was both less expensive and more<br />
effective than conservative <strong>the</strong>rapy and, thus, demonstrated dominance.<br />
4.3.3.2 Medical Services Advisory Committee 69<br />
4.3.3.3 Comments<br />
A third indication included in <strong>the</strong> Australian HTA <strong>report</strong> (2000) was osteoradionecrosis.<br />
The study of Marx et al. 114 randomised two groups of patients who had an indication for<br />
removal of one or more teeth in a segment of <strong>the</strong> mandible. The comparison group<br />
received aqueous penicillin G intravenously prior to surgery and<br />
phenoxymethylpenicillin after surgery. The intervention group was exposed to HBOT.<br />
The main outcome of interest was <strong>the</strong> clinical diagnosis of osteoradionecrosis during<br />
follow-up. Two out of 37 patients (5.4%) in <strong>the</strong> intervention group were diagnosed as<br />
having osteoradionecrosis during follow up, compared to 11 out of 37 patients (29.7%)<br />
in <strong>the</strong> comparison group, a difference of 24.3% (95% CI: 15.9%, 47.0%, p=0.0060). 69<br />
The treatment cost in <strong>the</strong> comparison group was on average AUD13.6 compared to<br />
AUD6 941 in <strong>the</strong> intervention group (30 HBOT sessions). This resulted in an<br />
incremental cost of AUD28 480 per case of osteoradionecrosis avoided. Sensitivity<br />
analysis using <strong>the</strong> upper and lower bound of <strong>the</strong> 95% CI suggested this cost to be<br />
AUD16 663 and AUD66 187, respectively. Results were again sensitive to <strong>the</strong> number<br />
of sessions and sharing of operating costs between units.<br />
The main weakness of <strong>the</strong> study of Dempsey et al. 82 is that it compares an HBOT group<br />
with a hypo<strong>the</strong>tical group. The assumptions on <strong>the</strong> outcomes for <strong>the</strong> latter group<br />
undergoing conservative <strong>the</strong>rapy were taken from literature. Mitton et al. remark that<br />
<strong>the</strong> non-HBOT outcome assumptions were based on weak evidence, and no reference<br />
was provided for <strong>the</strong> non-HBOT length of stay, leading to uncertainty in <strong>report</strong>ed cost<br />
savings. 115 This indirect comparison resulted in very uncertain health gains and cost<br />
differences and can not be regarded as reliable. Results should <strong>the</strong>refore be interpreted<br />
with caution. A more precise measure of <strong>the</strong> true effectiveness of HBOT in this<br />
indication is needed to calculate reliable cost-effectiveness ratios.<br />
The Australian <strong>report</strong> was based on one study on <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of HBOT in<br />
osteoradionecrosis.<br />
This resulted in an incremental cost of AUD28 480 per case of osteoradionecrosis<br />
avoided. As mentioned by <strong>the</strong> authors, this did not take into account <strong>the</strong> cost offsets<br />
associated with prevention of osteoradionecrosis. None<strong>the</strong>less, this cost per<br />
osteoradionecrosis avoided is very difficult to interpret by decision makers.<br />
In conclusion, and similar as for o<strong>the</strong>r indications, due to <strong>the</strong> absence of good<br />
effectiveness and cost data, <strong>the</strong> cost-effectiveness of HBOT in this indication is<br />
unknown.