Search

Aims: Prior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient’s quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients. Methods: Lifetime Markov models were developed evaluating active healthy middle-aged male amputees. Costs of the prostheses, associated complications, use/non-use, and annual costs of arthroplasty parts and service for both a socket and osseointegrated (OPRA) prosthesis were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using the questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) until death. All costs and Q-TFA were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses on those cost variables which affected a change in treatment (OPRA to socket, or socket to OPRA) were evaluated to determine threshold values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results: For treatment-naïve patients, the lifetime ICER for OPRA was $279/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For treatment-refractory patients the ICER was $273/QALY. In sensitivity analysis, the variable thresholds that would affect a change in the course of treatment based on cost (from socket to OPRA), included the following for the treatment-naïve group: yearly replacement components for socket > $8,511; cost yearly replacement parts OPRA < $1,758; and for treatment-refractory group: yearly replacement component for socket of > $12,467. Conclusion: The use of the OPRA prosthesis in physically active transfemoral amputees should be considered as a cost-effective alternative in both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory socket prosthesis patients. Disease-specific quality of life assessments such as Q-TFA are more sensitive when evaluating cost-effectiveness. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):218–226.

BackgroundTo date, only one systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has evaluated the effect of neurofeedback in PTSD, which included only four studies and found an uncertainty of the effect of EEG-NF on PTSD symptoms. This meta-analysis is an update considering that numerous studies have since been published. Additionally, more recent studies have included fMRI-NF as well as fMRI-guided or -inspired EEG NFMethodsSystematic literature searches for RCTs were conducted in three online databases. Additional hand searches of each study identified and of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published were also undertaken. Outcomes evaluated the effect of neurofeedback vs. a control (active, sham, and waiting list) on their effects in reducing PTSD symptoms using various health instruments. Meta-analytical methods used were inverse variance random-effects models measuring both mean and standardized mean differences. Quality and certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Adverse events were also evaluated.ResultsA total of 17 studies were identified evaluating a total of 628 patients. There were 10 studies used in the meta-analysis. Results from all studies identified favored neurofeedback’s effect on reducing PTSD symptoms including BDI pretest–posttest [mean difference (MD): 8.30 (95% CI: 3.09 to 13.52; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%)]; BDI pretest–follow-up (MD: 8.75 (95% CI: 3.53 to 13.97; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%); CAPS-5 pretest–posttest [MD: 7.01 (95% CI: 1.36 to 12.66; P = 0.02; I2 = 86%)]; CAPS-5 pretest–follow-up (MD: 10 (95% CI: 1.29 to 21.29; P = 0.006; I2 = 77%); PCL-5 pretest–posttest (MD: 7.14 (95% CI: 3.08 to 11.2; P = 0.0006; I2 = 0%); PCL-5 pretest–follow-up (MD: 14.95 (95% CI: 7.95 to 21.96; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Other studies reported improvements using various other instruments. GRADE assessments of CAPS, PCL, and BDI demonstrated a moderate/high level in the quality of the evidence that NF has a positive clinical effect.ConclusionBased on newer published studies and the outcomes measured, NF has demonstrated a clinically meaningful effect size, with an increased effect size at follow-up. This clinically meaningful effect appears to be driven by newer fMRI-guided NF and deeper brain derivates of it.

Abstract Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) may be refractory to or have contraindications that preclude treatment with antidepressant pharmacotherapies. Alternative therapies such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) continue to evolve, and include theta burst stimulation (TBS), which has advantages over conventional rTMS. The aim of this study was to identify and meta-analyze efficacy data from all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating TBS as a treatment for MDD. Published reports of RCTs (January 1, 2010 to October 23, 2020) were identified via systematic searches in computerized databases, followed by review of individual reports for inclusion. Inclusion criteria included primary diagnosis of MDD ≥ 1 week duration of therapy with ≥10 sessions, and treatment with any form of TBS. The Cochrane GRADE methodology and PRISMA criteria were used for evaluation of individual trials. Data from ten RCTs were included, representing 667 patients. Of these, 8 RCTs compared TBS to sham treatment and one compared TBS to standard rTMS (i.e., high frequency stimulation over left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [HFL]). Quality of evidence assessment yielded high confidence in the finding of TBS being superior to sham on response measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HRSD) (RR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.27 to 4.55; P = 0.007; I 2 = 40%). Comparison of HRSD response rates for TBS versus rTMS produced no statistically significant difference (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.23; P = 0.80; I 2 = 0%). The incidence of adverse events between TBS and rTMS was not statistically different. The findings of a positive effect of TBS vs. sham, and noninferiority of TBS vs. standard HFL rTMS support the continued development of TBS to treat depression.