Cost-effectiveness analysis of prosthesis provision for patients with transfemoral amputation in Tanzania

Abstract

Background: Limb loss leads to significant disability. Prostheses may mitigate this disability but are not readily accessible in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cost-effectiveness data related to prosthesis provision in resource-constrained environments such as Tanzania is greatly limited.Objectives: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prosthesis intervention compared with that of no prosthesis for persons with transfemoral amputations in an LMIC.Study design: This is a prospective cohort study. Methods: Thirty-eight patients were prospectively followed up. Clinical improvement with prosthesis provision was measured using EuroQuol-5D, represented as quality-adjusted life years gained. Direct and indirect costs were measured. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year, measured at 1 year and projected over a lifetime using a Markov model. Reference case was set as a single prosthesis provided without replacement from a payer perspective. Additional scenarios included the societal perspective and replacement of the prosthesis. Uncertainty was measured with one-way probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: From the payer perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $242 for those without prosthetic replacement over a lifetime, and the ICER was $390 for those with prosthetic replacement over a lifeime. From the societal perspective, prosthesis provision was both less expensive and more effective. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the ICER remained below the willingness to pay threshold up to prosthesis costs of $763. Conclusions: These findings suggest prosthesis provision in an LMIC may be cost-effective, but further studies with long-term follow up are needed to validate the results.

Symmetry Function in Trans-Tibial Amputees Gait Supplied with the New Concept of Affordable Dynamic Foot Prosthesis—Case Study

“…Unfortunately, the current standard of care for prostheses still results in significant asymmetry for crucial gait parameters [10][11][12]. The newer generations of foot prostheses improve the quality of gait [13], but the majority of commercially available modern prostheses are expensive, Symmetry 2023, 15, 1595 2 of 12 creating a challenge for low-income individuals to access them [14]. In addition, prior research predominantly used costly, commercially available dynamic prostheses, reducing their availability to low-income populations [7].…”