Economic Modeling and Decision Making in the Development and Clinical Application of Tissue Engineering

  • Patrick Vavken
  • Ronald Dorotka
  • Martin Gruber
Chapter

Abstract

Tissue engineering in regenerative medicine has become one of the most promising subjects in current medical research. A number of procedures based on or involving tissue engineering have already been approved for human application and are clinically available, and numerous others are on the edge of becoming so. During the development of a new procedure and the process of its approval, repeated evaluations, focusing on different aspects, are necessary. Initial studies focus on the effect of a treatment; subsequently its efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety profiles are established. Before a procedure will be directed towards clinical application, economic evaluations are done assessing whether further investment of scarce resources is justified. In public health such justification is consistent with showing a highly effective treatment and ruling out that the same investment could result in more productive research or a more effective treatment elsewhere, while from a microeconomic perspective potential revenue is addressed. Such argumentation is a source of much debate, but can hardly be avoided given a true scarcity of resources and increasing costs of health care. Due to the increasing importance of such issues, especially in a high end, multidisciplinary field such as tissue engineering, knowledge on the principles of economic evaluation has become a valuable addition to a researcher’s expertise. It is the objective of this chapter to give a concise introduction to economic modeling and resulting decision-making strategies in health care in the evaluation of tissue engineering.

Keywords

Tissue Engineering Cartilage Defect Cartilage Repair Tissue Engineer Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atala A, Freeman MR, Vacanti JP, et al. (1993) Implantation in vivo and retrieval of artificial structures consisting of rabbit and human urothelium and human bladder muscle. J Urol 150:608–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atala A, Bauer SB, Soker S, et al. (2006) Tissue-engineered autologous bladders for patients needing cystoplasty. Lancet 367:1241–1246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basad E, Stürz H, Steinmeyer J (2004) Die Behandlung chondraler Defekte mit MACI oder microfracture—erste Ergebnisse einer vergleichenden klinischen Studie. Orthop Prax 40:6–10Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bentley G, Biant LC, Carrington RWJ, et al. (2003) A prospective, randomized comparison of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for osteochondral defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85-B:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brittberg M (1994) Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. N Eng J Med 331:889–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clar C, Cummins E, McIntyre L, et al. (2005) Clinical and cost-effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects in knee joints: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9:1–82Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dozin B, Malpeli M, Cancedda R, et al. (2005) Comparative evaluation of autologous chondrocyte implantation and mosaicplasty: a multicentered randomized clinical trial. Clin J Sport Med 15:220–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edejer Tt, Baltussen R, Adam T, et al. (2003) WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frimberger D, Lin HK, Kropp BP (2006) The use of tissue engineering and stem cells in bladder regeneration. Regen Med 1:425–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guan Y, Ou L, Hu G, et al. (2008) Tissue engineering of urethra using human vascular endothelial growth factor gene-modified bladder urothelial cells. Artif Organs 32:91–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammit JK (2002) QALYs versus WTP. Risk Anal 22:985–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horas U, Pelinkovic D, Herr G, et al. (2003) Autologous chondrocyte implantation and osteochondral cylinder transplantation in cartilage repair of the knee joint: a prospective, comparative trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:185–192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knutsen G, Engebretsen L, Ludvigsen TC, et al. (2004) Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee. A randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:455–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L, et al. (2007) A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2105–2112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lindahl A, Brittberg M, Peterson L (2001) Health economics benefits following autologous chondrocyte transplantation for patients with focal chondral lesions of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:358–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McAteer H, Cosh E, Freeman G, et al. (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis at the development phase of a potential health technology: examples based on tissue engineering of bladder and urethra. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 1:343–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Minas T (1999) Chondral lesions of the knee: comparisons of treatments and treatment costs. Am J Orthop 28:374Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peterson L, Minas T, Brittberg M, et al. (2000) Two- to 9-year outcome after autologous chondrocyte transplantation of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 212–234Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peterson L, Minas T, Brittberg M, et al. (2003) Treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation: results at two to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:17–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saris D (2007) Prospective multi-center randomized controlled trial of ChondroCelect (in an autologous chondrocyte transplantation procedure) versus microfracture (as procedure) in the repair of symptomatic cartilaginous defects of the femoral condyles of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, February 14–18, San Diego Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J, et al. (2008) Characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better structural repair when treating symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee in a randomized controlled trial versus microfracture. Am J Sports Med 36:235–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thornton JG, Lilford RJ, Johnson N (1992) Decision analysis in medicine. BMJ 304:1099–1103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vavken P, Gruber M, Dorotka R (2008) Tissue Engineering in orthopedic surgery—clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Z Orthop Unfall 146:26–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wildner M, Shangha O, Behrend C (2000) Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung zur autologen Chondrozytentransplantation. Arthroskopie 13:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wood JJ, Malek MA, Frassica FJ, et al. (2006) Autologous cultured chondrocytes: adverse events reported to the United States Food and Drug Administration. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:503–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Vavken
    • 1
  • Ronald Dorotka
    • 2
  • Martin Gruber
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryChildren’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations