Trends in Bone Morphogenetic Protein Usage since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Advisory in 2008: What Happens to Physician Practices When the Food and Drug Administration Issues an Advisory?
25 July 2013
06 November 2013
19 December 2013 (eFirst)
Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional study of spinal procedures from 2002 to 2010 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database.
Objective To determine the patterns of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) usage in fusion surgery before and after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2008 advisory for the anterior cervical spine to understand how advisories affect U.S. physician practices.
Methods Procedures were identified through International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure codes and were plotted over time based on fusion procedure type, site, and area of fusion. U.S. national trends were approximated by polynomial regression analysis.
Results The majority of the data trends of BMP usage reflect a second-order polynomial model. BMP usage in anterior cervical spine fusion procedures plateaued during the fourth quarter of 2007. The most apparent change in trend was noted in BMP usage pre- and postadvisory in the analysis of anterior cervical spine fusions. BMP percentage of use decreased in this area by 5% from the time of the FDA advisory to the fourth quarter of 2010.
Conclusions The decrease in BMP usage in anterior cervical spinal fusion procedures coincided with the timing of the FDA advisory. The fact that BMP continued to be used in cervical spine fusion procedures, even at lower rates, despite the advisory, may reflect the availability of new clinical information that could lessen complications (i.e., lower BMP dose, perioperative steroids, BMP containment). Furthermore, factors like the natural ceiling effect of use or demand for new technology, complications, prohibitive institutional costs, access to information, and insurance compensation may have all contributed to the BMP usage trends observed.
- 1 Even J, Eskander M, Kang J. Bone morphogenetic protein in spine surgery: current and future uses. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012; 20 (9) 547-552
- 2 Zlotolow DA, Vaccaro AR, Salamon ML, Albert TJ. The role of human bone morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2000; 8 (1) 3-9
- 3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. InFUSE Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device—P000058. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm083423.htm . Accessed December 6, 2013
- 4 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. OP-1 Putty—H020008. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm081181.htm . Accessed December 6, 2013
- 5 Cahill KS, Chi JH, Day A, Claus EB. Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA 2009; 302 (1) 58-66
- 6 Carragee EJ, Ghanayem AJ, Weiner BK, Rothman DJ, Bono CM. A challenge to integrity in spine publications: years of living dangerously with the promotion of bone growth factors. Spine J 2011; 11 (6) 463-468
- 7 Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J 2011; 11 (6) 471-491
- 8 Dickerman RD, Reynolds AS, Morgan BC, Tompkins J, Cattorini J, Bennett M. rh-BMP-2 can be used safely in the cervical spine: dose and containment are the keys!. Spine J 2007; 7 (4) 508-509
- 9 Epstein NE. Pros, cons, and costs of INFUSE in spinal surgery. Surg Neurol Int 2011; 2: 10
- 10 Lipson SJ. Spinal-fusion surgery—advances and concerns. N Engl J Med 2004; 350 (7) 643-644
- 11 Mroz TE, Wang JC, Hashimoto R, Norvell DC. Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35 (9, Suppl): S86-S104
- 12 Poynton AR, Lane JM. Safety profile for the clinical use of bone morphogenetic proteins in the spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27 (16) (Suppl. 01) S40-S48
- 13 Riew KD, Carragee EJ. Commentary: Despite reports of catastrophic complications, why recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 should be available for use in anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine J 2012; 12 (10) 900-901
- 14 Smucker JD, Rhee JM, Singh K, Yoon ST, Heller JG. Increased swelling complications associated with off-label usage of rhBMP-2 in the anterior cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31 (24) 2813-2819
- 15 Wang MC, Chan L, Maiman DJ, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Complications and mortality associated with cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the United States. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32 (3) 342-347
- 16 Williams BJ, Smith JS, Fu KM , et al; Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Does bone morphogenetic protein increase the incidence of perioperative complications in spinal fusion? A comparison of 55,862 cases of spinal fusion with and without bone morphogenetic protein. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36 (20) 1685-1691
- 17 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Public Health Notification. Life-threatening Complications Associated with Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein in Cervical Spine Fusion. July 1, 2008. Available at: www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm062000.htm
- 18 Simmonds MC, Brown JV, Heirs MK , et al. Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of individual-participant data. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158 (12) 877-889
- 19 Fu R, Selph S, McDonagh M , et al. Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158 (12) 890-902
- 20 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare and Utilization Project Overview of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Available at: www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp . Accessed December 6, 2013
- 21 Ong KL, Villarraga ML, Lau E, Carreon LY, Kurtz SM, Glassman SD. Off-label use of bone morphogenetic proteins in the United States using administrative data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35 (19) 1794-1800
- 22 Daniels AH, Riew KD, Yoo JU , et al. Adverse events associated with anterior cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16 (12) 729-738
- 23 Tumialán LM, Pan J, Rodts GE, Mummaneni PV. The safety and efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with polyetheretherketone spacer and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: a review of 200 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 8 (6) 529-535
- 24 Patel VV, Zhao L, Wong P , et al. Controlling bone morphogenetic protein diffusion and bone morphogenetic protein-stimulated bone growth using fibrin glue. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31 (11) 1201-1206
- 25 Benglis D, Wang MY, Levi AD. A comprehensive review of the safety profile of bone morphogenetic protein in spine surgery. Neurosurgery 2008; 62 (5) (Suppl. 02) ONS423-ONS431 , discussion ONS431
- 26 Grabowski G, Cornett CA. Bone graft and bone graft substitutes in spine surgery: current concepts and controversies. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2013; 21 (1) 51-60
- 27 Shields LB, Raque GH, Glassman SD , et al. Adverse effects associated with high-dose recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 use in anterior cervical spine fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31 (5) 542-547