Dataset Information

Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis on a large trial data set.

ABSTRACT: Objectives Many UK primary care trusts have recently introduced eligibility criteria restricting total knee replacement (TKR) to patients with low pre-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) to cut expenditure. We evaluate these criteria by assessing the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared with no knee replacement for patients with different baseline characteristics from an NHS perspective. Design The cost-effectiveness of TKR in different patient subgroups was assessed using regression analyses of patient-level data from the Knee Arthroplasty Trial, a large, pragmatic randomised trial comparing knee prostheses. Setting 34 UK hospitals. Participants 2131 osteoarthritis patients undergoing TKR. Interventions and outcome measures Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) observed in the Knee Arthroplasty Trial within 5 years of TKR were compared with conservative assumptions about the costs and outcomes that would have been accrued had TKR not been performed. Results On average, primary TKR and 5 years of subsequent care cost £7458 per patient (SD: £4058), and patients gained an average of 1.33 (SD: 1.43) QALYs. As a result, TKR cost £5623/QALY gained. Although costs and health outcomes varied with age and sex, TKR cost <£20?000/QALY gained for patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists grades 1-2 who had baseline OKS <40 and for American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade 3 patients with OKS <35, even with highly conservative assumptions about costs and outcomes without TKR. Body mass index had no significant effect on costs or outcomes. Restricting TKR to patients with pre-operative OKS <27 would inappropriately deny a highly cost-effective treatment to >10?000 patients annually. Conclusions TKR is highly cost-effective for most current patients if the NHS is willing to pay £20?000-£30?000/QALY gained. At least 97% of TKR patients in England have more severe symptoms than the thresholds we have identified, suggesting that further rationing by OKS is probably unjustified. Trial registration number ISRCTN 45837371.

SUBMITTER: Dakin H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3269047 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis on a large trial data set.

Dakin Helen H Gray Alastair A Fitzpatrick Ray R Maclennan Graeme G Murray David D

BMJ open 20120130 1

Objectives Many UK primary care trusts have recently introduced eligibility criteria restricting total knee replacement (TKR) to patients with low pre-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) to cut expenditure. We evaluate these criteria by assessing the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared with no knee replacement for patients with different baseline characteristics from an NHS perspective. Design The cost-effectiveness of TKR in different patient subgroups was assessed using regression analyses of p ...[more]

PMID: 22290396

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives To evaluate the impact of total knee replacement on quality of life in people with knee osteoarthritis and to estimate associated differences in lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) according to use by level of symptoms.Design Marginal structural modeling and cost effectiveness analysis based on lifetime predictions for total knee replacement and death from population based cohort data.Setting Data from two studies-Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) and the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST)-within the US health system.Participants 4498 participants with or at high risk for knee osteoarthritis aged 45-79 from the OAI with no previous knee replacement (confirmed by baseline radiography) followed up for nine years. Validation cohort comprised 2907 patients from MOST with two year follow-up.Intervention Scenarios ranging from current practice, defined as total knee replacement practice as performed in the OAI (with procedural rates estimated by a prediction model), to practice limited to patients with severe symptoms to no surgery.Main outcome measures Generic (SF-12) and osteoarthritis specific quality of life measured over 96 months, model based QALYs, costs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios over a lifetime horizon.Results In the OAI, total knee replacement showed improvements in quality of life with small absolute changes when averaged across levels of confounding variables: 1.70 (95% uncertainty interval 0.26 to 3.57) for SF-12 physical component summary (PCS); -10.69 (-13.39 to -8.01) for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities arthritis index (WOMAC); and 9.16 (6.35 to 12.49) for knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) quality of life subscale. These improvements became larger with decreasing functional status at baseline. Provision of total knee replacement to patients with SF-12 PCS scores <35 was the optimal scenario given a cost effectiveness threshold of $200 000/QALY, with cost savings of $6974 ($5789 to $8269) and a minimal loss of 0.008 (-0.056 to 0.043) QALYs compared with current practice. These findings were reproduced among patients with knee osteoarthritis from the MOST cohort and were robust against various scenarios including increased rates of total knee replacement and mortality and inclusion of non-healthcare costs but were sensitive to increased deterioration in quality of life without surgery. In a threshold analysis, total knee replacement would become cost effective in patients with SF-12 PCS scores ≤40 if the associated hospital admission costs fell below $14 000 given a cost effectiveness threshold of $200 000/QALY.Conclusion Current practice of total knee replacement as performed in a recent US cohort of patients with knee osteoarthritis had minimal effects on quality of life and QALYs at the group level. If the procedure were restricted to more severely affected patients, its effectiveness would rise, with practice becoming economically more attractive than its current use.

Project description:Purpose Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely recognized as an effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). Compared with conventional TKA, robotic-arm assisted TKA may improve patients’ functionality and resulting quality of life by more accurate and precise component placement. Currently, the literature on cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA in the US is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA relative to TKA in the Medicare-aged population including exploring the impact of hospital volume on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the costs, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of robotic-arm assisted TKA vs TKA in Medicare population with OA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We sourced costs from the literature including episode-of-care (EOC) costs from a Medicare study. We assessed cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA by hospital procedure volume and conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Results For the average patient treated in a hospital with an annual volume of 50 procedures, robotic-arm assisted TKA resulted in a total QALY of 6.18 relative to 6.17 under conventional TKA. Total discounted costs per patient were $32,535 and $31,917 for robotic-arm assisted TKA and conventional TKA, respectively. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective in the base case with an ICER of $41,331/QALY. In univariate DSA, cost-effectiveness outcomes were most sensitive to the annual hospital procedure volume. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a WTP of $50,000/QALY only when hospital volume exceeded 49 procedures per year. In PSA, robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY WTP threshold in 50.4% of 10,000 simulations. Conclusions Despite high robotic purchase costs, robotic-arm assisted TKA is likely to be cost-effective relative to TKA in the Medicare population with knee OA in high-volume hospitals through lowering revision rates and decreasing post-acute care costs. Higher-volume hospitals may deliver higher value in performing in robotic-arm assisted TKA.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the 24-month cost-effectiveness of total knee replacement (TKR) plus non-surgical treatment compared with non-surgical treatment with the option of later TKR if needed. METHODS:100 adults with moderate-to-severe knee osteoarthritis found eligible for TKR by an orthopaedic surgeon in secondary care were randomised to TKR plus 12 weeks of supervised non-surgical treatment (exercise, education, diet, insoles and pain medication) or to supervised non-surgical treatment alone. Including quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) data from baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, effectiveness was measured as change at 24 months. Healthcare costs and transfer payments were derived from national registries. Incremental healthcare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted and the probability of cost-effectiveness was estimated at the 22?665 Euros/QALY threshold defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. RESULTS:TKR plus non-surgical treatment was more expensive (mean of 23?076 vs 14?514 Euros) but also more effective than non-surgical treatment (mean 24-month improvement in QALY of 0.195 vs 0.056). While cost-effective in the unadjusted scenario (ICER of 18?497 Euros/QALY), TKR plus non-surgical treatment was not cost-effective compared with non-surgical treatment with the option of later TKR if needed in the adjusted (age, sex and baseline values), base-case scenario (ICER of 32?611 Euros/QALY) with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 23.2%. Including deaths, TKR plus non-surgical treatment was still not cost-effective (ICERs of 46?277 to 64?208 Euros/QALY). CONCLUSIONS:From a 24-month perspective, TKR plus non-surgical treatment does not appear to be cost-effective compared with non-surgical treatment with the option of later TKR if needed in patients with moderate-to-severe knee osteoarthritis and moderate intensity pain in secondary care in Denmark. Results were sensitive to changes, highlighting the need for further confirmatory research also assessing the long-term cost-effectiveness of TKR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01410409).

Project description:To assess cost-effectiveness and cost utility of telerehabilitation (TR) versus standard rehabilitation (SR) after total knee replacement (TKR).Markov decision modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis based on patient-level and secondary data sources employing Italian National Health Service (NHS; Ita-NHS) and Society perspectives.Primary care units (PCUs) in Italy.Patients discharged after TKR.Mixed SR-TR service (10 face-to-face sessions and 10 telesessions) versus SR (20 face-to-face sessions)The incremental cost per additional knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and per QALY gained by SR-TR compared with SR. Second, we considered the probability of being cost-effective and the probability of being more effective and less expensive.TR appears to be the cost-effective in the base case and in all of the considered scenarios, but is no longer more effective and less expensive if transportation costs are excluded. Comparing SR-TR with SR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) adopting the Ita-NHS perspective for the base case was -€117/ROM gained. The cost-effectiveness probability for SR-TR was 0.98 (ceiling ratio: €50/ROM), while the joint probability of being more effective and less expensive was 0.87. Assuming that TR would increase health-related quality of life (HRQOL) utilities by 2.5%, the ICER adopting Ita-NHS perspective is -€960/QALY (cost-effectiveness probability: 1; ceiling ratio: €30 000/QALY). All the performed sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions, but if transportation costs were excluded, the probability for SR-TR of being more clinically effective and less expensive reduced to 0.56.The analysis suggested SR-TR to be cost-effective, even less expensive and more effective if the PCUs provide ambulance transportations. However, the uncertainty related to TR costs, HRQOL and long-term clinical outcomes raises important topics for future research, which should be addressed to confirm our estimates.ISRCTN45837371.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years. METHODS:Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247). FINDINGS:Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI -0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (-£910, 95% CI -1503 to -317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR. INTERPRETATION:Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. FUNDING:National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of the study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement compared with usual postoperative care.MethodsStudy design: A decision-analytic (cohort Markov) model was used for the simulation with time dependent annual transition probabilities and a time horizon of five years.SettingPatients treated by National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England and Wales.Study populationAdults classified as having chronic pain three months after undergoing a total knee replacement.InterventionThe STAR care pathway following a total knee replacement.ComparatorUsual postoperative care following a total knee replacement.PerspectiveThe study was undertaken from the perspective of the NHS.Outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years and healthcare costs. Discounting: A rate of 3.5% for both costs and health utility.ResultsModel results indicate that the STAR intervention would dominate current practice by providing a gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.086 and a reduction of £375 (per person) in costs over the first five years. The incremental net monetary benefit of the STAR intervention was estimated at £2,086 (at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests the STAR intervention is likely to be cost-effective with a probability of 0.62. The results remain robust to changes in model assumptions on comparator utility and the timing of the start of the intervention. If hospital admission costs are assumed not to be reduced by the STAR intervention, it would no longer be cost saving, but it would likely be cost-effective based on probabilistic sensitivity analysis (0.59).ConclusionEvidence from the economic model suggests that the STAR care pathway is likely to be cost-effective and potentially dominant from an NHS perspective.Trial registrationThe STAR trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361.

Dataset Information

Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis on a large trial data set.

Publications

Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis on a large trial data set.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets