Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Different Forms of Intra-Articular Injections for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA), as one of the leading causes of disability, decreases the quality of life for those suffering from the disease and creates a substantial financial burden. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) can provide relief from the symptoms of OA and multiple HA products are prescribed. The purpose of this study is to examine the single payer cost-effectiveness of various HA products in the treatment of knee OA.

Methods

A single payer economic evaluation was conducted comparing Synvisc(®) (Sanofi, USA), Durolane(®) (Bioventus, USA), Hyalgan(®) (Fidia Pharma Inc., USA), Supartz™ (Bioventus, USA), and Euflexxa(®) (Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA). Utility scores for HA products were obtained by extracting Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain, stiffness and function from randomized controlled trials and converting them to health utilities index mark 3 scores. The cost of a treatment included the cost of the HA injection, cost of a knee injection procedure and cost of a doctor's visit for each required injection. Cost-utility in 2015 USD per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved was calculated for each HA product, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to compare the effectiveness of HA products to one another and to conventional care.

Results

When compared to conventional care, all investigated HA products were cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained. The HA product Euflexxa had the most favorable cost-utility ratio ($5785.52/QALY) when compared to all other HA brands.

Conclusion

The present study showed several HA products to be cost-effective in comparison to conventional care, with Euflexxa having the most favorable cost/QALY gained ratio compared to the other HA products.

Funding

Ferring Pharmaceutics Inc.

SUBMITTER: Rosen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4957626 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.MethodsAll published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.ResultsIncluded were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).ConclusionsIA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.Prospero trial registration numberCRD42020181928 .

Project description:Purpose ?The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical effects of HYADD® 4, an hydrogel based on a hyaluronic acid derivative, in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, on symptoms, and joint function. Methods ?This retrospective study of patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade II to IV knee osteoarthritis (American College of Rheumatology criteria) enrolled patients who had received two infiltrations of HYADD® 4, (24 mg/3 mL) 1?week apart, and evaluated: pain at rest, pain with movement, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score; change in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/acetaminophen use; satisfaction with therapy; tolerability. Study duration was 6 months for all predefined endpoints, with a 6-month extension for pain symptoms only. Results ?After 6 months, all predefined endpoints were evaluable in 698 of 937 enrolled patients (74.5%). Mean WOMAC scores were reduced by 56.3% from baseline ( p ?<?0.05). NSAIDs/acetaminophen use ?2 times/week (48.8% of patients at baseline) was substantially reduced after 1?month and was 19.6% after 6 months. After 6 months, 85.6% of patients were satisfied about efficacy. There were no significant adverse effects. The effect on resting pain was rapid, strong, and lasting: reduction from baseline was 45.1% at 1?month ( p ?<?0.05), 56.8% at 6 months ( p ?<?0.05), and 53.6% at 12 months ( p ?<?0.05). Pain on moving was reduced by 47.4% after 6 months ( p ?<?0.05) and 46.0% after 12 months ( p ?<?0.05), results at 6 and 12 months were similar. Conclusion ?HYADD® 4 is a new-generation hyaluronic acid with distinctive viscoelastic and rheological properties. In patients with mild-to-severe knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades II-IV), two consecutive infiltrations 1?week apart reduced WOMAC scores and NSAIDs/acetaminophen consumption for at least 6 months. In a subpopulation ( n ?=?106), efficacy on pain lasted approximately 12 months. Adverse events were reported in 11.2% of patients; the most frequent were arthralgias. No cases of allergic reactions or systemic effects were recorded. Level of Evidence ?Level IV, retrospective case series.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence has demonstrated greater benefit of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) within earlier stages of knee osteoarthritis (OA) rather than waiting for patients to have progressed to later stages of disease progression. High molecular weight (HMW) HA has also been shown to be more effective than low molecular weight (LMW) HA products in mild to moderate knee OA, providing an important distinction to make within the class of IA-HA therapies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with knee OA with HMW HA compared to LMW and conservative treatment, while taking into account disease stage.MethodsDecision analytic models were created for early/moderate, as well as late stage knee OA. Models for late stage knee OA were created by assuming a range of response rates to IA-HA treatments from 10% to 50%. These models included conservative treatment using physical therapy/exercise, braces/orthosis, and medications such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics. The models compared the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for these treatments to the use of either LMW or HMW HA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment in relation to HMW HA.ResultsWhen evaluating treatment in early to moderate knee OA, HMW HA was dominant over LMW HA and physical therapy/exercise, as it was less expensive and provided greater benefit. HMW HA was cost-effective versus braces/orthosis and NSAID/analgesic medications based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. In the model of 50% response rate to IA-HA for late stage OA, HMW HA remained cost-effective in comparison to physical therapy/exercise and braces/orthosis at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000; but not NSAID/analgesic medications. In the worst-case scenario of a 10% responder rate to IA-HA, HMW HA was no longer cost-effective in any circumstance.ConclusionIA-HA, particularly HMW formulations, demonstrate cost-effectiveness when compared to conservative treatment options and LMW HA in patients with early/mid stage knee OA. The cost-effectiveness of HMW HA in patients with later stage knee OA was not as apparent, particularly because of the uncertainty in the proportion of patients with late stage OA who have a meaningful improvement after receiving IA-HA. This cost-effectiveness finding supports the use of IA-HA in patients with early and moderate knee OA, as the benefits of IA-HA are apparent within the patient population with mild to moderate knee OA. The findings of this study suggest that there is a potential cost savings benefit as a result of utilizing HMW HA in earlier stages of knee OA as opposed to later stages.FundingFerring Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Project description:BackgroundEffective symptom control in painful knee osteoarthritis (OA) may improve patient quality of life. In a randomised crossover trial (NCT03381248), COOLIEF* cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) reduced pain and stiffness and improved physical function and quality of life compared with intra-articular hyaluronan (HA) injections. The present study aimed to establish the cost effectiveness of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections for treating moderate-to-severe OA knee pain from a US Medicare perspective.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using utility data (EQ-5D) from the randomised crossover trial of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections, which had follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients in the HA group with unsatisfactory outcomes (e.g., continued pain) at 6 months could cross over to CRFA. Economic analysis outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost effectiveness (cost per QALY gained). Base-case analyses were modelled on a 6-month time horizon (to trial crossover). Due to limited trial data in the HA arm beyond 6 months, scenarios explored potential outcomes to 12 months if: 1) Utility with HA persisted for a further 6 months; 2) A second HA injection was received at 6 months and achieved the same utility change for the second 6 months. In both scenarios, the CRFA arm used trial data for patients who received CRFA from baseline to 12 months. Alternative costing scenarios were also explored.ResultsCRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.020 at an incremental cost of US$1707, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$84,392 per QALY over 6 months, versus intra-articular HA injections. Extending the analysis to 12 months and assuming persistence in utility in the HA arm resulted in a larger utility gain for CRFA (0.056 QALYs) and a lower ICER of US$30,275 per QALY. If patients received a second HA injection, the incremental benefit of CRFA out to 12 months was reduced (QALY gain 0.043) but was offset by the costs of the second HA injection (incremental cost US$832). This resulted in an ICER of US$19,316 per QALY.ConclusionsCRFA is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with OA-related knee pain considering the typical US threshold of US$100,000/QALY.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to describe patients treated for knee osteoarthritis between 2006 and 2013 in France and to compare the delay from diagnosis to total knee replacement between patients who received intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections and those who did not receive the injections. A second objective was to compare direct medical costs for ambulatory care between treatment groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients were selected from a representative sample of the real world administrative claims database using an algorithm developed by experts from the scientific committee of the study. Data were matched with the medico-administrative database for hospital care. A Cox proportional hazards model was stratified for the treatment group and adjusted for available socio-demographic and medical covariates to compare restricted mean survival times at different time points (1, 3, 5 and 7.5 years) between groups. Costs were expressed in 2013 euros. RESULTS:A total of 14,782 patients were treated for knee osteoarthritis (67% women; mean age = 68 years). Among this population, 1,662 patients had total knee replacement (11.2%). At each time point, restricted mean survival time without total knee replacement was significantly higher (p-values<0.001) for hyaluronic acid group, from +51 to +217 days at 1 and 7.5 years, respectively. For the year preceding total knee replacement, the means for total direct medical costs were similar between groups, €744 vs €805 for treatment and control groups, respectively, (p-value = 0.104). Intra-articular injections accounted for less than 10% of the total costs. CONCLUSION:This is the first retrospective longitudinal study involving knee osteoarthritis patients using medico-administrative databases in France. The results support the effectiveness of hyaluronic acid injections in delaying total knee replacement and show that patients treated with hyaluronic acid have similar direct medical costs for ambulatory care compared to patients treated with corticosteroids only.

Project description:PurposeThere has been much debate regarding the use of intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as symptomatic treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The objective of this consensus was to develop guidelines for PRP injections in knee osteoarthritis according to the French National Authority for Health recommendations.MethodsFifteen physicians from different French-speaking countries (10 rheumatologists, 4 specialists in rehabilitation and sports medicine and 1 radiologist) were selected for their expertise in the areas of PRP and osteoarthritis. A comprehensive literature review was conducted on Medline including all published therapeutic trials, open studies, meta-analysis and systematic reviews focusing on the effects of PRP in knee OA, as well as fundamental studies concerning the characteristics of the various types of PRP and their mechanisms, indexed before April 2019. Using the method recommended by the French National Authority for Health inspired by the Delphi consensus process, 25 recommendations were finally retained and evaluated. The recommendations were classified as appropriate or not appropriate, with strong or relative agreement, or uncertain if a consensus was not achieved.ResultsAmong the 25 recommendations selected, the main ones are the following: (1) Intra-articular injections of PRP are an effective symptomatic treatment for early to moderate knee osteoarthritis. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a relative agreement (Median = 8; rank = 6-9). Level of evidence 1A. (2) A PRP treatment sequence in knee osteoarthritis may include 1-3 injections. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (Median = 9; rank = 7-9). Level of evidence 1A. (3) Leucocytes-poor PRP should be preferred in knee osteoarthritis. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a relative agreement (Median = 8; rank = 5-9). Level of evidence 5. (4) Intra-articular PRP knee injections should be performed under ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance. This recommendation was considered uncertain with no consensus (Median = 8; rank = 3-9). Level of evidence 5. (5) PRP should not be mixed with an anesthetic or intra-articular corticosteroid. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a relative agreement (Median = 9; rank = 6-9). Level of evidence 5 CONCLUSION: Those 25 recommendations should standardize and facilitate the use of IA PRP injections, which are considered by experts as an effective treatment especially in early or moderate knee OA. Although a strong or relative agreement from the experts was obtained for most of the recommendations, many of them had a very low level of evidence (Level 5) and were principally based on the clinical experience of the experts.