Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine for knee OA subjects: the role of pain severity.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Establish the impact of pain severity on the cost-effectiveness of generic duloxetine for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the United States.

Design

We used a validated computer simulation of knee OA to compare usual care (UC) - intra-articular injections, opioids, and total knee replacement (TKR) - to UC preceded by duloxetine in those no longer achieving pain relief from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We considered cohorts with mean ages 57-75 years and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain 25-55 (0-100, 100-worst). We derived inputs from published data. We discounted costs and benefits 3% annually. We conducted sensitivity analyses of duloxetine efficacy, duration of pain relief, toxicity, and costs.

Results

Among younger subjects with severe pain (WOMAC pain = 55), duloxetine led to an additional 9.6 QALYs per 1,000 subjects (ICER = $88,500/QALY). The likelihood of duloxetine being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 40% and 54%. Offering duloxetine to older patients with severe pain led to ICERs >$150,000/QALY. Offering duloxetine to subjects with moderate pain (pain = 25) led to ICERs <$50,000/QALY, regardless of age. Among knee OA subjects with severe pain (pain = 55) who are unwilling or unable to undergo TKR, ICERs were <$50,600/QALY, regardless of age.

Conclusions

Duloxetine is a cost-effective addition to knee OA UC for subjects with moderate pain or those with severe pain unable or unwilling to undergo TKR. Among younger subjects with severe pain, duloxetine is cost-effective at WTP thresholds >$88,500/QALY.

SUBMITTER: Sullivan JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7814698 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveDuloxetine is a treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for both osteoarthritis (OA) pain and depression, though uptake of duloxetine in knee OA management varies. We examined the cost-effectiveness of adding duloxetine to knee OA care in the absence or presence of depression screening.MethodsWe used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer microsimulation of knee OA, to examine the value of duloxetine for patients with knee OA who have moderate pain by comparing 3 strategies: 1) usual care, 2) usual care plus duloxetine for patients who screen positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and 3) usual care plus universal duloxetine. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. Model inputs, drawn from the published literature and national databases, included annual cost of duloxetine ($721-937); average pain reduction for duloxetine (17.5 points on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain scale [0-100]), and likelihood of depression remission with duloxetine (27.4%). We considered 2 willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY. We varied parameters related to the PHQ-9 and the cost of duloxetine, efficacy, and toxicities to address uncertainty in model inputs.ResultsThe screening strategy led to an additional 17 QALYs per 1,000 subjects and increased costs by $289/subject (ICER = $17,000/QALY). Universal duloxetine led to an additional 31 QALYs per 1,000 subjects and $1,205 per subject (ICER = $39,300/QALY). Under the majority of sensitivity analyses, universal duloxetine was cost-effective at the $100,000/QALY threshold.ConclusionThe addition of duloxetine to usual care for knee OA patients with moderate pain, regardless of depressive symptoms, is cost-effective at frequently used WTP thresholds.

Project description:BackgroundLimiting treatment to those recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon Clinical Practice Guidelines has been suggested to decrease costs by 45% in the year prior to total knee arthroplasty, but this only focuses on expenditures leading up to, but not including, the surgery and not the entire episode of care. We evaluated the treatment costs following knee osteoarthritis (OA) diagnosis and determined whether these are different for patients who use intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) and/or knee arthroplasty.MethodsClaims data from a large commercial database containing de-identified data of more than 100 million patients with continuous coverage from 2012 to 2016 was used to evaluate the cumulative cost of care for over 2 million de-identified members with knee OA over a 4.5-year period between 2011 and 2015. Median cumulative costs were then stratified for patients with or without HA and/or knee arthroplasty.ResultsKnee OA treatment costs for 1,567,024 patients over the 4.5-year period was $6.60 billion (mean $4210/patient) as calculated by the authors. HA and knee arthroplasty accounted for 3.0 and 61.5% of the overall costs, respectively. For patients who underwent knee arthroplasty, a spike in median costs occurred sooner for patients without HA use (around the 5- to 6-month time point) compared to patients treated with HA (around the 16- to 17-month time point).ConclusionsNon-arthroplasty therapies, as calculated by the authors, accounted for about one third of the costs in treating knee OA in our cohort. Although some have theorized that limiting the use of HA may reduce the costs of OA treatment, HA only comprised a small fraction (3%) of the overall costs. Among patients who underwent knee arthroplasty, those treated with HA experienced elevated costs from the surgery later than those without HA, which reflects their longer time to undergoing knee arthroplasty. The ability to delay or avoid knee arthroplasty altogether can have a substantial impact on the cost to the healthcare system.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Knee pain is common in adolescents and adults and is associated with an increased risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this systematic review was to gather and appraise the cost-effectiveness of treatment approaches for non-osteoarthritic knee pain conditions. METHOD:A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050683). The literature search was done in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Study selection was carried out by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using a customized extraction form. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS:Fifteen studies were included. The majority regarded the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, but we also identified studies evaluating other knee pain conditions such as meniscus injuries, cartilage defects, and patellofemoral pain syndrome. Study interventions were categorized as surgical or non-surgical interventions. The surgical interventions included ACL reconstruction, chondrocyte implantation, meniscus scaffold procedure, meniscal allograft transplantation, partial meniscectomy, microfracture, and different types of autografts and allografts. The non-surgical management consisted of physical therapy, rehabilitation, exercise, counselling, bracing, and advice. In general, for ACL injuries surgical management alone or in combination with rehabilitation appeared to be cost-effective. The quality of the economic evaluations was of moderate to high quality. CONCLUSION:There was insufficient evidence to give a firm overview of cost-effective interventions for non-osteoarthritic knee pain, but surgical treatment of acute ACL injury appeared cost-effective. There is very little data regarding the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for non-traumatic knee conditions.