Knee cartilage damage is a common cause of referral for orthopedic surgery. Treatment aims to reduce pain and symptoms by repairing cartilage. Microfracture, the current standard of care, yields good short-term clinical outcomes; however, treatment might fail after 2–3 years. A Chitosan-Beta glycerolphosphate-based medical device (BST-CarGel) is used as an adjunct to microfracture and demonstrates improvements in quantity and quality of repaired tissue, potentially reducing the risk of treatment failure. This study aimed to establish the economic value of BST-CarGel vs microfracture alone in knee cartilage repair from the societal perspective, using Germany as the reference market.
Methods:
A decision tree with a 20-year time-horizon was constructed, in which undesirable clinical events were inferred following initial surgery. These events consisted of pain management, surgery, and total knee replacement. Clinical outcomes were taken from the pivotal clinical trial, supplemented by other literature. Data and assumptions were validated by a Delphi panel. All relevant resource use and costs for procedures and events were considered.
Results:
In a group of patients with all lesion sizes, the model inferred that BST-CarGel yields a positive return on investment at year 4 (with 20-year cumulative cost savings of €6448). Reducing the incremental risk of treatment failure gap between the device and microfracture by 25–50% does not alter this conclusion. Cost savings are greatest for patients with large lesions; results for patients with small lesions are more modest.
Limitations:
Clinical evidence for microfracture and other interventions varies in quality. Comparative long-term data are lacking. The comparison is limited to microfracture and looks only at costs without considering quality-of-life.
Conclusion:
BST-CarGel potentially represents a cost-saving alternative for patients with knee cartilage injury by reducing the risk of clinical events through regeneration of chondral tissue with hyaline characteristics. Since the burden of this condition is high, both to the patient and society, an effective and economically viable alternative is of importance. 相似文献
Objective:To determine the cost-effectiveness of bioengineered hyaluronic acid (BioHA, 1% sodium hyaluronate) intra-articular injections in treating osteoarthritis knee pain in poor responders to conventional care (CC) including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics.Methods:Two decision analytic models compared BioHA treatment with either continuation of patient’s baseline CC with no assumption of disease progression (Model 1), or CC including escalating care costs due to disease progression (NSAIDs and analgesics, corticosteroid injections, and surgery; Model 2). Analyses were based on patients who received two courses of 3-weekly intra-articular BioHA (26-week FLEXX Trial?+?26-week Extension Study). BioHA group costs included fees for physician assessment and injection regimen, plus half of CC costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as averages and incremental costs per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of QALYs gained in BioHA-treated patients, and ±20% of BioHA treatment and CC costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for Model 2.Results:For 214 BioHA patients, the average utility gain was 0.163 QALYs (95% CI?=??0.162 to 0.488) over 52 weeks. Model 1 treatment costs were $3469 and $4562 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively; sensitivity analyses showed BioHA to be the dominant treatment strategy, except when at the lower end of the 95% CI. Model 2 annual treatment costs per QALY gained were $1446 and $516 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively. Using CC as baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BioHA was $38,741/QALY gained, and was sensitive to response rates in either the BioHA or CC groups.Conclusion:BioHA is less costly and more effective than CC with NSAIDs and analgesics, and is the dominant treatment strategy. Compared with escalating CC, the $38,741/QALY ICER of BioHA remains within the $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold to adopt a new technology. 相似文献
AbstractObjective:The objective of this analysis was the evaluation of the outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) from the US payer perspective.Methods:VTE event rates have been reported in three Phase III clinical trials that compared rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for VTE prevention after orthopedic surgery during the prophylaxis (≤35 days for THR patients and 10–14 days for TKR patients) and post-prophylaxis periods (≤90 days following surgery). These data were used in this decision-analytic model to estimate and compare health outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin. The base-case analysis considered the number and costs of symptomatic VTE events during the prophylaxis period only. A 90-day horizon was considered in the sensitivity analysis.Results:Following THR, when extended durations of prophylaxis (35 days) were compared, rivaroxaban was associated with lower costs than enoxaparin, with total saving costs of $695/patient. When an extended duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis (35 days) was compared with a short duration (10–14 days) of enoxaparin prophylaxis, rivaroxaban was estimated to prevent 9.9 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients, while saving $244/patient (rate/1000 patients). In the TKR population, short duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis was estimated to prevent 13.1 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients. It was also less costly than short duration enoxaparin prophylaxis, with a saving of $411/patient (rate/1000 patients).Limitations:Only statistically significant differences were captured in the base-case economic analysis, and, therefore, differences in pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding events were not captured.Conclusions:In this model, rivaroxaban reduced total treatment payer costs vs enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in THR or TKR patients. 相似文献
