Cost-effectiveness evaluation of glucosamine for osteoarthritis based on simulation of individual patient data obtained from aggregated data in published studies.

BACKGROUND: The economic evaluation of treatments usually requires access to individual patient data, which is difficult to obtain. Moreover, in osteoarthritis, health utility scores are unavailable and can be assessed only using a validated equation model based on various clinical data. We aimed to develop and validate a methodology to simulate individual health utility scores from aggregated clinical data available in published studies to calculate the cost-effectiveness of different glucosamine preparations (i.e., crystalline glucosamine sulfate, glucosamine sulfate, and glucosamine hydrochloride) used for osteoarthritis. METHODS: We developed a method to simulate individual utility values and validated the model by comparing the results obtained with the simulation and the results of one trial where the utility scores are available. Then, we simulated the utility scores of 10 published trials that used different glucosamine preparations. The utility estimates were used to calculate the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the area-under-the-curve method. Costs were for the glucosamine product only. The incremental cost/effectiveness ratio (ICER) was then calculated. RESULTS: The values of utility scores calculated from data sources and those simulated with the model were similar. From 10 studies where utility was simulated, four used crystalline glucosamine sulfate, and six used other formulations. The ICER revealed that compared to placebo, crystalline glucosamine sulfate only was cost-effective at all time points and up to 3 years with a median ICER of 5347.2 €/QALY at month 3, 4807.2 €/QALY at month 6 and 11535.5 €/QALY at year 3. The use of other formulations was not cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Using a new model to simulate individual health utility scores of patients included in ten published trials, ICER analysis showed that the use of crystalline glucosamine sulfate is cost-effective, while other formulations were not. The results confirm the importance of the formulation of glucosamine products.

Differentiation of patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate from other glucosamine preparations will optimize osteoarthritis treatment.

Symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) are recommended for the medium- to long-term management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) due to their abilities to control pain, improve function and delay joint structural changes. Among SYSADOAs, evidence is greatest for the patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) formulation (Mylan). Glucosamine is widely available as glucosamine sulfate (GS) and glucosamine hydrochloride (GH) preparations that vary substantially in molecular form, pharmaceutical formulation and dose regimen. Only pCGS is given as a highly bioavailable once-daily dose (1500 mg), which consistently delivers the plasma levels of around 10 µmol/L required to inhibit interleukin-1-induced expression of genes involved in the pathophysiology of joint inflammation and tissue destruction. Careful consideration of the evidence base reveals that only pCGS reliably provides a moderate effect size on pain that is higher than paracetamol and equivalent to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), while non-crystalline GS and GH fail to reach statistical significance for pain reduction. Chronic administration of pCGS has disease-modifying effects, with a reduction in need for total joint replacement lasting for 5 years after treatment cessation. Pharmacoeconomic studies of pCGS demonstrate long-term reduction in additional pain analgesia and NSAIDs, with a 50% reduction in costs of other OA medication and healthcare consultations. Consequently, pCGS is the logical choice, with demonstrated medium-term control of pain and lasting impact on disease progression. Physician and patient education on the differentiation of pCGS from other glucosamine formulations will help to improve treatment selection, increase treatment adherence, and optimize clinical benefit in OA.

Efficacy and safety of glucosamine sulfate in the management of osteoarthritis: Evidence from real-life setting trials and surveys.

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm recommends chronic symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) including glucosamine sulfate (GS) and chondroitin sulfate (CS) as first-line therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Numerous studies are published on the use of SYSADOAs in OA; however, the efficacy of this class is still called into question largely due to the regulatory status, labeling and availability of these medications which differ substantially across the world. Examination of the evidence for the prescription patented crystalline GS (pCGS) formulation at a dose of 1500mg once-daily demonstrates superiority over other GS and glucosamine hydrochloride (GH) formulations and dosage regimens. Thus, the ESCEO task force advocates differentiation of prescription pCGS over other glucosamine preparations. Long-term clinical trials and real-life studies show that pCGS may delay joint structural changes, suggesting potential benefit beyond symptom control when used early in the management of knee OA. Real-life pharmacoeconomic studies demonstrate a long-term reduction in the need for additional pain analgesia and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with pCGS, with a significant reduction of over 50% in costs associated with medications, healthcare consultations and examinations over 12 months. Furthermore, treatment with pCGS for at least 12 months leads to a reduction in the need for total joint replacement for at least 5 years following treatment cessation. Thus, pCGS (1500mg od) is a logical choice to maximize clinical benefit in OA patients, with demonstrated medium-term control of pain and lasting impact on disease progression.

Prescribing patterns of glucosamine in an older population: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Glucosamine is commonly prescribed as a disease modulating agent in osteoarthritis. However, the evidence to date suggests that it has a limited impact on the clinical symptoms of the disease including joint pain, radiological progression, function and quality of life. The aim of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns of glucosamine from 2002-2011 in an elderly Irish national population cohort using data from the Health Service Executive Primary Care Reimbursement (HSE-PCRS) General medical services (GMS) Scheme. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 70 years on the HSE-PCRS pharmacy claims database between January 2002 and December 2011 were included. ATC code M01AX05 (glucosamine) was extracted. Prevalence rates per 1000 eligible population with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all years and age groups (70-74 years, ≥75 years). A negative binomial regression analysis was used to determine longitudinal usage trends and compare prevalence rates across years, sex and age groups. RESULTS: The annual patient rate of glucosamine prescribing increased significantly from 13.0/1000 eligible population (95% CI 12.6-13.4) in 2002 to 68.7/1000 population (95% CI 67.8-69.5) in 2009 before decreasing to 62.4/1000 population (95% CI 61.6-63.2) in 2011. The rate of prescribing of glucosamine varied with sex, with women receiving significantly more prescriptions than men. The cost of glucosamine also increased from 2002-2008. In 2008 total expenditure reached a high of €4.6 million before decreasing to €2.6 million in 2011. CONCLUSION: The national trend in prescribing of glucosamine increased significantly from 2002 to 2009 before decreasing in 2010 and 2011, in keeping with current international guidelines. There is a need for awareness among healthcare professionals and patients alike of the best available evidence to inform decision making relating to the prescription and consumption of such supplements.

Role of glucosamine in the treatment for osteoarthritis.

Over the last 20 years, several studies have investigated the ability of glucosamine sulfate to improve the symptoms (pain and function) and to delay the structural progression of osteoarthritis. There is now a large, convergent body of evidence that glucosamine sulfate, given at a daily oral dose of 1,500 mg, is able to significantly reduce the symptoms of osteoarthritis in the lower limbs. This dose of glucosamine sulfate has also been shown, in two independent studies, to prevent the joint space narrowing observed at the femorotibial compartment in patients with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis. This effect also translated into a 50 % reduction in the incidence of osteoarthritis-related surgery of the lower limbs during a 5-year period following the withdrawal of the treatment. Some discrepancies have been described between the results of studies performed with a patent-protected formulation of glucosamine sulfate distributed as a drug and those having used glucosamine preparations purchased from global suppliers, packaged, and sold over-the-counter as nutritional supplements.

Glucosamine sulphate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: cost-effectiveness comparison with paracetamol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine sulphate (GS) compared with paracetamol and placebo (PBO) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. For this purpose, a 6-month time horizon and a health care perspective was used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cost and effectiveness data were derived from Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index data of the Glucosamine Unum In Die (once-a-day) Efficacy trial study by Herrero-Beaumont et al. Clinical effectiveness was converted into utility scores to allow for the computation of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) For the three treatment arms Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio were calculated and statistical uncertainty was explored using a bootstrap simulation. RESULTS: In terms of mean utility score at baseline, 3 and 6 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between the three groups. When considering the mean utility score changes from baseline to 3 and 6 months, no difference was observed in the first case but there was a statistically significant difference from baseline to 6 months with a p-value of 0.047. When comparing GS with paracetamol, the mean baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was dominant and the mean ICER after bootstrapping was -1376 euro/QALY indicating dominance (with 79% probability). When comparing GS with PBO, the mean baseline and after bootstrapping ICER were 3617.47 and 4285 euro/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of the present cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that GS is a highly cost-effective therapy alternative compared with paracetamol and PBO to treat patients diagnosed with primary knee OA.

Scale-up of upstream and downstream operations for the production of glucosamine using microbial fermentation.

Glucosamine is used to treat osteoarthritis or as a nutritional supplement. The synthesis, isolation, and purification of glucosamine play a crucial role in its industrial application. This work presents the production of glucosamine from microbial fermentation, and discusses the production problems at both the upstream and downstream operations when the fermentation process is scaled up. The cost evaluation of process design was used to analyze the feasibility of using microbial fermentation for the production of glucosamine. The calculated result shows that the cost of the production of glucosamine should be designed to be approximately between US$200 and 300/kg for the project to be viable.

Joint remedies.

Glucosamine and chondroitin supplements appear to ease arthritis symptoms and possibly fight the disease itself. We tested 19 national products.