Knee OA cost comparison for hyaluronic acid and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Limiting 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. METHODS: Claims 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. RESULTS: Knee 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). CONCLUSIONS: Non-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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Early to Moderate Stage Knee Osteoarthritis with Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Compared to Conservative Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence 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. METHODS: Decision 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. RESULTS: When 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. CONCLUSION: IA-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. FUNDING: Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.

[Budget impact analysis of viscosupplementation for non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis]. / Análise do impacto orçamentário da viscossuplementação no tratamento não cirúrgico da osteoartrite de joelho.

Knee osteoarthritis affects 3.8% of the world population and manifests as pain, edema, stiffness, and reduced joint function, impacting the patient's quality of life. Treatment consists of the pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and surgical modalities. Viscosupplementation (intraarticular hyaluronate) has been proposed to relieve symptoms and potentially postpone surgery. This study estimated the budget impact of the association of this drug and non-surgical treatment (standard treatment) from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System. Based on the assumption that 5% of patients proceed to treatment and on the direct costs of the pharmacological and non-pharmacological modalities, the authors calculated the reference and alternative scenarios that compared the different treatment options in a three-year timeline. The principal analysis estimated an incremental budget impact of approximately BRL 126 million (U$ 32 million) for one vial of hyaluronate a year and BRL 252 million (USD 64 million) for two vials a year. Diacerein, an oral chondroprotector, assessed as an alternative, showed a budget impact of BRL 334 million (USD 86 million) in relation to standard treatment, representing a 24% cost increase compared to two vials a year of hyaluronate, making it less economically advantageous. Viscosupplementation can provide better quality of life for patients, reduce costs for the health system, and optimize the flow of care in health services. The estimates presented in this study can assist administrators in the best use of resources and thus in decision-making on the technology's incorporation.

A osteoartrite de joelho afeta cerca de 3,8% da população mundial e se manifesta por dor, edema, rigidez e redução da função articular, impactando na qualidade de vida do paciente. O tratamento consiste na modalidade farmacológica, não farmacológica e cirúrgica. A viscossuplementação (ácido hialurônico intra-articular) se propõe a oferecer alívio dos sintomas e a possibilidade de adiamento da cirurgia. Este estudo estimou o impacto orçamentário entre a associação desse medicamento e o tratamento não cirúrgico (tratamento padrão), sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. Com base no pressuposto de que 5% dos portadores da doença seguem para tratamento e nos custos diretos das modalidades: farmacológica e não farmacológica foram calculados os cenários de referência e alternativos que compararam as diferentes opções de tratamento para um horizonte temporal de três anos. A análise principal estimou um impacto orçamentário incremental de aproximadamente R$ 126 milhões (1 ampola anual) e R$ 252 milhões (2 ampolas anuais). Já a diacereína, um condroprotetor oral, avaliada como uma opção alternativa, mostrou um impacto de R$ 334 milhões no orçamento em relação ao tratamento padrão, o que proporciona um aumento de 24% no custo em relação ao uso de 2 ampolas anuais de ácido hialurônico, tornando-a economicamente menos vantajosa. A viscossuplementação pode proporcionar maior qualidade de vida ao paciente, redução de custos para o sistema e otimização do fluxo de atendimento nas unidades de saúde. As estimativas apresentadas neste estudo podem auxiliar o gestor quanto à melhor utilização dos recursos financeiros e consequente tomada de decisão quanto à incorporação da tecnologia.

La osteoartritis de rodilla afecta a cerca de un 3,8% de la población mundial y se manifiesta por dolor, edema, rigidez y reducción de la función articular, impactando en la calidad de vida del paciente. El tratamiento consiste en la modalidad farmacológica, no farmacológica y quirúrgica. La viscosuplementación (ácido hialurónico intraarticular) se propone ofrecer un alivio de los síntomas y la posibilidad de un aplazamiento de la cirugía. Este estudio estimó el impacto presupuestario entre la asociación de este medicamento y el tratamiento no quirúrgico (tratamiento estándar), desde la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud. Basándonos en el supuesto de que un 5% de los portadores de la enfermedad siguen el tratamiento y en los costos directos de las modalidades tanto farmacológica, como no farmacológica, se calcularon los escenarios de referencia y alternativos que compararon las diferentes opciones de tratamiento para un horizonte temporal de tres años. El análisis principal estimó un impacto presupuestario incremental de aproximadamente BRL 126 millones (1 ampolla anual) y BRL 252 millones (2 ampollas anuales). En el caso de la diacereína, un condroprotector oral, evaluado como una opción alternativa, mostró un impacto de BRL 334 millones en el presupuesto, respecto al tratamiento estándar, lo que proporciona un aumento de un 24% en el costo, en relación con el uso de 2 ampollas anuales de ácido hialurónico, haciéndola económicamente menos ventajosa. La viscosuplementación puede proporcionar mayor calidad de vida al paciente, reducción de costes para el sistema y la optimización del flujo de atención en las unidades de salud. Las estimaciones presentadas en este estudio pueden ayudar al gestor en lo referente a una mejor utilización de los recursos financieros y, consecuentemente, en la toma de decisiones respecto a la incorporación de tecnología.

Análise do impacto orçamentário da viscossuplementação no tratamento não cirúrgico da osteoartrite de joelho / Budget impact analysis of viscosupplementation for non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis / Análisis del impacto presupuestario de la viscosuplementación en el tratamiento no quirúrgico de la osteoartritis de rodilla

Resumo: A osteoartrite de joelho afeta cerca de 3,8% da população mundial e se manifesta por dor, edema, rigidez e redução da função articular, impactando na qualidade de vida do paciente. O tratamento consiste na modalidade farmacológica, não farmacológica e cirúrgica. A viscossuplementação (ácido hialurônico intra-articular) se propõe a oferecer alívio dos sintomas e a possibilidade de adiamento da cirurgia. Este estudo estimou o impacto orçamentário entre a associação desse medicamento e o tratamento não cirúrgico (tratamento padrão), sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. Com base no pressuposto de que 5% dos portadores da doença seguem para tratamento e nos custos diretos das modalidades: farmacológica e não farmacológica foram calculados os cenários de referência e alternativos que compararam as diferentes opções de tratamento para um horizonte temporal de três anos. A análise principal estimou um impacto orçamentário incremental de aproximadamente R$ 126 milhões (1 ampola anual) e R$ 252 milhões (2 ampolas anuais). Já a diacereína, um condroprotetor oral, avaliada como uma opção alternativa, mostrou um impacto de R$ 334 milhões no orçamento em relação ao tratamento padrão, o que proporciona um aumento de 24% no custo em relação ao uso de 2 ampolas anuais de ácido hialurônico, tornando-a economicamente menos vantajosa. A viscossuplementação pode proporcionar maior qualidade de vida ao paciente, redução de custos para o sistema e otimização do fluxo de atendimento nas unidades de saúde. As estimativas apresentadas neste estudo podem auxiliar o gestor quanto à melhor utilização dos recursos financeiros e consequente tomada de decisão quanto à incorporação da tecnologia.

Abstract: Knee osteoarthritis affects 3.8% of the world population and manifests as pain, edema, stiffness, and reduced joint function, impacting the patient's quality of life. Treatment consists of the pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and surgical modalities. Viscosupplementation (intraarticular hyaluronate) has been proposed to relieve symptoms and potentially postpone surgery. This study estimated the budget impact of the association of this drug and non-surgical treatment (standard treatment) from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System. Based on the assumption that 5% of patients proceed to treatment and on the direct costs of the pharmacological and non-pharmacological modalities, the authors calculated the reference and alternative scenarios that compared the different treatment options in a three-year timeline. The principal analysis estimated an incremental budget impact of approximately BRL 126 million (U$ 32 million) for one vial of hyaluronate a year and BRL 252 million (USD 64 million) for two vials a year. Diacerein, an oral chondroprotector, assessed as an alternative, showed a budget impact of BRL 334 million (USD 86 million) in relation to standard treatment, representing a 24% cost increase compared to two vials a year of hyaluronate, making it less economically advantageous. Viscosupplementation can provide better quality of life for patients, reduce costs for the health system, and optimize the flow of care in health services. The estimates presented in this study can assist administrators in the best use of resources and thus in decision-making on the technology's incorporation.

Resumen: La osteoartritis de rodilla afecta a cerca de un 3,8% de la población mundial y se manifiesta por dolor, edema, rigidez y reducción de la función articular, impactando en la calidad de vida del paciente. El tratamiento consiste en la modalidad farmacológica, no farmacológica y quirúrgica. La viscosuplementación (ácido hialurónico intraarticular) se propone ofrecer un alivio de los síntomas y la posibilidad de un aplazamiento de la cirugía. Este estudio estimó el impacto presupuestario entre la asociación de este medicamento y el tratamiento no quirúrgico (tratamiento estándar), desde la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud. Basándonos en el supuesto de que un 5% de los portadores de la enfermedad siguen el tratamiento y en los costos directos de las modalidades tanto farmacológica, como no farmacológica, se calcularon los escenarios de referencia y alternativos que compararon las diferentes opciones de tratamiento para un horizonte temporal de tres años. El análisis principal estimó un impacto presupuestario incremental de aproximadamente BRL 126 millones (1 ampolla anual) y BRL 252 millones (2 ampollas anuales). En el caso de la diacereína, un condroprotector oral, evaluado como una opción alternativa, mostró un impacto de BRL 334 millones en el presupuesto, respecto al tratamiento estándar, lo que proporciona un aumento de un 24% en el costo, en relación con el uso de 2 ampollas anuales de ácido hialurónico, haciéndola económicamente menos ventajosa. La viscosuplementación puede proporcionar mayor calidad de vida al paciente, reducción de costes para el sistema y la optimización del flujo de atención en las unidades de salud. Las estimaciones presentadas en este estudio pueden ayudar al gestor en lo referente a una mejor utilización de los recursos financieros y, consecuentemente, en la toma de decisiones respecto a la incorporación de tecnología.

Cost-Utility Analysis of High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis in Everyday Clinical Care in Patients at a Working Age: An Economic Evaluation of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with high medical costs and especially with high productivity costs, in particular in patients in their working years. High molecular weight (HMW) hyaluronic acid (HA) is an alternative treatment for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, which are known for their serious side-effects. The cost-utility of intraarticular HMW-HA treatment in these patients is unknown, however, and was assessed in this study. METHODS: Secondary care patients ages 18-65 years with knee OA were randomized to usual care plus HMW-HA (intervention group) or to usual care only (control group). A cost-utility analysis over 52 weeks from the societal and health care perspective was performed. Uncertainty for costs, effects, and cost-utility ratio was analyzed by nonparametric bootstrapping. Baseline imbalance adjustment was done by inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: In total, 156 subjects were included (intervention group n = 77, control group n = 79). The total of productivity and medical costs was €475 higher in the intervention group at €7,754 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5,426, 10,436) versus €7,270 (95% CI 5,453, 9,262). The amount of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained during followup was also higher in the intervention group (0.779 versus 0.727). This variation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,100/QALY from a societal perspective and €8,700/QALY from a health care perspective. When the maximum willingness to pay for conditions similar to knee OA is considered, the probability on cost-effectiveness is 64% and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intraarticular HMW-HA added to usual care for knee OA is probably cost-effective in the treatment of knee OA.

Assessment steps and treatment tips for ankle arthritis.

The tibiotalar joint's unique biomechanics and associated structures carry management implications that vary from those in knee or hip arthritis.

Hyaluronic Acid Injections for Treatment of Advanced Osteoarthritis of the Knee: Utilization and Cost in a National Population Sample.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is increasing in the aging U.S. POPULATION: The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis are debated. In this study, we assessed the utilization and costs of HA injections in the 12 months preceding total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and evaluated the usage of HA injections in end-stage knee osteoarthritis management in relation to other treatments. METHODS: MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits databases (Truven Health Analytics) were reviewed to identify patients who underwent TKA from 2005 to 2012. The utilization of patient-specific osteoarthritis-related health care (including medications, corticosteroid injections, HA injections, imaging, and office visits) and payment information were analyzed for the 12 months preceding TKA. RESULTS: A total of 244,059 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 35,935 (14.7%) had ≥1 HA injection in the 12 months preceding TKA. HA injections were responsible for 16.4% of all knee osteoarthritis-related payments, trailing only imaging studies (18.2%), and HA injections accounted for 25.2% of treatment-specific payments, a rate that was higher than that of any other treatment. Patients receiving HA injections were significantly more likely to receive additional knee osteoarthritis-related treatments compared with patients who did not receive HA injections. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous studies questioning the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of HA injections for osteoarthritis of the knee, HA injections are still utilized for a substantial percentage of patients. Given the paucity of data supporting the effectiveness of HA injections and the current cost-conscious health-care climate, decreasing their use among patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis may represent a substantial cost reduction that likely does not adversely impact the quality of care.

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

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic surgery compared with non-operative management for osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic surgery in addition to non-operative treatments compared with non-operative treatments alone in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a single-centre, randomised trial among patients with symptomatic, radiographic knee OA (KL grade ≥ 2). INTERVENTIONS: Patients received arthroscopic debridement and partial resection of degenerative knee tissues in addition to optimised non-operative therapy, or optimised non-operative therapy only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct and indirect costs were collected prospectively over the 2-year study period. The effectiveness outcomes were the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the net benefit regression framework considering a range of willingness-to-pay values from the Canadian public payer and societal perspectives. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and conducted sensitivity analyses using the extremes of the 95% CIs surrounding mean differences in effect between groups. RESULTS: 168 patients were included. Patients allocated to arthroscopy received partial resection and debridement of degenerative meniscal tears (81%) and/or articular cartilage (97%). There were no significant differences between groups in use of non-operative treatments. The incremental net benefit was negative for all willingness-to-pay values. Uncertainty estimates suggest that even if willing to pay $400,000 to achieve a clinically important improvement in WOMAC score, or ≥$50,000 for an additional QALY, there is <20% probability that the addition of arthroscopy is cost-effective compared with non-operative therapies only. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that even when assuming the largest treatment effect, the addition of arthroscopic surgery is not economically attractive compared with non-operative treatments only. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic debridement of degenerative articular cartilage and resection of degenerative meniscal tears in addition to non-operative treatments for knee OA is not an economically attractive treatment option compared with non-operative treatment only, regardless of willingness-to-pay value. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00158431.

A consensus statement on the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis-From evidence-based medicine to the real-life setting.

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) published a treatment algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) in 2014, which provides practical guidance for the prioritization of interventions. Further analysis of real-world data for OA provides additional evidence in support of pharmacological interventions, in terms of management of OA pain and function, avoidance of adverse events, disease-modifying effects and long-term outcomes, e.g., delay of total joint replacement surgery, and pharmacoeconomic factors such as reduction in healthcare resource utilization. This article provides an updated assessment of the literature for selected interventions in OA, focusing on real-life data, with the aim of providing easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment flow in patients with knee OA in primary care clinical practice, in support of the clinicians' individualized assessment of the patient. In step 1, background maintenance therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) is recommended, for which high-quality evidence is provided only for the prescription formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate. Paracetamol may be added for rescue analgesia only, due to limited efficacy and increasing safety signals. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide additional symptomatic treatment with the same degree of efficacy as oral NSAIDs without the systemic safety concerns. Oral NSAIDs maintain a central role in step 2 advanced management of persistent symptoms. However, oral NSAIDs are highly heterogeneous in terms of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile, and patient stratification with careful treatment selection is advocated to maximize the risk:benefit ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid as a next step provides sustained clinical benefit with effects lasting up to 6 months after a short-course of weekly injections. As a last step before surgery, the slow titration of sustained-release tramadol, a weak opioid, affords sustained analgesia with improved tolerability.

Assessment of clinical practice guideline methodology for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular hyaluronic acid.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines are of increasing importance in the decision making for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Inconsistent recommendations regarding the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis have led to confusion among treating physicians. METHODS: Literature search to identify clinical practice guidelines that provide recommendations regarding the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis was conducted. Included guidelines were appraised using the AGREE II instrument. Guideline development methodologies, how the results were assessed, the recommendation formation, and work group composition were summarized. RESULTS: Overall, 10 clinical practice guidelines were identified that met our inclusion criteria. AGREE II domain scores were variable across the included guidelines. The methodology utilized across the guidelines was heterogeneous regarding the evidence inclusion criteria, analysis of evidence results, formulation of clinical practice recommendations, and work group composition. The recommendations provided by the guidelines for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis are highly inconsistent as a result of the variability in guideline methodology. Overall, 30% of the included guidelines recommended against the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, while 30% deemed the treatment an appropriate intervention under certain scenarios. The remaining 40% of the guidelines provided either an uncertain recommendation or no recommendation at all, based on the high variability in reviewed evidence regarding efficacy and trial quality. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a standard "appropriate methodology" that is agreed upon for osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines in order to prevent the development of conflicting recommendations for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis, and to assure that treating physicians who are utilizing these guidelines are making their clinical decisions on the best available evidence. At present, the inconsistent recommendations provided for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment make it difficult for clinical professionals to determine its appropriateness when treating patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intra-articular injections of a high molecular weight bioengineered hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain.

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.

An assessment of the usefulness of jaw kinesiography in monitoring temporomandibular disorders: correlation of treatment-related kinesiographic and pain changes in patients receiving temporomandibular joint injections.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study in patients with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osteoarthritis to assess whether treatment-related changes in pain levels and chewing ability coincide with a change in jaw kinesiographic (KG) parameters. METHODS: The authors selected 34 patients with a diagnosis of TMJ osteoarthritis that met Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) to undergo a cycle of five weekly arthrocentesis procedures with injections of 1 milliliter hyaluronic acid. They performed a permutation test to assess the correlation between changes across time (from baseline to end of treatment) in two clinical outcome parameters-pain level and chewing ability-and changes across time in the KG outcome parameters. RESULTS: The authors observed improvement across time in both chewing ability (F = 8.328; P = .005) and pain level (F = 10.903; P = .002). The authors observed no significant changes in any KG variables. With minor exceptions, no significant correlations were shown between changes in the clinical and KG parameters during the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-related changes in pain levels and chewing ability in patients with TMJ osteoarthritis do not coincide with changes in KG parameters. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: If one assumes pain variables to be the primary outcome measures in assessing treatment of TMJ osteoarthritis, KG recordings of the jaw are not useful for monitoring TMJ osteoarthritis in the clinical setting.

[Cost-analysis of viscosupplementation treatment with hyaluronic acid in candidate knee replacement patients with osteoarhritis]. / Análisis de costes del tratamiento con viscosuplementación con ácido hialurónico estabilizado en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla candidatos a implantación de prótesis.

A high percentage of knee osteoarthritis finally need a knee replacement. Previous treatments used including viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid can delay the knee replacement. The objective of this study was to estimate the economic impact in the short, medium and long term of the knee replacement delay, by conducting a budget impact analysis of the incorporation of viscosupplementation to the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. From the data of patients treated at a specialized Knee Osteoarthritis Unit we built a discrete event simulation model that reproduced the progress of patients, as it could represent changes in the health status of an individual and their interaction with the system. The model allowed the number of prostheses and replacements performed each year to be calculated in a population including 1,000 patients each year according to the use of viscosupplementation. The budget impact analysis was estimated for 10 years by adding the cost of each treatment. A total of 224 patient candidates to receive a knee replacement were studied. The viscosupplementation use delayed the need to perform the knee replacement by 2.67 years The budgetary impact would lead to net savings during the 10 years. However, it is much greater in the earlier years. The sum of the savings in the first three years would be 36 million euros. The study concludes that the use of viscosupplementation reduced the economic burden of knee osteoarthritis in the health system as a result of delayed knee replacement. The simulation model enabled the economic impact in both the short and long term to be analysed.

Attenuation of iodine 125 radiation with vitreous substitutes in the treatment of uveal melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate attenuation of radiation from iodine 125 ((125)I) to intraocular structures using liquid vitreous substitutes. METHODS: Four candidate vitreous substitutes were tested for attenuation using empirical measurement and theoretical calculation. In vitro and ex vivo cadaveric dosimetry measurements were obtained with lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimeters to demonstrate the attenuation effect of vitreous substitution during (125)I simulated plaque brachytherapy. Theoretical dosimetry calculations were based on Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: In a cylindrical phantom at a 17-mm depth, liquid vitreous substitutes as compared with saline showed significant reduction of radiation penetration (48% for 1000-centistoke [cSt] silicone oil [polydimethyl-n-siloxane], 47% for 5000-cSt silicone oil [polydimethyl-n-siloxane], 40% for heavy oil [perfluorohexyloctane/polydimethyl-n-siloxane], and 35% for perfluorocarbon liquid [perfluoro-n-octane]). Human cadaveric ex vivo measurements demonstrated a 1000-cSt silicone oil to saline dose ratio of 35%, 52%, 55%, and 48% at arc lengths of 7.6, 10.6, 22.3, and 28.6 mm from the plaque edge, respectively, along the surface of the globe. Monte Carlo simulation of a human globe projected attenuation as high as 57% using 1000-cSt silicone oil. CONCLUSIONS: Intraocular vitreous substitutes including silicone oil, heavy oil, and perfluorocarbon liquid attenuate the radiation dose from (125)I. Cadaveric ex vivo measurements and Monte Carlo simulation both demonstrate radiation attenuation using 1000-cSt silicone oil at distances corresponding to vital ocular structures. Clinical Relevance Attenuation of radiation with silicone oil endotamponade in the treatment of uveal melanoma may significantly reduce radiation-induced injury to vital ocular structures.

Clinical inquiries. Do hyaluronic acid injections relieve OA knee pain?

Hyaluronic acid (HA) injections relieve pain more than placebo. The effect is small but similar to results from oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or steroid injection. The various HA products all appear to be equally effective in reducing pain. Data concerning the effect of HA on functional ability are conflicting.