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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Prospective randomized trial comparing the efficacy of single 6-ml injection of hylan G-F 20 and hyaluronic acid for primary knee arthritis: a preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of single 6-ml intraarticular injection between hylan G-F 20 and hyaluronic acid (HA) for knee osteoarthritis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Thirty-two patients with primary knee arthritis, who were randomly received single intraarticular injection of 6-ml hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc) or HA (Hyalgan), were prospectively evaluated for clinical outcomes at a minimum 26-week follow-up. The parameters, including visual analog scale (VAS) during walking, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires, were evaluated at pre-injection, then at 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 26 weeks, post-injection. RESULTS: There were 15 patients in both groups who were available for final follow-up with no statistical differences in demographic data, VAS during walking, WOMAC score and SF-36 score at pre-injection. There was no adverse event related to viscosupplementation using in is better than of both agents. At 26-week follow-up, patients in both groups had significantly improved VAS during walking (p < 0.01), WOMAC score (p < 0.01) and SF-36 (p < 0.05) with no statistical differences between groups. However the cost of hylan G-F 20 was much more expensive than that of HA (534 USD vs. 252 USD). CONCLUSION: A single intraarticular injection of both hylan G-F 20 and HA for primary knee arthritis had no adverse event related to 6-ml volume. At 26-week follow-up of the present preliminary study, both groups had similarly improved clinical outcomes post-injection. Further study in larger population is required. As the cost of hylan G-F 20 was 2 times higher than HA, a single 6-ml intraarticular injection of HA (Hyalgan) provided better cost-effectiveness than hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc).

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.

Viscosupplementation: managed care issues for osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects an estimated 49 million adults in North America, or nearly 1 of every 6 adults. More than 8 million North Americans have limited mobility to some extent because of OA. By 2030, an estimated 71 million North Americans will be diagnosed with OA, an increase of 45% over current figures. For one group-model health maintenance organization (HMO), the average cost of care for patients with OA was $543 per member, a total annual cost to the HMO of $4,728,425. Of this total amount, 46% was for inpatient care, 32% was for medication, and 22% was for ambulatory care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of OA on managed care and discuss treatment options available to those with OA, particularly of the knee. SUMMARY: OA represents an advanced stage of an active, progressive disease process. We know from medical research that OA is the endpoint of a progression in tissue degradation that results in loss of cartilage structure and function. Relief of pain and preservation of joint tissue must evolve to encompass treatments that interfere with cartilage-degrading mechanisms that follow acute or chronic injury, restore normal cartilage and joint homeostasis, and arrest the progression of disease. Optimal future treatments will also reverse existing damage and restore normal cartilage structure and function. Viscosupplementation with an elastoviscous fluid containing polymers of hylan derivatives of the natural glycosaminoglycan hyaluronan is indicated for treating pain of OA of the knee that has not responded to or is contraindicated for conservative nonpharmacologic therapy and traditional analgesics. These analgesics include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors. Clinicians in the managed care setting may consider using viscosupplementation in patients (1) who have persistent pain despite their use of conservative nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapy (e.g., exercise, weight loss, physician therapy, bracing/orthotics, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, and intra-articular glucocorticoids); (2) who have compromised gastrointestinal (GI) function or who are at risk for GI bleeding due to the adverse events of NSAIDs; (3) who are taking concomitant anticoagulant therapy for any condition; (4) who have cardiovascular or renal risk factors that preclude use of COX-2 inhibitors; and (5) for whom surgery is not appropriate. Further study should be conducted with larger numbers of patients to help identify a subgroup of patients with OA in whom viscosupplementation may have even greater effects. Additional research should also concentrate on assessing the risks and benefits of extended treatments, because limited data are available concerning the effectiveness of multiple courses of therapy. CONCLUSION: OA is an important public health issue as the leading cause of disability in North America. As populations age, socioeconomic costs of OA will dramatically increase. Among available treatment options, viscosupplementation is a valuable alternative to more conservative therapy and has the benefit of circumventing the possible side effects of systemically administered pharmacologic agents. Viscosupplementation demonstrated efficacy in OA of the knee, and its use in the managed care arena may generate savings in hospitalizations and other costs.