膝关节骨性关节炎治疗的关节内注射:成本-效果分析

IF 2.8
Hanna Mass , Jamie E. Collins , Catherine Yang , David J. Hunter , Morgan H. Jones , Love Tsai , Stephen P. Messier , Tuhina Neogi , Jeffrey N. Katz , Elena Losina
{"title":"膝关节骨性关节炎治疗的关节内注射:成本-效果分析","authors":"Hanna Mass ,&nbsp;Jamie E. Collins ,&nbsp;Catherine Yang ,&nbsp;David J. Hunter ,&nbsp;Morgan H. Jones ,&nbsp;Love Tsai ,&nbsp;Stephen P. Messier ,&nbsp;Tuhina Neogi ,&nbsp;Jeffrey N. Katz ,&nbsp;Elena Losina","doi":"10.1016/j.ocarto.2025.100641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Intra-articular injections (IAI) are commonly used to treat knee pain in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We sought to determine the value of commonly used IAIs in knee OA management.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used the validated Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) to assess the value of saline, corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) IAIs in knee OA management. We conducted a meta-analysis of high quality studies to estimate IAI-specific pain reduction. We assumed that repeat CS injections increase the risk of OA progression threefold in the base case. We determined the value of specific IAIs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We conducted sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in input parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In the base case, ICERs were $8300/QALY for saline compared to no injection, $54,500/QALY for HA compared to saline, and $112,100/QALY for PRP compared to HA. CS was dominated (more costly, less effective) by saline. <strong>If saline was not included, ICER for HA was reduced to $22,400/QALY.</strong> In sensitivity analyses that assumed CS does not increase OA progression, ICERs were $6000/QALY for CS compared to no injection, HA dominated compared to CS. ICER for PRP was estimated at $151,300/QALY. ICERs for PRP were higher than currently accepted willingness to pay thresholds. PRP ICER ranges were most sensitive to discontinuation probability and cost.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>CS could offer good value for knee OA management if the impact on OA progression is small. <strong>Value of PRP depends greatly on its price, with current prices leading to value exceeding well</strong><strong>-</strong><strong>accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds</strong>. Better data on the impact of CS on OA progression and pain efficacy related to PRP would offer critical insights for policymakers into the value of specific IAIs in the management of knee OA.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74377,"journal":{"name":"Osteoarthritis and cartilage open","volume":"7 3","pages":"Article 100641"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intra-articular injections for knee osteoarthritis management: Analysis of cost-effectiveness\",\"authors\":\"Hanna Mass ,&nbsp;Jamie E. Collins ,&nbsp;Catherine Yang ,&nbsp;David J. Hunter ,&nbsp;Morgan H. Jones ,&nbsp;Love Tsai ,&nbsp;Stephen P. Messier ,&nbsp;Tuhina Neogi ,&nbsp;Jeffrey N. Katz ,&nbsp;Elena Losina\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ocarto.2025.100641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Intra-articular injections (IAI) are commonly used to treat knee pain in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We sought to determine the value of commonly used IAIs in knee OA management.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used the validated Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) to assess the value of saline, corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) IAIs in knee OA management. We conducted a meta-analysis of high quality studies to estimate IAI-specific pain reduction. We assumed that repeat CS injections increase the risk of OA progression threefold in the base case. We determined the value of specific IAIs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We conducted sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in input parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In the base case, ICERs were $8300/QALY for saline compared to no injection, $54,500/QALY for HA compared to saline, and $112,100/QALY for PRP compared to HA. CS was dominated (more costly, less effective) by saline. <strong>If saline was not included, ICER for HA was reduced to $22,400/QALY.</strong> In sensitivity analyses that assumed CS does not increase OA progression, ICERs were $6000/QALY for CS compared to no injection, HA dominated compared to CS. ICER for PRP was estimated at $151,300/QALY. ICERs for PRP were higher than currently accepted willingness to pay thresholds. PRP ICER ranges were most sensitive to discontinuation probability and cost.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>CS could offer good value for knee OA management if the impact on OA progression is small. <strong>Value of PRP depends greatly on its price, with current prices leading to value exceeding well</strong><strong>-</strong><strong>accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds</strong>. Better data on the impact of CS on OA progression and pain efficacy related to PRP would offer critical insights for policymakers into the value of specific IAIs in the management of knee OA.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Osteoarthritis and cartilage open\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100641\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Osteoarthritis and cartilage open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665913125000779\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteoarthritis and cartilage open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665913125000779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的关节内注射(IAI)是治疗膝关节骨性关节炎(OA)患者膝关节疼痛的常用方法。我们试图确定常用人工智能在膝关节OA治疗中的价值。方法采用经验证的骨关节炎政策模型(OAPol)评估生理盐水、皮质类固醇(CS)、透明质酸(HA)和富血小板血浆(PRP) iai在膝关节OA治疗中的价值。我们进行了一项高质量研究的荟萃分析,以估计iai特异性疼痛减轻。我们假设在基本情况下,重复CS注射会使OA进展的风险增加三倍。我们用增量成本-效果比(ICERs)来确定特定iai的价值。我们进行了敏感性分析,以解释输入参数的不确定性。结果在基本情况下,与不注射相比,生理盐水组ICERs为8300美元/QALY,与生理盐水组相比,HA组ICERs为54,500美元/QALY,与HA组相比,PRP组ICERs为112,100美元/QALY。CS以生理盐水为主(成本较高,效果较差)。如果不包括生理盐水,HA的ICER降低到22400美元/QALY。在假设CS不会增加OA进展的敏感性分析中,与未注射相比,CS的ICERs为6000美元/QALY,与CS相比,HA占主导地位。PRP的费用估计为$151,300/QALY。PRP的ICERs高于目前接受的支付意愿阈值。PRP - ICER范围对停药概率和停药成本最为敏感。结论在对骨性关节炎进展影响较小的情况下,scs在膝关节骨性关节炎治疗中具有较好的应用价值。PRP的价值在很大程度上取决于其价格,目前的价格导致其价值超过广为接受的成本效益阈值。更好的CS对关节炎进展和与PRP相关的疼痛疗效影响的数据将为决策者提供关键的见解,以了解特定iai在膝关节OA管理中的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intra-articular injections for knee osteoarthritis management: Analysis of cost-effectiveness

Objective

Intra-articular injections (IAI) are commonly used to treat knee pain in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We sought to determine the value of commonly used IAIs in knee OA management.

Methods

We used the validated Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) to assess the value of saline, corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) IAIs in knee OA management. We conducted a meta-analysis of high quality studies to estimate IAI-specific pain reduction. We assumed that repeat CS injections increase the risk of OA progression threefold in the base case. We determined the value of specific IAIs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We conducted sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in input parameters.

Results

In the base case, ICERs were $8300/QALY for saline compared to no injection, $54,500/QALY for HA compared to saline, and $112,100/QALY for PRP compared to HA. CS was dominated (more costly, less effective) by saline. If saline was not included, ICER for HA was reduced to $22,400/QALY. In sensitivity analyses that assumed CS does not increase OA progression, ICERs were $6000/QALY for CS compared to no injection, HA dominated compared to CS. ICER for PRP was estimated at $151,300/QALY. ICERs for PRP were higher than currently accepted willingness to pay thresholds. PRP ICER ranges were most sensitive to discontinuation probability and cost.

Conclusions

CS could offer good value for knee OA management if the impact on OA progression is small. Value of PRP depends greatly on its price, with current prices leading to value exceeding well-accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. Better data on the impact of CS on OA progression and pain efficacy related to PRP would offer critical insights for policymakers into the value of specific IAIs in the management of knee OA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Osteoarthritis and cartilage open
Osteoarthritis and cartilage open Orthopedics, Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信