Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective

Cost-utility analysis and net monetary benefit of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), intra-articular injections in compared to Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF), Hyaluronic Acid (HA) and ozone in knee osteoarthritis in Iran

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF), Hyaluronic Acid (HA) and ozone as effective treatment approaches in knee osteoarthritis management from Iran Health care perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of four common intra-articular treatment approaches in patients with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. The data on clinical effectiveness was obtained from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Iran and used to estimate utility values. The direct medical costs were estimated according to tariffs for public medical centers and hospitals, approved by the Iran Ministry of Health and Medical Education in 2021. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) were used to evaluate the cost-utility analysis. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are performed to investigate the robustness of the results and account for the different sources of uncertainty.

RESULTS

In this study, HA intra-articular injection-related costs ($581.67/patient) were defined as the highest cost, followed by PRGF ($328.10/patient), PRP (318.58/patient), and Ozone (103.20/patient). According to the utility value, PRP and PRGF (0.68) have the same and the most utility among Intra-articular injections in knee osteoarthritis management. However, the PRP injection method was identified as the most cost-effective intervention due to its high NMB and ICER estimates. Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation, PR intervention, compared to other ones, was introduced as the dominant strategy regarding knee OA management, with a WTP of $10,000 for 100% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The study result demonstrated that intra-articular injection of PRP, compare to other injections, is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. In addition, intra-articular injection of PRP was identified as the best injection, with the highest level of net monetary benefit, for knee OA management.

Antidepressants for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000.  Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Management for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent, disabling disease requiring chronic management that is associated with an enormous individual and societal burden. This systematic review provides a global cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmacological therapy for the management of OA.

METHODS

Following Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance, a literature search strategy was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation database (NHS EED) to identify original articles containing cost-effectiveness evaluation of OA pharmacological treatment published before 4 November 2021. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to assess the reporting quality of included articles.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 43 cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) on pharmacological management of OA that were conducted in 18 countries and four continents, with one study containing multiple continents. A total of four classes of drugs were assessed, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), and intra-articular (IA) injections. The methodological approaches of these studies showed substantial heterogeneity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2021 US dollars) US$44.40 to US$307,013.56 for NSAIDS, US$11,984.84 to US$128,028.74 for opioids, US$10,930.17 to US$27,799.73 for SYSADOAs, and US$258.36 to US$58,447.97 for IA injections in different continents. The key drivers of cost effectiveness included medical resources, productivity, relative risks, and selected comparators.

CONCLUSION

This review showed substantial heterogeneity among studies, ranging from a finding of dominance to very high ICERs, but most studies found interventions to be cost effective based on specific ICER thresholds. Important challenges in the analysis were related to the standardization and methodological quality of studies, as well as the presentation of results.

Systematic Review of the Evolution of Health-Economic Evaluation Models of Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively synthesize the evolution of health-economic evaluation models (HEEMs) of all osteoarthritis (OA) interventions, including preventions, core treatments, adjunct nonpharmacologic interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and surgical treatments.

METHODS

The literature was searched within health-economic/biomedical databases. Data extracted included OA type, population characteristics, model setting/type/events, study perspective, and comparators; the reporting quality of the studies was also assessed. The review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018092937).

RESULTS

Eighty-eight studies were included. Pharmacologic and surgical interventions were the focus in 51% and 44% of studies, respectively. Twenty-four studies adopted a societal perspective (with increasing popularity after 2013), but most (63%) did not include indirect costs. Quality-adjusted life years was the most popular outcome measure since 2008. Markov models were used by 62% of studies, with increasing popularity since 2008. Until 2010, most studies used short-to-medium time horizons; subsequently, a lifetime horizon became popular. A total of 86% of studies reported discount rates (predominantly between 3% and 5%). Studies published after 2002 had a better coverage of OA-related adverse events (AEs). Reporting quality significantly improved after 2001.

CONCLUSION

OA HEEMs have evolved and improved substantially over time, with the focus shifting from short-to-medium-term pharmacologic decision-tree models to surgical-focused lifetime Markov models. Indirect costs of OA are frequently not considered, despite using a societal perspective. There was a lack of reporting sensitivity of model outcome to input parameters, including discount rate, OA definition, and population parameters. While the coverage of OA-related AEs has improved over time, it is still not comprehensive.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

About 21% of adults with osteoarthritis (OA) are diagnosed with concomitant depression in addition to chronic pain. Duloxetine, an anti-depressant medication, has been recently approved for managing Knee OA. We performed a systematic review to ascertain the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for OA. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to December 2018. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and/or safety of duloxetine versus placebo in OA patients were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Seven RCTs (n = 2,102 participants) met our inclusion criteria, and five RCTs (n = 1,713) were eligible for meta-analysis. The results of our analyses indicate that duloxetine has statistically significant, moderate benefits on pain, function, and quality of life in knee OA patients for up to 13 weeks. Reported incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were three to four times higher in participants who received duloxetine versus placebo. Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for individuals with knee OA, but use of the drug is associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse events. Patient preferences and clinicians' judgment must be considered before the initiation of duloxetine.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2015: clinical

The purpose of this review is to highlight clinical research in osteoarthritis (OA). A literature search was conducted using PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) with the search terms "osteoarthritis [All Fields] AND treatment [All Fields]" and the following limits activated: humans, English language, all adult 19+ years, published between April 1, 2014 and April 1, 2015. A second literature search was then conducted with the search terms "osteoarthritis [All Fields] AND epidemiology [All Fields]", with the same limits. Reports of surgical outcome, case series, surgical technique, tissue sample or culture studies, trial protocols, and pilot studies were excluded. Of 1523, 150 were considered relevant. Among epidemiologic and observational clinical studies, themes included physical activity, early knee OA, and confidence/instability/falls. Symptom outcomes of pharmacologic treatments were reported for methotrexate, adalimumab, anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibodies, strontium ranelate, bisphosphonates, glucosamine, and chondroitin sulfate, and structural outcomes of pharmacologic treatments for strontium ranelate, recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18, and glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate. Symptom outcomes of non-pharmacologic interventions were reported for: neuromuscular exercise, quadriceps strengthening, weight reduction and maintenance, TENS, therapeutic ultrasound, stepped care strategies, cognitive behavior therapy for sleep disturbance, acupuncture, gait modification, booster physical therapy, a web-based therapeutic exercise resource center for knee OA; hip physical therapy for hip OA; and joint protection and hand exercises for hand OA. Structure outcomes of non-pharmacologic interventions were reported for patellofemoral bracing.