Walk with ease for knee osteoarthritis: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a heterogeneous disorder that is increasingly prevalent largely due to aging and obesity, resulting in a major disease burden worldwide. Knowledge about the underlying aetiology has improved, with increased understanding of the role of genetic factors, the microbiome, and existence of different pain mechanisms. However, this knowledge has not yet been translated into new treatment options. New evidence has questioned the efficacy of recommended treatments, such as therapeutic exercise programmes and the focus on weight loss, but managing obesity and maintaining activity remain important for the prevention and management of osteoarthritis. Approaches should consider individual and cultural preferences and resource availability to increase patient and community engagement, and optimise outcomes worldwide. Most of the focus has been on established osteoarthritis where management is primarily directed at relieving symptoms. The search for the much needed effective treatments that improve both symptoms and structure, often referred to as disease-modifying osteoarthritic drugs, is ongoing. Promising data indicate that targeting inflammation is effective in hand osteoarthritis.

The control group matters: Pain, physical function and strength improvements relative to the comparator intervention in knee and hip osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

In knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA), the mechanism for resistance exercise improving clinical outcomes and the dose-response between strength and clinical outcomes are unknown; in part due to inconsistent trial designs across studies.

PURPOSE

To determine whether the effects of resistance exercise interventions on pain and function differ based on comparator group; and whether there is an association between improvements in lower extremity strength with improvements in pain and function in knee and hip OA.

METHODS

We searched 6 databases (inception to January 28 2023,) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing land-based, resistance exercise-only interventions with no intervention or any other intervention. There were four subgroups for comparator intervention: NONE (none/placebo/sham/usual care), EXE (other exercise interventions alone), NONEXE (non-exercise interventions alone), COMBO (combined exercise + non-exercise interventions). The between-group effect (ES) was calculated for immediate post-intervention pain and function (activities of daily living (ADL) and sports/recreation (SPORT)). Meta-regression analyses were completed to evaluate the association between improvements in lower extremity strength (independent variable) and improvements in pain, ADL and SPORT (dependent variables), irrespective of comparator intervention.

RESULTS

For knee OA (257 studies), there were large benefits for pain [ES (95 % CI) = -0.92 (-1.15, -0.69)], ADL [-0.79 (-1.01, -0.56)] and SPORT [-0.79 (-1.02, -0.56)] favouring resistance exercise interventions compared to NONE. For knee pain, there was also a moderate benefit favouring COMBO interventions compared to resistance exercise interventions [0.44 (0.23, 0.65)]. For hip OA (15 studies), there were moderate benefits for pain [-0.51 (-0.68, -0.33)], ADL [-0.57 (-0.78, -0.36)] and SPORT [-0.52 (-0.70, -0.35)] favouring exercise interventions compared to NONE. For hip pain, there was also a moderate benefit favouring NONEXE interventions compared to resistance exercise interventions [0.57 (0.17, 0.97)]. For knee OA, greater strength gains were associated with larger improvements in pain [β (95 % CI) = -0.24 (-0.38, -0.09)], ADL [-0.43 (-0.73, -0.12)] and SPORT [-0.37 (-0.73, -0.00)].

CONCLUSION

In knee and hip OA, the effects of resistance exercise on pain and function improvements depend on the comparator intervention. For knee OA, a dose-response relationship was observed between lower extremity strength gains with pain and function improvements.

Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Diet and Exercise for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis and Obesity or Overweight

OBJECTIVE

Obesity exacerbates pain and functional limitation in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA). In the Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities with Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study, a community-based diet and exercise (D + E) intervention led to an additional 6 kg weight loss and 20% greater pain relief in persons with knee OA and body mass index (BMI) >27 kg/m2 relative to a group-based health education (HE) intervention. We sought to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the usual care (UC), UC + HE, and UC + (D + E) programs, comparing each strategy with the "next-best" strategy ranked by increasing lifetime cost.

METHODS

We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to project long-term clinical and economic benefits of the WE-CAN interventions. We considered three strategies: UC, UC + HE, and UC + (D + E). We derived cohort characteristics, weight, and pain reduction from the WE-CAN trial. Our outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

In a cohort with mean age 65 years, BMI 37 kg/m2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score 38 (scale 0-100, 100 = worst), UC leads to 9.36 QALYs/person, compared with 9.44 QALYs for UC + HE and 9.49 QALYS for UC + (D + E). The corresponding lifetime costs are $147,102, $148,139, and $151,478. From the societal perspective, UC + HE leads to an ICER of $12,700/QALY; adding D + E to UC leads to an ICER of $61,700/QALY.

CONCLUSION

The community-based D + E program for persons with knee OA and BMI >27kg/m2 could be cost-effective for willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $62,000/QALY. These findings suggest that incorporation of community-based D + E programs into OA care may be beneficial for public health.

Budget impact of the Walk With Ease program for knee osteoarthritis

Objective

Walk With Ease (WWE) is an effective low-cost walking program. We estimated the budget impact of implementing WWE in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA) as a measure of affordability that can inform payers' funding decisions.

Methods

We estimated changes in two-year healthcare costs with and without WWE. We used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model to estimate per-person medical expenditures. We estimated total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs of funding WWE for a hypothetical insurance plan with 75,000 members under two conditions: 1) all individuals aged 45+ with knee OA eligible for WWE, and 2) inactive and insufficiently active individuals aged 45+ with knee OA eligible. In sensitivity analyses, we varied WWE cost and efficacy and considered productivity costs.

Results

With eligibility unrestricted by activity level, implementing WWE results in an additional $1,002,408 to the insurance plan over two years ($0.56 PMPM). With eligibility restricted to inactive and insufficiently active individuals, funding WWE results in an additional $571,931 over two years ($0.32 PMPM). In sensitivity analyses, when per-person costs of $10 to $1000 were added with 10-50% decreases in failure rate (enhanced sustainability of WWE benefits), two-year budget impact varied from $242,684 to $6,985,674 with unrestricted eligibility and from -$43,194 (cost-saving) to $4,484,122 with restricted eligibility.

Conclusion

Along with the cost-effectiveness of WWE at widely accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, these results can inform payers in deciding to fund WWE. In the absence of accepted thresholds to define affordability, these results can assist in comparing the affordability of WWE with other behavioral interventions.