OBJECTIVE: Disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) are under development. Our goal was to determine efficacy, toxicity, and cost thresholds under which DMOADs would be a cost-effective knee OA treatment. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to compare guideline-concordant care to strategies that insert DMOADs into the care sequence. The guideline-concordant care sequence included conservative pain management, corticosteroid injections, total knee replacement (TKR), and revision TKR. Base case DMOAD characteristics included: 50% chance of suspending progression in the first year (resumption rate of 10% thereafter) and 30% pain relief among those with suspended progression; 0.5%/year risk of major toxicity; and costs of $1,000/year. In sensitivity analyses, we varied suspended progression (20-100%), pain relief (10-100%), major toxicity (0.1-2%), and cost ($1,000-$7,000). Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and TKR utilization. RESULTS: Base case DMOADs added 4.00 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and $230,000 per 100 persons, with an ICER of $57,500/QALY. DMOADs reduced need for TKR by 15%. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief. DMOADs costing $3,000/year achieved ICERs below $100,000/QALY if the likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief were 20% and 70%. At a cost of $5,000, these ICERs were attained if the likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief were both 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Cost, suspended progression, and pain relief are key drivers of value for DMOADs. Plausible combinations of these factors could reduce need for TKR and satisfy commonly cited cost-effectiveness criteria.
OBJECTIVE: Disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) are under development. Our goal was to determine efficacy, toxicity, and cost thresholds under which DMOADs would be a cost-effective knee OA treatment. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to compare guideline-concordant care to strategies that insert DMOADs into the care sequence. The guideline-concordant care sequence included conservative pain management, corticosteroid injections, total knee replacement (TKR), and revision TKR. Base case DMOAD characteristics included: 50% chance of suspending progression in the first year (resumption rate of 10% thereafter) and 30% pain relief among those with suspended progression; 0.5%/year risk of major toxicity; and costs of $1,000/year. In sensitivity analyses, we varied suspended progression (20-100%), pain relief (10-100%), major toxicity (0.1-2%), and cost ($1,000-$7,000). Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and TKR utilization. RESULTS: Base case DMOADs added 4.00 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and $230,000 per 100 persons, with an ICER of $57,500/QALY. DMOADs reduced need for TKR by 15%. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief. DMOADs costing $3,000/year achieved ICERs below $100,000/QALY if the likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief were 20% and 70%. At a cost of $5,000, these ICERs were attained if the likelihoods of suspended progression and pain relief were both 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Cost, suspended progression, and pain relief are key drivers of value for DMOADs. Plausible combinations of these factors could reduce need for TKR and satisfy commonly cited cost-effectiveness criteria.
Authors: John Richmond; David Hunter; James Irrgang; Morgan H Jones; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; Daniel Van Durme; Cheryl Rubin; Elizabeth G Matzkin; Robert G Marx; Bruce A Levy; William C Watters; Michael J Goldberg; Michael Keith; Robert H Haralson; Charles M Turkelson; Janet L Wies; Sara Anderson; Kevin Boyer; Patrick Sluka; Justin St Andre; Richard McGowan Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Celia C Kamath; Hilal Maradit Kremers; David J Vanness; W Michael O'Fallon; Rosa L Cabanela; Sherine E Gabriel Journal: Value Health Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Jeffrey N Katz; Jane Barrett; Nizar N Mahomed; John A Baron; R John Wright; Elena Losina Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Kasper Huétink; Berend C Stoel; Iain Watt; Margreet Kloppenburg; Johan L Bloem; Steve H Malm; Ronald Van't Klooster; Rob G H H Nelissen Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: John L Hamilton; Masashi Nagao; Brett R Levine; Di Chen; Bjorn R Olsen; Hee-Jeong Im Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Bhushan R Deshpande; Jeffrey N Katz; Daniel H Solomon; Edward H Yelin; David J Hunter; Stephen P Messier; Lisa G Suter; Elena Losina Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: E Losina; S A Burbine; L G Suter; D J Hunter; D H Solomon; M E Daigle; E E Dervan; J M Jordan; J N Katz Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: J N Katz; S R Smith; J E Collins; D H Solomon; J M Jordan; D J Hunter; L G Suter; E Yelin; A D Paltiel; E Losina Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Savannah R Smith; Jeffrey N Katz; Jamie E Collins; Daniel H Solomon; Joanne M Jordan; Lisa G Suter; Edward H Yelin; A David Paltiel; Elena Losina Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 4.794