D R Mazzei1, A Ademola2, J H Abbott3, T Sajobi4, K Hildebrand5, D A Marshall6. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; O'Brien Institute of Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: darren.mazzei@ucalgary.ca. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; O'Brien Institute of Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: ayoola.ademola@ucalgary.ca. 3. Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Electronic address: haxby.abbott@otago.ac.nz. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; O'Brien Institute of Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: ttsajobi@ucalgary.ca. 5. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Surgery, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: hildebrk@ucalgary.ca. 6. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; O'Brien Institute of Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: damarsha@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify research gaps and inform implementation we systematically reviewed the literature evaluating cost-effectiveness of recommended treatments (education, exercise and diet) for the management of hip and/or knee OA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit from inception to November 2019 for trial-based economic evaluations investigating hip and/or knee OA core treatments. Two investigators screened relevant publications, extracted data and synthesized results. Risk of bias was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: Two cost-minimization, five cost-effectiveness and 16 cost-utility analyses evaluated core treatments in six health systems. Exercise therapy with and without education or diet was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to education or physician-delivered usual care at conventional willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds in 15 out of 16 publications. Exercise interventions were cost-effective compared to physiotherapist-delivered usual care in three studies at conventional WTP thresholds. Education interventions were not cost-effective compared to usual care or placebo at conventional WTP thresholds in three out of four publications. CONCLUSIONS: Structured core treatment programs were clinically effective and cost-effective, compared to physician-delivered usual care, in five health care systems. Providing education about core treatments was not consistently cost-effective. Implementing structured core treatment programs into funded clinical pathways would likely be an efficient use of health system resources and enhance physician-delivered usual primary care.
OBJECTIVE: To identify research gaps and inform implementation we systematically reviewed the literature evaluating cost-effectiveness of recommended treatments (education, exercise and diet) for the management of hip and/or knee OA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit from inception to November 2019 for trial-based economic evaluations investigating hip and/or knee OA core treatments. Two investigators screened relevant publications, extracted data and synthesized results. Risk of bias was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: Two cost-minimization, five cost-effectiveness and 16 cost-utility analyses evaluated core treatments in six health systems. Exercise therapy with and without education or diet was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to education or physician-delivered usual care at conventional willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds in 15 out of 16 publications. Exercise interventions were cost-effective compared to physiotherapist-delivered usual care in three studies at conventional WTP thresholds. Education interventions were not cost-effective compared to usual care or placebo at conventional WTP thresholds in three out of four publications. CONCLUSIONS: Structured core treatment programs were clinically effective and cost-effective, compared to physician-delivered usual care, in five health care systems. Providing education about core treatments was not consistently cost-effective. Implementing structured core treatment programs into funded clinical pathways would likely be an efficient use of health system resources and enhance physician-delivered usual primary care.