R Deviandri1,2,3, H C van der Veen4, A M T Lubis5, I van den Akker-Scheek4, M J Postma6,7,8,9. 1. Department of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.deviandri@rug.nl. 2. Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Riau, Pekanbaru, Indonesia. r.deviandri@rug.nl. 3. Division of Orthopedics, Arifin Achmad Hospital, Pekanbaru, Indonesia. r.deviandri@rug.nl. 4. Department of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Orthopedics-Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia/Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia. 6. Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Economics, Econometrics & Finance, Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Pharmacology & Therapy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. 9. Center of Excellence in Higher Education for Pharmaceutical Care Innovation, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature on health-economic evaluations of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury between reconstruction surgery (ACLR) and non-operative treatment (NO) and suggest the most cost-effective strategy between the two. METHODS: All economic studies related to ACLR versus NO post-ACL injury, either trial based or model based, published until April 2022, were identified using PubMed and Embase. The methodology of the health-economic analysis for each included study was categorized according to the four approaches: cost-minimization analysis (CMA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Of the seven included studies, two compared the strategies of early ACLR and NO alone, and five compared early ACLR and NO with optional delayed ACLR. All studies performed a CUA, and one study performed a CBA additionally. The CHEC scores of the included studies can be considered good, ranging from 15 to 18 from a maximum of 19. Applying the common standard threshold of $50,000 per QALY, six studies in young people with high-activity levels or athletes showed that early ACLR would be preferred over either NO alone or delayed ACLR. Of six studies, two even showed early ACLR to be the dominant strategy over either NO alone or delayed ACLR, with per-patient cost savings of $5,164 and $1,803 and incremental per-patient QALY gains of 0.18 and 0.28, respectively. The one study in the middle-aged people with a moderate activity level showed that early ACLR was not more cost-effective than delayed ACLR, with ICER $101,939/QALY using the societal perspective and ICER $63,188/QALY using the healthcare system perspective. CONCLUSION: Early ACLR is likely the more cost-effective strategy for ACL injury cases in athletes and young populations with high-activity levels. On the other hand, non-operative treatment with optional delayed ACLR may be the more cost-effective strategy in the middle age population with moderate activity levels. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of level III studies.
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature on health-economic evaluations of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury between reconstruction surgery (ACLR) and non-operative treatment (NO) and suggest the most cost-effective strategy between the two. METHODS: All economic studies related to ACLR versus NO post-ACL injury, either trial based or model based, published until April 2022, were identified using PubMed and Embase. The methodology of the health-economic analysis for each included study was categorized according to the four approaches: cost-minimization analysis (CMA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Of the seven included studies, two compared the strategies of early ACLR and NO alone, and five compared early ACLR and NO with optional delayed ACLR. All studies performed a CUA, and one study performed a CBA additionally. The CHEC scores of the included studies can be considered good, ranging from 15 to 18 from a maximum of 19. Applying the common standard threshold of $50,000 per QALY, six studies in young people with high-activity levels or athletes showed that early ACLR would be preferred over either NO alone or delayed ACLR. Of six studies, two even showed early ACLR to be the dominant strategy over either NO alone or delayed ACLR, with per-patient cost savings of $5,164 and $1,803 and incremental per-patient QALY gains of 0.18 and 0.28, respectively. The one study in the middle-aged people with a moderate activity level showed that early ACLR was not more cost-effective than delayed ACLR, with ICER $101,939/QALY using the societal perspective and ICER $63,188/QALY using the healthcare system perspective. CONCLUSION: Early ACLR is likely the more cost-effective strategy for ACL injury cases in athletes and young populations with high-activity levels. On the other hand, non-operative treatment with optional delayed ACLR may be the more cost-effective strategy in the middle age population with moderate activity levels. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of level III studies.
Authors: Silvia Evers; Mariëlle Goossens; Henrica de Vet; Maurits van Tulder; André Ament Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Marc L Berger; Harold Sox; Richard J Willke; Diana L Brixner; Hans-Georg Eichler; Wim Goettsch; David Madigan; Amr Makady; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Rosanna Tarricone; Shirley V Wang; John Watkins; C Daniel Mullins Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Mazda Farshad; Christian Gerber; Dominik C Meyer; Alexander Schwab; Patricia R Blank; Thomas Szucs Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-11-19 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Tamana Afzali; Mia Vicki Fangel; Anne Sig Vestergaard; Michael Skovdal Rathleff; Lars Holger Ehlers; Martin Bach Jensen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vincent Eggerding; Max Reijman; Duncan Edward Meuffels; Eline van Es; Ewoud van Arkel; Igor van den Brand; Joost van Linge; Jacco Zijl; Sita Ma Bierma-Zeinstra; Marc Koopmanschap Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Emma Bergerson; Kajsa Persson; Eleonor Svantesson; Alexandra Horvath; Jonas Olsson Wållgren; Jon Karlsson; Volker Musahl; Kristian Samuelsson; Eric Hamrin Senorski Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 6.202