Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic injection of a bioadhesive hydrogel implant

Title

Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic injection of a bioadhesive hydrogel implant in conjunction with microfracture for the treatment of focal chondral defects of the knee – an Australian perspective.

Investigators

George Papadopoulos, Sarah Griffin, Hemant Rathi, Amit Gupta, Bhavna Sharma & Dirk van Bavel

Abstract

Aim

JointRep is a bioadhesive hydrogel arthroscopically injected to facilitate cartilage regeneration. The cost-effectiveness of JointRep with microfracture surgery compared to microfracture alone was evaluated from the Australian healthcare system perspective, in patients with symptomatic focal chondral defects (Outerbridge Grade 3 or 4) of the knee who had failed conservative treatment and were indicated for surgery.

Materials and methods

A de novo Markov model comprising two health states- ‘Alive’ and ‘Dead’ was developed. Model transition probability was based on the general population mortality rates. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, a validated patient-reported tool measuring pain, stiffness, and physical function. The utility was derived by mapping WOMAC scores to EQ-5D scores using a published algorithm. Cost inputs were based on published Australian costs from AR-DRGs, Medicare Benefits Schedule, and Prostheses List. Model outcomes included costs, Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Base-case analysis was conducted for a time horizon of 3 years and a cycle length of 1 year. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted.

Results

Total QALYs were estimated to be higher for JointRep with microfracture surgery (2.61) compared to microfracture surgery alone (1.66), an incremental gain of 0.95 QALY. JointRep with microfracture surgery was associated with an incremental cost of $6,022 compared to microfracture surgery alone, thus leading to an ICER of $6,328. Results were substantially robust to varying parameters in the sensitivity analyses conducted, alternative model settings and assumptions in scenario analyses.

Limitations

The clinical inputs used in the model were based on data from short duration, non-randomized, post-market clinical trial.

Conclusions

JointRep with microfracture surgery is a cost-effective treatment option compared to microfracture alone from the Australian health care system perspective