Pharmacologic regimens for knee osteoarthritis prevention: can they be cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the target populations and drug efficacy, toxicity, cost, and initiation age thresholds under which a pharmacologic regimen for knee osteoarthritis (OA) prevention could be cost-effective. DESIGN: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model, a validated state-transition simulation model of knee OA, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using disease-modifying OA drugs (DMOADs) as prophylaxis for the disease. We assessed four cohorts at varying risk for developing OA: (1) no risk factors, (2) obese, (3) history of knee injury, and (4) high-risk (obese with history of knee injury). The base case DMOAD was initiated at age 50 with 40% efficacy in the first year, 5% failure per subsequent year, 0.22% major toxicity, and annual cost of $1,000. Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Key parameters were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For the high-risk cohort, base case prophylaxis increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.04 and lifetime costs by $4,600, and produced an ICER of $118,000 per QALY gained. ICERs >$150,000/QALY were observed when comparing the base case DMOAD to the standard of care in the knee injury only cohort; for the obese only and no risk factors cohorts, the base case DMOAD was less cost-effective than the standard of care. Regimens priced at $3,000 per year and higher demonstrated ICERs above cost-effectiveness thresholds consistent with current US standards. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of DMOADs for OA prevention for persons at high risk for incident OA may be comparable to other accepted preventive therapies.

Disease-modifying drugs for knee osteoarthritis: can they be cost-effective?

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.