Ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery yields cost savings and improved health outcomes.

PURPOSE: This study measured the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs and conducted a cost-utility analysis and budget impact analysis of ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery compared with inpatient knee arthroscopic surgery in Thailand from a societal perspective. METHODS: Health outcomes were measured in units of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) based on the Thai version of the EQ-5D-5L Health Questionnaire, and costs were obtained from an electronic database at a tertiary care hospital (Ramathibodi Hospital). A cost-utility analysis was performed to evaluate ambulatory and inpatient surgery using the societal perspective and a 2-week time horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was applied to examine the costs and QALYs. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the robustness of the model. Budget impact analysis was performed considering over 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 161 knee arthroscopic patients were included and divided into two groups: ambulatory surgery (58 patients) and inpatient surgery (103 patients). The total cost of the inpatient surgery was 2235 United States dollars (USD), while the ambulatory surgery cost was 2002 USD. The QALYs of inpatient surgery and ambulatory surgery were 0.79 and 0.81, respectively, resulting in the ambulatory surgery becoming a dominant strategy (cost reduction of 233 USD with an increase of 0.02 QALY) over the inpatient surgery. The ambulatory surgery led to net savings of 4.5 million USD over 5 years. Medical supply costs are one of the most influential factors affecting the change in results. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery emerged as a cost-saving strategy over inpatient surgery, driven by lower treatment costs and enhanced HRQoL. Budget impact analysis indicated net savings over 5 years, supporting the feasibility of adopting ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery. Our findings were advocated for its application across diverse hospitals and informed policymakers to improve reimbursement systems in low- to middle-income countries and Thailand. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit patients' preferences and willingness-to-pay for knee osteoarthritis treatments in Thailand.

Osteoarthritis is the most common type of joint disease among elderly patients around the world. In response to the need for patient-centered care, patients' and physicians' preferences for knee osteoarthritis treatments have been studied in multiple countries, but not in Thailand. The objective of this study was to investigate Thai patients' preferences and their willingness to pay (WTP) for knee osteoarthritis treatments by using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Six knee osteoarthritis treatment attributes, including pain relief, delayed disease progression, gastrointestinal side effects, kidney side effects, cardiovascular side effects, and cost, were used to develop a paper-based, DCE questionnaire survey. Patients with knee osteoarthritis, who were at least 18 years old and who provided written informed consent, were recruited from the orthopedic department in a tertiary care hospital in Thailand via convenience sampling. The conditional logit model was used to determine patients' preferences and WTP. The Institutional Review Board at Chulalongkorn University approved this study before it started. A total of 232 patients were collected and analyzed in this study. Patients preferred treatments with a higher efficacy (pain relief and delayed disease progression), a lower probability of side effects (gastrointestinal, kidney, and cardiovascular side effects), and a lower cost. Regarding efficacy and side effects, the patients weighted the importance of a 1% change in cardiovascular side effects (- 0.08) more heavily than 1% changes in kidney (- 0.07) and gastrointestinal (- 0.02) side effects, delayed disease progression (0.02), and pain relief (0.01). Patients were willing to pay 29.56 Thai Baht (THB) and 41.84 THB per month for every 1% increase in pain relief and delayed disease progression, respectively. Conversely, patients were willing to pay 52.04 THB, 145.18 THB and 164.23 THB per month for every 1% decrease in gastrointestinal, kidney, and cardiovascular side effects, respectively. In conclusion, pain relief, delayed disease progression, gastrointestinal side effects, kidney side effects, cardiovascular side effects, and the cost of treatment were significant factors among patients undergoing knee osteoarthritis treatment. Additionally, patients had a higher WTP for delayed disease progression than pain relief and a higher WTP for a reduced probability of cardiovascular side effects than gastrointestinal and kidney side effects. These findings could be used to support treatment decisions for knee osteoarthritis patients in Thailand.

An economic evaluation of knee osteoarthritis treatments in Thailand.

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different knee OA care sequences compared to standard treatment reimbursed by the major health insurance payer in Thailand. Method: We used decision analytical modeling to evaluate the effect of either adding etoricoxib or crystalline glucosamine sulfate compared to standard treatment from a societal perspective over patients' lifetimes. Data were analyzed based on efficacy, whereas adverse events were considered as a substate. Model input data were retrieved from relevant published literature and the Standard Cost Lists for Health Technology Assessment, Thailand. All health outcomes were measured in a unit of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was applied to examine the costs and QALYs. Sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the robustness of the model. Result: The results demonstrated that adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus proton pump inhibitors, PPI) into the standard care sequence was a dominant strategy compared to the standard care sequence. Adding etoricoxib alone or including crystalline glucosamine sulfate (after diclofenac plus PPI) was dominated by adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus PPI), whereas in a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in Thailand, adding of both crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus PPI) and etoricoxib were cost-effective when compared to adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate alone with ICER of 125,547 Thai baht/QALY (3,472 US dollars/QALY). Conclusion: The addition of crystalline glucosamine sulfate and etoricoxib into standard knee OA treatment were cost-effective at the WTP threshold in Thailand. In addition, early initiation of crystalline glucosamine sulfate would be less costly and more effective than delayed treatment or the use of standard treatment alone.