A retrospective claims data analysis of health care utilization and cost among patients receiving multi-injection intraarticular hyaluronic acid.

BACKGROUND: With the rising costs for knee arthroplasty, therapies that allow patients to avoid or delay surgery following knee osteoarthritis (KOA) may help in reducing overall health care costs. Multiple intraarticular hyaluronic acid (HA) products are available on the market, varying by formulation, molecular weight, and number of injections, but clinical and economic benefits may differ by product. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the all-cause and KOA-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among newly diagnosed patients with KOA treated with multi-injection HA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a large commercial claims database (Merative MarketScan database) to identify patients with KOA treated with high molecular weight (HMW) (n = 11,200), medium molecular weight (MMW) (n = 10,225), or low molecular weight (LMW) HAs (n = 8,473) between 2016 and 2019. KOA-related and all-cause HCRU and costs were compared within 12 months after the index HA treatment date. The association between outcomes and HA treatments was evaluated using a doubly robust method to adjust for confounding factors. HCRU and costs among the propensity score-weighted HA groups were compared using generalized linear models. RESULTS: HMW HA patients were found to have lower adjusted KOA-related medical costs by $265.37 (P < 0.001) and pharmacy costs by $19.90 (P < 0.001) compared with LMW HA patients, as well as lower all-cause total medical costs by $130.42 (P = 0.013) and pharmacy costs by $63.33 (P < 0.001). HMW HA patients also had a lower adjusted KOA-related medical cost by $205.74 (P < 0.001) and pharmacy cost by $14.39 (P < 0.001) compared with MMW HA patients, as well as lower all-cause medical by $1,195.66 (P < 0.001) and pharmacy by $196.99 (P < 0.001). Three-injection treatment patients (HMW HA, 84%; MMW HA, 82%) had high completion rate, compared with the 5-injection treatment cohort (LMW HA, 48%). CONCLUSIONS: HMW HA patients had statistically significantly lower adjusted all-cause and KOA-related medical and pharmacy costs at 1 year follow-up compared with MMW HA and LMW HA patients. It is unclear if this is related to differences in molecular weight or specific mechanism of actions.

Knee OA cost comparison for hyaluronic acid and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Limiting treatment to those recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon Clinical Practice Guidelines has been suggested to decrease costs by 45% in the year prior to total knee arthroplasty, but this only focuses on expenditures leading up to, but not including, the surgery and not the entire episode of care. We evaluated the treatment costs following knee osteoarthritis (OA) diagnosis and determined whether these are different for patients who use intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) and/or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Claims data from a large commercial database containing de-identified data of more than 100 million patients with continuous coverage from 2012 to 2016 was used to evaluate the cumulative cost of care for over 2 million de-identified members with knee OA over a 4.5-year period between 2011 and 2015. Median cumulative costs were then stratified for patients with or without HA and/or knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Knee OA treatment costs for 1,567,024 patients over the 4.5-year period was $6.60 billion (mean $4210/patient) as calculated by the authors. HA and knee arthroplasty accounted for 3.0 and 61.5% of the overall costs, respectively. For patients who underwent knee arthroplasty, a spike in median costs occurred sooner for patients without HA use (around the 5- to 6-month time point) compared to patients treated with HA (around the 16- to 17-month time point). CONCLUSIONS: Non-arthroplasty therapies, as calculated by the authors, accounted for about one third of the costs in treating knee OA in our cohort. Although some have theorized that limiting the use of HA may reduce the costs of OA treatment, HA only comprised a small fraction (3%) of the overall costs. Among patients who underwent knee arthroplasty, those treated with HA experienced elevated costs from the surgery later than those without HA, which reflects their longer time to undergoing knee arthroplasty. The ability to delay or avoid knee arthroplasty altogether can have a substantial impact on the cost to the healthcare system.

Cost of closure: Comparing success and spending of fat graft myringoplasties with and without hyaluronic acid.

INTRODUCTION: Myringoplasties are common pediatric procedures used to surgically close a perforated tympanic membrane. While a wide variety of graft materials are available to surgeons, the cost effectiveness of these different techniques is not well studied. OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost effectiveness of the fat graft myringoplasty (FGM) with the hyaluronic acid fat graft myringoplasty (HAFGM). METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients ages 31 days to 18 years who had undergone either FGM or HAFGM from 2006 to 2016. RESULTS: We identified 85 patients who had undergone FGM and 51 patients who had undergone HAFGM. The two groups were statistically similar in age (CI -0.51, 1.9; p = 0.23), sex (CI 0.3, 1.4; p = 0.27), and history of prior tympanostomy tube placement (CI -0.07, 0.07; p = 0.69). Both groups had a similar number of total comorbidities (40.0% of patients in the FGM group and 27.5% of patients in the HAFGM; CI -0.04, 0.29; p = 0.19). The FGM and the HAFGM procedure did not have statistically significant differences in perforation closure rates, 82.4% and 92.2% respectively (CI 0.81, 7.3; p = 0.13). In comparing the total surgeons' cost of closing a tympanic membrane deficit, the FGM incurred a greater cost per perforation. The cost/tympanic membrane perforation closure for the FGM totaled $3011.88 per deficit, whereas the HAFGM totaled $2742.98. CONCLUSION: As financial stewardship becomes more important for medical decision making, it is imperative that providers consider cost and outcomes data together when comparing similar treatment options. The FGM and the HAFGM have statistically similar rates of success in closing tympanic membrane perforations. In this study, the FGM cohort consumed more health care dollars per perforation secondary to the need for revision surgeries. As such, this study offers that the additional use of a hyaluronic disc does not increase overall cost to the healthcare system when performing a fat graft myringoplasty over a large cohort of patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Early to Moderate Stage Knee Osteoarthritis with Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Compared to Conservative Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence has demonstrated greater benefit of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) within earlier stages of knee osteoarthritis (OA) rather than waiting for patients to have progressed to later stages of disease progression. High molecular weight (HMW) HA has also been shown to be more effective than low molecular weight (LMW) HA products in mild to moderate knee OA, providing an important distinction to make within the class of IA-HA therapies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with knee OA with HMW HA compared to LMW and conservative treatment, while taking into account disease stage. METHODS: Decision analytic models were created for early/moderate, as well as late stage knee OA. Models for late stage knee OA were created by assuming a range of response rates to IA-HA treatments from 10% to 50%. These models included conservative treatment using physical therapy/exercise, braces/orthosis, and medications such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics. The models compared the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for these treatments to the use of either LMW or HMW HA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment in relation to HMW HA. RESULTS: When evaluating treatment in early to moderate knee OA, HMW HA was dominant over LMW HA and physical therapy/exercise, as it was less expensive and provided greater benefit. HMW HA was cost-effective versus braces/orthosis and NSAID/analgesic medications based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. In the model of 50% response rate to IA-HA for late stage OA, HMW HA remained cost-effective in comparison to physical therapy/exercise and braces/orthosis at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000; but not NSAID/analgesic medications. In the worst-case scenario of a 10% responder rate to IA-HA, HMW HA was no longer cost-effective in any circumstance. CONCLUSION: IA-HA, particularly HMW formulations, demonstrate cost-effectiveness when compared to conservative treatment options and LMW HA in patients with early/mid stage knee OA. The cost-effectiveness of HMW HA in patients with later stage knee OA was not as apparent, particularly because of the uncertainty in the proportion of patients with late stage OA who have a meaningful improvement after receiving IA-HA. This cost-effectiveness finding supports the use of IA-HA in patients with early and moderate knee OA, as the benefits of IA-HA are apparent within the patient population with mild to moderate knee OA. The findings of this study suggest that there is a potential cost savings benefit as a result of utilizing HMW HA in earlier stages of knee OA as opposed to later stages. FUNDING: Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Cost Effectiveness of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid and Disease-Modifying Drugs in Knee Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The place of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) and intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the therapeutic arsenal for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains uncertain. Indeed, these treatments have demonstrated symptomatic efficacy but no efficacy for disease modification. OBJECTIVE: This report reviews the cost effectiveness of IAHA and DMOADs used in the treatment of knee OA. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligibility criteria to identify relevant articles. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were annualised and converted to 2015 euros (€) using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average. RESULTS: A total of 95 abstracts were selected, and 13 articles were considered for the review: nine articles on IAHA and four on DMOADs. Only one article directly compared different IAHA compounds. Articles showed substantial heterogeneity in methodological approaches. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from €4000 to €57,550 and from €240 to €53,225 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for DMOADs and IAHA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights substantial heterogeneity between studies, ranging from a cost saving (or dominating) position to very high ICERs, far above the acceptability threshold of €50,000/QALY. Additional research is needed to determine reliable and robust ICER estimates for knee OA therapies.

Cost-Utility Analysis of High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis in Everyday Clinical Care in Patients at a Working Age: An Economic Evaluation of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with high medical costs and especially with high productivity costs, in particular in patients in their working years. High molecular weight (HMW) hyaluronic acid (HA) is an alternative treatment for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, which are known for their serious side-effects. The cost-utility of intraarticular HMW-HA treatment in these patients is unknown, however, and was assessed in this study. METHODS: Secondary care patients ages 18-65 years with knee OA were randomized to usual care plus HMW-HA (intervention group) or to usual care only (control group). A cost-utility analysis over 52 weeks from the societal and health care perspective was performed. Uncertainty for costs, effects, and cost-utility ratio was analyzed by nonparametric bootstrapping. Baseline imbalance adjustment was done by inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: In total, 156 subjects were included (intervention group n = 77, control group n = 79). The total of productivity and medical costs was €475 higher in the intervention group at €7,754 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5,426, 10,436) versus €7,270 (95% CI 5,453, 9,262). The amount of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained during followup was also higher in the intervention group (0.779 versus 0.727). This variation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,100/QALY from a societal perspective and €8,700/QALY from a health care perspective. When the maximum willingness to pay for conditions similar to knee OA is considered, the probability on cost-effectiveness is 64% and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intraarticular HMW-HA added to usual care for knee OA is probably cost-effective in the treatment of knee OA.

Knee Viscosupplementation: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis between Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid in a Single Injection versus Five Injections of Standard Hyaluronic Acid.

Given the wide difference in price per vial between various presentations of hyaluronic acid, this study seeks to compare the effectiveness and treatment cost of stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) in a single injection with standard preparations of hyaluronic acid (HA) in five injections in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Fifty-four patients with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade II and III) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score greater than 7, with a homogeneous distribution of age, sex, BMI, and duration of disease, were included in this study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group I was treated with NASHA (Durolane®) and Group II with HA (Go-ON®). Patient's evolution was followed up at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th, and 26th week after treatment. A statistically significant improvement in WOMAC score was observed for patients treated with NASHA versus those who received HA at Week 26. In addition, the need for analgesia was significantly reduced at Week 26 in the NASHA-treated group. Finally, the economic analysis showed an increased cost of overall treatment with HA injections. Our data support the use of the NASHA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

Intra articular hyaluronic acid in the management of knee osteoarthritis: Pharmaco-economic study from the perspective of the national health insurance system.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaco-economic data on the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) with intra articular hyaluronic acid (IA HA) viscosupplementation is limited. We contrasted IA HA with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: Observational, prospective and multicenter study comparing treatments of knee OA costs and efficacy with either NSAIDs alone, or hyaluronic acid (Arthrum H 2%®), during a 6-month follow-up period. The investigators were pharmacists who recorded data on disease, drug consumption and healthcare circuit. Retrospectively, the 6-month period preceding inclusion was also studied, to ensure the comparability of groups. RESULTS: 199 patients were analyzed in a NSAIDs group and 202 in an IA HA group. Any of the WOMAC sub-scores and the EQ-5D Quality of Life index were significantly improved in the IA HA group (p<0.0001) at 3 and 6 months. Clinical results were therefore in favor of the IA HA group. The total drug expenses per 6-month period were comparable before and after inclusion, €96 and €98 for NSAIDs group vs €94 and €101 for IA HA group, which indicates no evidence of additional cost from IA HA. For the active part of the population, the incidence of sick leave was lower in the IA HA group, indicating a better maintenance of patient activity. The overall expense on 12 months (6 months before and 6 months after inclusion) for the national health insurance system was comparable for NSAIDs and IA HA groups: €528 and €526, respectively. The number of patients taking NSAIDs significantly decreased in IA HA group (from 100% at inclusion to 66% at 1-3 months and 44% at 4-6 months), but remained unchanged (100%) during the follow-up period, in NSAIDs group. CONCLUSION: Treatment with IA HA did not generate additional cost for the national health insurance and was associated with a functional improvement of knee osteoarthritis and Quality of Life. The cost-utility analysis was in favor of IA HA, with a gain of QALY equivalent to half a month, after the 6-month follow-up period comparing both treatments. The NSAIDs consumption was decreased in the IA HA group, resulting in an improved estimated benefit/risk ratio.

The AAHKS Clinical Research Award: What Are the Costs of Knee Osteoarthritis in the Year Prior to Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Despite American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) related to the non-arthroplasty management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, non-recommended treatments remain in common use. We sought to determine the costs associated with non-arthroplasty management of knee OA in the year prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and stratify them by CPG recommendation status. METHODS: The Humana database was reviewed from 2007 to 2015 for primary TKA patients. Costs for hyaluronic acid (HA) and corticosteroid injections, physical therapy, braces, wedge insoles, opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and tramadol in the year prior to TKA were calculated. Cost was defined as reimbursement paid by the insurance provider. Costs were analyzed relative to the overall non-inpatient costs for knee OA and categorized based on CPG recommendations. RESULTS: In total 86,081 primary TKA patients were analyzed and 65.8% had at least one treatment in the year prior to TKA. Treatments analyzed made up 57.6% of the total non-inpatient cost of knee OA in the year prior to TKA. Only 3 of the 8 treatments studied have a strong recommendation for their use (physical therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, tramadol) and costs for these interventions represented 12.2% of non-inpatient knee OA cost. In contrast, 29.3% of the costs are due to HA injections alone, which are not supported by CPGs. CONCLUSION: In the year prior to TKA, over half of the non-inpatient costs associated with knee OA are from injections, therapy, prosthetics, and prescriptions. Approximately 30% of this is due to HA injections alone. If only interventions recommend by the CPG are utilized then costs associated with knee OA could be decreased by 45%.