IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0130256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining the Value of Future Research to Identify the Preferred Treatment of Meniscal Tear in the Presence of Knee Osteoarthritis

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Losina
  • Elizabeth E Dervan
  • A David Paltiel
  • Yan Dong
  • R John Wright
  • Kurt P Spindler
  • Lisa A Mandl
  • Morgan H Jones
  • Robert G Marx
  • Clare E Safran-Norton
  • Jeffrey N Katz

Abstract

Background: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is extensively used to relieve pain in patients with symptomatic meniscal tear (MT) and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Recent studies have failed to show the superiority of APM compared to other treatments. We aim to examine whether existing evidence is sufficient to reject use of APM as a cost-effective treatment for MT+OA. Methods: We built a patient-level microsimulation using Monte Carlo methods and evaluated three strategies: Physical therapy (‘PT’) alone; PT followed by APM if subjects continued to experience pain (‘Delayed APM’); and ‘Immediate APM’. Our subject population was US adults with symptomatic MT and knee OA over a 10 year time horizon. We assessed treatment outcomes using societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incorporating productivity costs as a sensitivity analysis. We also conducted a value-of-information analysis using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Calculated ICERs were estimated to be $12,900/QALY for Delayed APM as compared to PT and $103,200/QALY for Immediate APM as compared to Delayed APM. In sensitivity analyses, inclusion of time costs made Delayed APM cost-saving as compared to PT. Improving efficacy of Delayed APM led to higher incremental costs and lower incremental effectiveness of Immediate APM in comparison to Delayed APM. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that PT had 3.0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY. Delayed APM was cost effective 57.7% of the time at WTP = $50,000/QALY and 50.2% at WTP = $100,000/QALY. The probability of Immediate APM being cost-effective did not exceed 50% unless WTP exceeded $103,000/QALY. Conclusions: We conclude that current cost-effectiveness evidence does not support unqualified rejection of either Immediate or Delayed APM for the treatment of MT+OA. The amount to which society would be willing to pay for additional information on treatment outcomes greatly exceeds the cost of conducting another randomized controlled trial on APM.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Losina & Elizabeth E Dervan & A David Paltiel & Yan Dong & R John Wright & Kurt P Spindler & Lisa A Mandl & Morgan H Jones & Robert G Marx & Clare E Safran-Norton & Jeffrey N Katz, 2015. "Defining the Value of Future Research to Identify the Preferred Treatment of Meniscal Tear in the Presence of Knee Osteoarthritis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130256
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130256
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130256&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0130256?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    2. Andrew H. Briggs & Ron Goeree & Gord Blackhouse & Bernie J. O’Brien, 2002. "Probabilistic Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Models: Choosing between Treatment Strategies for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 290-308, August.
    3. Frank A. Sonnenberg & J. Robert Beck, 1993. "Markov Models in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 322-338, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pedram Sendi & Huldrych F Günthard & Mathew Simcock & Bruno Ledergerber & Jörg Schüpbach & Manuel Battegay & for the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, 2007. "Cost-Effectiveness of Genotypic Antiretroviral Resistance Testing in HIV-Infected Patients with Treatment Failure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, January.
    2. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    3. Hiral Anil Shah & Tim Baker & Carl Otto Schell & August Kuwawenaruwa & Khamis Awadh & Karima Khalid & Angela Kairu & Vincent Were & Edwine Barasa & Peter Baker & Lorna Guinness, 2023. "Cost Effectiveness of Strategies for Caring for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Tanzania," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 537-552, July.
    4. F. Tomini & F. Prinzen & A. D. I. Asselt, 2016. "A review of economic evaluation models for cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1159-1172, December.
    5. Anna Heath & Mark Strong & David Glynn & Natalia Kunst & Nicky J. Welton & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2022. "Simulating Study Data to Support Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 143-155, February.
    6. Gordon B. Hazen, 2022. "Augmenting Markov Cohort Analysis to Compute (Co)Variances: Implications for Strength of Cost-Effectiveness," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 3170-3180, November.
    7. Mylene Lagarde & John Cairns, 2012. "Modelling human resources policies with Markov models: an illustration with the South African nursing labour market," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 270-282, September.
    8. Teresa Cardoso & Mónica Oliveira & Ana Barbosa-Póvoa & Stefan Nickel, 2012. "Modeling the demand for long-term care services under uncertain information," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 385-412, December.
    9. Savvas S. Ioannou & Yiola Marcou & Eleni Kakouri & Michael A. Talias, 2020. "Real-World Setting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Three Therapeutic Schemes of One-Year Adjuvant Trastuzumab in HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer from the Cyprus NHS Payer Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-20, June.
    10. C. Armero & G. García‐Donato & A. López‐Quílez, 2010. "Bayesian methods in cost–effectiveness studies: objectivity, computation and other relevant aspects," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 629-643, June.
    11. Salvatore Russo & Stefano Landi & Paolo Landa, 2017. "Management of knee osteoarthritis in Italy. A cost-utility analysis of Platelet-Rich-Plasma dedicated kit versus Hyaluronic acid for the intra-articular treatment of knee OA," Working Papers 08, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    12. Marta Soares & Luísa Canto e Castro, 2012. "Continuous Time Simulation and Discretized Models for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1101-1117, December.
    13. Christine Nguyen & Mark Bounthavong & Margaret Mendes & Melissa Christopher & Josephine Tran & Rashid Kazerooni & Anthony Morreale, 2012. "Cost Utility of Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors for Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(7), pages 575-593, July.
    14. Simon Frey & Roland Linder & Georg Juckel & Tom Stargardt, 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable risperidone versus flupentixol decanoate in the treatment of schizophrenia: a Markov model parameterized using administrative data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(2), pages 133-142, March.
    15. Sun-Young Kim & Sue Goldie, 2008. "Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Vaccination Programmes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 191-215, March.
    16. Marta O Soares & L Canto e Castro, 2010. "Simulation or cohort models? Continuous time simulation and discretized Markov models to estimate cost-effectiveness," Working Papers 056cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    17. Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    18. James Shearer & Colin Green & Carl Counsell & John Zajicek, 2011. "The use of decision-analytic models in Parkinson’s disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 243-258, July.
    19. Marta O. Soares & Luísa Canto e Castro, 2012. "Continuous Time Simulation and Discretized Models for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1101-1117, December.
    20. Sampson, Christopher & James, Marilyn & Huband, Nick & Geelan, Steve & McMurran, Mary, 2013. "Cost implications of treatment non-completion in a forensic personality disorder service," MPRA Paper 48757, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0130256. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.