IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i7d10.1007_s40273-018-0737-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Chondrosphere for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Xavier Armoiry

    (Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick)

  • Ewen Cummins

    (McMDC)

  • Martin Connock

    (Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick)

  • Andrew Metcalfe

    (Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick)

  • Pamela Royle

    (Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick)

  • Rhona Johnston

    (McMDC)

  • Jeremy Rodrigues

    (Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford)

  • Norman Waugh

    (Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick)

  • Hema Mistry

    (Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick)

Abstract

Chondrosphere (Spherox) is a form of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). It is licensed for repair of symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and the patella of the knee with defect sizes up to 10 cm2 in adults. In a single technology appraisal (STA) [TA508] undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Warwick Evidence was the Evidence Review Group (ERG) invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Co.Don. The clinical effectiveness data came from their COWISI randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared Chondrosphere with microfracture (MF). The timing of this appraisal was unfortunate given that MF was no longer the most relevant comparator because NICE had contemporaneously published guidance approving ACI in place of MF. Moreover, the COWISI RCT enrolled mostly patients with small defect sizes. Evidence of clinical effectiveness for Chondrosphere used in people with larger defect size came from another RCT, which compared three doses of Chondrosphere and that by design could not provide evidence comparing Chondrosphere to any other forms of ACI. To estimate the relative clinical performance of Chondrosphere versus other ACI, Co.Don conducted an indirect treatment comparison by network meta-analyses (NMA). The NMA was flawed in that the distribution of population characteristics that are effect modifiers greatly differed across the treatment comparisons of the network. The ERG questioned both the appropriateness of the NMA and the validity of the resulting estimates. Co.Don estimated the cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere using a lifetime Markov model with all patients receiving the first repair during the first cycle of the model then moving into one of three health states: success, no further repair (NFR), or a second repair, if necessary. Subsequent to the first cycle, those who were a success either remained a success or moved to second repair. All those in NFR remained in NFR. The cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere compared to other ACI forms relied on the clinical effectiveness estimates of success and failure rates obtained from the company’s indirect comparisons, the validity of which the ERG questioned. The company revised cost-effectiveness estimates for Chondrosphere versus MF and for Chondrosphere versus matrix-applied characterised autologous cultured chondrocyte implant (MACI) were £4360 and around £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. NICE recommended ACI using Chondrosphere for treating symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and patella of the knee in adults only if certain requirements were met.

Suggested Citation

  • Xavier Armoiry & Ewen Cummins & Martin Connock & Andrew Metcalfe & Pamela Royle & Rhona Johnston & Jeremy Rodrigues & Norman Waugh & Hema Mistry, 2019. "Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Chondrosphere for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(7), pages 879-886, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0737-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0737-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0737-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0737-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0737-z. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.