Department of Health, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Bern, Switzerland.
Faculty of Sports and Rehabilitation Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Swiss Med Wkly. 2023 Apr 19;153:40059. doi: 10.57187/smw.2023.40059.
Structured exercise, education, weight management and painkiller prescription are guideline recommended non-surgical treatments for patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis. Despite its endorsement, uptake of guideline recommended non-surgical treatments remains low. It is unknown whether the implementation of these treatments into the current model of care for knee osteoarthritis would be cost-effective from a Swiss statutory healthcare perspective. We therefore aimed to (1) assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an optimised model of care incorporating guideline recommended non-surgical treatments in adults with knee osteoarthritis and (2) the effect of total knee replacement (TKR) delay with guideline recommended non-surgical treatments on the cost-effectiveness of the overall model of care.
A Markov model from the Swiss statutory healthcare perspective was used to compare an optimised model of care incorporating guideline recommended non-surgical treatments versus the current model of care without standardised guideline recommended non-surgical treatments. Costs were derived from two Swiss health insurers, a national database, and a reimbursement catalogue. Utility values and transition probabilities were extracted from clinical trials and national population data. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for three scenarios: "base case" (current model of care vs optimised model of care with no delay of total knee replacement), "two-year delay" (current model of care vs optimised model of care + two-year delay of total knee replacement) and "five-year delay" (current model of care vs optimised model of care + five-year delay of total knee replacement). Costs and utilities were discounted at 3% per year and a time horizon of 70 years was chosen. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
The "base case" scenario led to 0.155 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per person at an additional cost per person of CHF 341 (ICER = CHF 2,203 / QALY gained). The "two-year delay" scenario led to 0.134 additional QALYs and CHF -14 cost per person. The "five-year delay" scenario led to 0.118 additional QALYs and CHF -501 cost per person. Delay of total knee replacement by two and five years led to an 18% and 36% reduction of revision surgeries, respectively, and had a cost-saving effect.
According to this Markov model, the optimisation of the current model of care by implementing guideline recommended non-surgical treatments would likely be cost-effective from a statutory healthcare perspective. If implementing guideline recommended non-surgical treatments delays total knee replacement by two or five years, the amount of revision surgeries may be reduced.
对于患有膝骨关节炎的患者,有组织的锻炼、教育、体重管理和止痛药处方是指南推荐的非手术治疗方法。尽管得到了认可,但指南推荐的非手术治疗方法的采用率仍然很低。从瑞士法定医疗保健的角度来看,将这些治疗方法纳入膝骨关节炎的现行护理模式是否具有成本效益尚不清楚。因此,我们的目的是:(1)评估纳入指南推荐的非手术治疗方法的优化护理模式对膝骨关节炎成年人的增量成本效益比;(2) 与指南推荐的非手术治疗方法相关的全膝关节置换术 (TKR) 延迟对整体护理模式的成本效益的影响。
采用来自瑞士法定医疗保健视角的 Markov 模型,比较纳入指南推荐的非手术治疗方法的优化护理模式与没有标准化指南推荐的非手术治疗方法的现行护理模式。成本来自两家瑞士健康保险公司、国家数据库和报销目录。效用值和转移概率从临床试验和国家人口数据中提取。主要结果是三种情况下的增量成本效益比:“基础案例”(现行护理模式与无 TKR 延迟的优化护理模式相比)、“两年延迟”(现行护理模式与 TKR 延迟两年的优化护理模式相比)和“五年延迟”(现行护理模式与 TKR 延迟五年的优化护理模式相比)。成本和效用按每年 3%贴现,选择 70 年的时间范围。进行了概率敏感性分析。
“基础案例”方案导致每人额外增加 0.155 个质量调整生命年(QALY),每人额外增加 CHF 341(ICER = CHF 2,203/QALY 增加)。“两年延迟”方案导致每人额外增加 0.134 个 QALY 和 CHF -14 成本。“五年延迟”方案导致每人额外增加 0.118 个 QALY 和 CHF -501 成本。TKR 延迟两年和五年分别导致翻修手术减少 18%和 36%,具有成本节约效果。
根据这个 Markov 模型,从法定医疗保健的角度来看,通过实施指南推荐的非手术治疗方法来优化现行的护理模式可能具有成本效益。如果实施指南推荐的非手术治疗方法将 TKR 延迟两年或五年,翻修手术的数量可能会减少。