The Cost-Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 102 (18) ◽  
pp. e104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant V. Rajan ◽  
Mitchell K. Ng ◽  
Alison Klika ◽  
Atul F. Kamath ◽  
George F. Muschler ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 3072-3078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M. Samuelson ◽  
Jeffrey A. Ebel ◽  
Scott B. Reynolds ◽  
Ryan M. Arnold ◽  
David E. Brown

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (10) ◽  
pp. 807-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Konopka ◽  
Andreas H. Gomoll ◽  
Thomas S. Thornhill ◽  
Jeffrey N. Katz ◽  
Elena Losina

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
KM O’Brien ◽  
JM van Dongen ◽  
A Williams ◽  
SJ Kamper ◽  
J Wiggers ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundTelephone-based support offers a promising option to provide widely accessible and cost-effective weight loss care to the people with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight. While telephone-based interventions targeting weight loss are used routinely in the general populations, the cost-effectiveness of referring patients with knee osteoarthritis to these is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of referral to a telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service for patients with knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese, compared to usual care.MethodsWe randomised 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis to an intervention or usual care control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group received a referral to an existing non-disease specific 6-month telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service. The primary outcome of the study was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, disability, weight, and body mass index (BMI). Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilisation costs (healthcare services and medication use) and absenteeism costs due to knee pain. The primary cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.ResultsMean cost differences between groups (intervention minus control) were, $454 (95%CI: −2735 to 4206) for healthcare costs, $-36, (95%CI: −73 to 2) for medication costs, and $-13 (95%CI: −225 to 235) for absenteeism costs. The total mean difference in societal costs was $1022 (95%CI: −2201 to 4771). For all outcomes, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared with usual care was less than 0.33 at all willingness-to-pay values.ConclusionFrom a societal perspective, telephone-based weight loss support, provided using an existing non-disease specific 6-month weight management and healthy lifestyle service was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care for overweight and obese patients with knee osteoarthritis for QALYs, pain intensity, disability, weight, and BMI.


2003 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celia C. Kamath ◽  
Hilal Maradit Kremers ◽  
David J. Vanness ◽  
W. Michael O'Fallon ◽  
Rosa L. Cabanela ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Renata Linertová ◽  
Tasmania del Pino-Sedeño ◽  
Lidia-García Pérez ◽  
Javier Aragón-Sánchez ◽  
Isabel Andia-Ortiz ◽  
...  

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) added to usual care versus usual care alone in elderly patients with chronic diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) from the Spanish health care system perpective. A 6-state Markov model with 3-month cycles was used to estimate costs and outcomes of wound healing and risk of recurrences, infections, and amputations over 5 years. Three treatment strategies were compared: ( a) usual care plus PRP obtained with a commercial kit, ( b) usual care plus PRP obtained manually, and ( c) usual care. Data on effectiveness were taken from a recent meta-analysis. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% and resources were valued in 2018 euro. Compared with usual care, the PRP treatment with the manual method was more effective and less costly (dominant option), whereas the PRP treatment with the commercial kit was more effective but also more costly, with the incremental ratio being above the cost-effectiveness threshold (€57 916 per quality-adjusted life year). These results are sensitive to the price of PRP kits (a 20% discount would make the PRP treatment a cost-effective option) and effectiveness data, due to the heterogeneity of primary studies. In conclusion, PRP treatment for DFUs could be considered a cost-effective or even cost-saving alternative in Spain, depending on the method of obtaining the PRP. Despite the dominance of the manual method, its general use is limited to hospitals and specialized centers, whereas PRP kits could be used in primary care settings, but their prices should be negotiated by health authorities.


2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. A357 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.C. Peerbooms ◽  
T. Gosens ◽  
C. Poole ◽  
E. Jorgensen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document