Background:To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international treatment recommendations. A previous analysis of a cluster RCT (cRCT) showed that compared to usual care, the intervention group reported higher quality of care and greater satisfaction with care. Also, more patients were treated according to international guidelines and fulfilled recommendations for physical activity at the 6-month follow-up.Objectives:To assess the cost-utility of a structured model for hip or knee OA care.Methods:A cRCT with stepped-wedge cohort design was conducted in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) in 2015-17. The OA care model was implemented in one cluster at the time by switching from “usual care” to the structured model. The implementation of the model was facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) with an update on OA treatment recommendations. The GPs explained the OA diagnosis and treatment alternatives, provided pharmacological treatment when appropriate, and suggested referral to physiotherapy. The PT-led patient OA education programme was group-based and lasted 3 hours followed by an 8–12-week individually tailored resistance exercise programme with twice weekly 1-hour supervised group sessions (5–10 patients per PT). An optional 10-hours Healthy Eating Program was available. Participants were ≥45 years with symptomatic hip or knee OA.Costs were measured from the healthcare perspective and collected from several sources. Patients self-reported visits in primary healthcare at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary healthcare visits and joint surgery data were extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register. The health outcome, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L scores at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The result of the cost-utility analysis was reported using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs relative to incremental QALYs (QALYs gained). Based on Norwegian guidelines, the threshold is €27500. Sensitivity analyses were performed using bootstrapping to assess the robustness of reported results and presented in a cost-effectiveness plane (Figure 1).Results:The 393 patients’ mean age was 63 years (SD 9.6) and 74% were women. 109 patients were recruited during control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). Only the intervention group had a significant increase in EQ-5D-5L utility scores from baseline to 12 months follow-up (mean change 0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.05) with QALYs gained: 0.02 (95% CI -0.08, 0.12). The structured OA model cost approx. €301 p.p. with an additional €50 for the Healthy Eating Program. Total 12 months healthcare cost p.p. was €1281 in the intervention and €3147 in the control group, resulting in an incremental cost of -€1866 (95% CI -3147, -584) p.p. Costs related to surgical procedures had the largest impact on total healthcare costs in both groups. During the 12-months follow-up period, 5% (n=14) in the intervention compared to 12% (n=13) in the control group underwent joint surgery; resulting in a mean surgical procedure cost of €553 p.p. in the intervention as compared to €1624 p.p. in the control group. The ICER was -€93300, indicating that the OA care model resulted in QALYs gained and cost-savings. At a threshold of €27500, it is 99% likely that the OA care model is a cost-effective alternative.Conclusion:The results of the cost-utility analysis show that implementing a structured model for OA care in primary healthcare based on international guidelines is highly likely a cost-effective alternative compared to usual care for people with hip and knee OA. More studies are needed to confirm this finding, but this study results indicate that implementing structured OA care models in primary healthcare may be beneficial for the individual as well as for the society.Disclosure of Interests:None declared
Plant Aspartic Proteases for Industrial Applications: Thistle Get Better
