Economic evaluation of platelet-rich-plasma versus hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Scenarios to 1 and 5 years

Abstract

Purpose

The increasing incidence of total joint arthroplasty reflects the rises of osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence. OA is a degenerative pathology affecting joints with a significant impact on quality of life causing pain, leading to social life limitations and loss of work productivity. According to the World Health Organization, OA is one of the most important causes of people’s disability. The burden of the disease is correlated with a huge economic impact on the health care systems. Intra-articular infiltration therapies are used between the pharmacological and the surgical phases, in order to delay surgery. This work aims to carry out an economic evaluation on the use of the Platelet-Rich-Plasma (PRP) therapy in the treatment of knee OA. The comparator is the hyaluronic acid, i.e. the standard therapy for drug-resistant OA that does not benefit or has short term benefits (<1 month) with intra-articular corticosteroids.

Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed using a decision-analytic model considering two scenarios: short period and medium period. The effectiveness outcomes are reported in term of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while costs are expressed in euro (€). The adopted perspective is the Italian National Health System (INHS). The results are shown through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) examining the PRP versus the comparator. Moreover, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses have been performed to test the robustness of the results.

Results

The PRP therapy, for patients with moderate to severe knee OA in the Italian context, is cost-effective versus HA with ICERs of €1,524/QALY in the 1 year and €162/QALY in the 5 year scenarios.

Conclusions

In the short term, it seems that the PRP therapy is cost-effective in the treatment of knee OA versus the HA therapy. However, more research is needed to assess its cost-effectiveness in the long term and to figure out if this treatment may be an efficient resource allocation for the INHS.