Search

Background Total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective and cost-effective strategy for treating end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Greater risk for complications among TKR recipients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or greater has raised concerns about the value of TKR in this population. Objective To assess the value of TKR in recipients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater using a cost-effectiveness analysis. Design Osteoarthritis Policy Model to assess long-term clinical benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of TKR in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater. Data sources Total knee replacement parameters from longitudinal studies and published literature, and costs from Medicare Physician Fee Schedules, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and published data. Target population Recipients of TKR with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater in the United States. Time horizon Lifetime. Perspective Health care sector. Intervention Total knee replacement. Outcome measures Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. Results of base-case analysis Total knee replacement increased QALYs by 0.71 year and lifetime medical costs by $25 200 among patients aged 50 to 65 years with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater, resulting in an ICER of $35 200. Total knee replacement in patients older than 65 years with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater increased QALYs by 0.39 year and costs by $21 100, resulting in an ICER of $54 100. Results of sensitivity analysis In TKR recipients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater and diabetes and cardiovascular disease, ICERs were below $75 000 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to complication rates and preoperative pain levels. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a $55 000-per-QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, TKR had a 100% and 90% likelihood of being a cost-effective strategy for patients aged 50 to 65 years and patients older than 65 years, respectively. Limitation Data are derived from several sources. Conclusion From a cost-effectiveness perspective, TKR offers good value in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater, including those with multiple comorbidities. Primary funding source National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (SKOA) is a chronic, disabling condition, requiring long-term pain management; over 800,000 SKOA patients in the US use opioids on a prolonged basis. We aimed to characterize the societal economic burden of opioid use in this population.We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer simulation of SKOA, to estimate the opioid-related lifetime and annual cost generated by the US SKOA population. We included direct medical, lost productivity, criminal justice, and diversion costs. We modeled the SKOA cohort with a mean ± SD age of 54 ± 14 years and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score of 29 ± 17 (0-100, 100 = worst). We estimated annual costs of strong ($1,381) and weak ($671) opioid regimens using Medicare fee schedules, Red Book, the Federal Supply Schedule, and published literature. The annual lost productivity and criminal justice costs of opioid use disorder (OUD), obtained from published literature, were $11,387 and $4,264, per-person, respectively. The 2015-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey provided OUD prevalence. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of our estimates to uncertainty in input parameters.Assuming 5.1% prevalence of prolonged strong opioid use, the total lifetime opioid-related cost generated by the US SKOA population was estimated at $14.0 billion, of which only $7.45 billion (53%) were direct medical costs.Lost productivity, diversion, and criminal justice costs comprise approximately half of opioid-related costs generated by the US SKOA population. Reducing prolonged opioid use may lead to a meaningful reduction in societal costs that can be used for other public health causes.

Objective Type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is prevalent in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and increases risk for prosthetic joint infection (PJI). We examined the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before dental procedures to reduce PJI in TKA recipients with T2DM. Design We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to compare two strategies among TKA recipients with T2DM (mean age 68 years, mean BMI 35.4 kg/m2): 1) AP before dental procedures and 2) no AP. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and lifetime medical costs. We used published efficacy of AP. We report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and considered strategies with ICERs below well-accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds cost-effective. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of findings to uncertainty in model input parameters. We used a lifetime horizon and healthcare sector perspective. Results We found that AP added 1.0 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $66,000 for every 1000 TKA recipients with T2DM, resulting in an ICER of $66,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, reduction of the probability of PJI, T2DM-associated risk of infection, or attribution of infections to dental procedures by 50% resulted in ICERs exceeding $100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that AP was cost-effective in 32% and 58% of scenarios at WTP of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusions AP prior to dental procedures is cost-effective for TKA recipients with T2DM. However, the cost-effectiveness of AP depends on the risk of PJI and efficacy of AP in this population.

Background: Total joint replacement recipients (TJR) are at risk for prosthetic joint infection (PJI), particularly those with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: We mailed surveys to 1078 subjects undergoing primary TJR between 2011 and 2016 ​at an academic center. The survey asked about medical, dental, and orthopedic history and use of antibiotics prior to dental appointments. We generated adjusted relative risks (aRR) for using antibiotic prophylaxis less than always using Poisson regression, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and behavioral factors. Results: We received surveys from 639 subjects; 597 were eligible and formed the analytical sample. 66 ​% reported always using antibiotic prophylaxis. DM and RA were not associated with prophylaxis use. Factors associated with less frequent use included: BMI ≥30 (aRR ​= ​1.27, 95 ​% CI [1.01, 1.60]), dental cleanings