How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare?:A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study

Autor: van de Graaf, Victor A, van Dongen, Johanna M, Willigenburg, Nienke W, Noorduyn, Julia C A, Butter, Ise K, de Gast, Arthur, Saris, Daniel B F, van Tulder, Maurits W, Poolman, Rudolf W, Kerkhoffs, G. M. M. J., Peters, Rolf W.
Přispěvatelé: AMS - Musculoskeletal Health, APH - Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, AMS - Rehabilitation & Development, Neuromechanics, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, APH - Societal Participation & Health, APH - Methodology, AMS - Sports & Work, Other Research, Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, AMS - Restoration & Development, Surgery, AMS - Sports
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2020
Předmět:
Zdroj: ESCAPE Research Group 2020, ' How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study ', British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 538-546 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065
British Journal of Sports Medicine
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(9), 538-546. BMJ Publishing Group
British journal of sports medicine, 54(9), 538-546. BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN: 1473-0480
0306-3674
Popis: ObjectivesTo examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis—this paper—we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM.MethodsWe recruited patients aged 45–70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively.ResultsWe randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (−€1803; 95% CI −€3008 to −€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs.ConclusionsThe probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears.Trial registration numbersNCT01850719 and NTR3908.
Databáze: OpenAIRE