Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model

Leonie Segal, Susan E. Day, Adam B. Chapman, Richard H. Osborne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

■ The comparison of disparate interventions for the prevention and management of osteoarthritis (OA) is limited by the quality and quantity of published efficacy studies and the use of disparate measures for reporting clinical trial outcomes. ■ The "transfer to utility" technique was used to translate published trial outcomes into a health-related quality-of-life (utility) scale, creating a common metric which supported comparisons between disparate interventions. ■ Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgery were the most effective treatments and also highly cost-effective, at estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of $7500 for THR and $10 000 for TKR (best estimate). ■ Other apparently highly cost-effective interventions were exercise and strength training for knee OA (<$5000/QALY), knee bracing, and use of capsaicin or glucosamine sulfate (<$10 000/QALY). ■ The cost per QALY estimates of non-specific and COX-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were affected by treatment-related deaths and highly sensitive to the discounting of life-years lost. ■ OA interventions that have been shown to be ineffective (eg, arthroscopy) are targets for redistribution of healthcare resources. ■ OA interventions which lack efficacy studies (eg, prevention programs) require further research to assist priority setting. ■ The application of the Health-sector Wide model to OA demonstrates its role as an evidence-based model that can be successfully applied to identify marginal interventions - those to be expanded and contracted to reduce the expected burden of disease, within current healthcare resources.

LanguageEnglish
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume180
Issue number5 SUPPL.
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2004
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Segal, L., Day, S. E., Chapman, A. B., & Osborne, R. H. (2004). Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model. Medical Journal of Australia, 180(5 SUPPL.).
Segal, Leonie ; Day, Susan E. ; Chapman, Adam B. ; Osborne, Richard H. / Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model. In: Medical Journal of Australia. 2004 ; Vol. 180, No. 5 SUPPL.
@article{805c4bf1fa2f4d1fb3ee16a46e6df9bd,
title = "Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model",
abstract = "■ The comparison of disparate interventions for the prevention and management of osteoarthritis (OA) is limited by the quality and quantity of published efficacy studies and the use of disparate measures for reporting clinical trial outcomes. ■ The {"}transfer to utility{"} technique was used to translate published trial outcomes into a health-related quality-of-life (utility) scale, creating a common metric which supported comparisons between disparate interventions. ■ Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgery were the most effective treatments and also highly cost-effective, at estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of $7500 for THR and $10 000 for TKR (best estimate). ■ Other apparently highly cost-effective interventions were exercise and strength training for knee OA (<$5000/QALY), knee bracing, and use of capsaicin or glucosamine sulfate (<$10 000/QALY). ■ The cost per QALY estimates of non-specific and COX-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were affected by treatment-related deaths and highly sensitive to the discounting of life-years lost. ■ OA interventions that have been shown to be ineffective (eg, arthroscopy) are targets for redistribution of healthcare resources. ■ OA interventions which lack efficacy studies (eg, prevention programs) require further research to assist priority setting. ■ The application of the Health-sector Wide model to OA demonstrates its role as an evidence-based model that can be successfully applied to identify marginal interventions - those to be expanded and contracted to reduce the expected burden of disease, within current healthcare resources.",
author = "Leonie Segal and Day, {Susan E.} and Chapman, {Adam B.} and Osborne, {Richard H.}",
year = "2004",
month = "3",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "180",
journal = "The Medical journal of Australia",
issn = "0025-729X",
publisher = "Australasian Medical Publishing Co. Ltd",
number = "5 SUPPL.",

}

Segal, L, Day, SE, Chapman, AB & Osborne, RH 2004, 'Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model', Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 180, no. 5 SUPPL..

Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model. / Segal, Leonie; Day, Susan E.; Chapman, Adam B.; Osborne, Richard H.

In: Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 180, No. 5 SUPPL., 01.03.2004.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model

AU - Segal, Leonie

AU - Day, Susan E.

AU - Chapman, Adam B.

AU - Osborne, Richard H.

PY - 2004/3/1

Y1 - 2004/3/1

N2 - ■ The comparison of disparate interventions for the prevention and management of osteoarthritis (OA) is limited by the quality and quantity of published efficacy studies and the use of disparate measures for reporting clinical trial outcomes. ■ The "transfer to utility" technique was used to translate published trial outcomes into a health-related quality-of-life (utility) scale, creating a common metric which supported comparisons between disparate interventions. ■ Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgery were the most effective treatments and also highly cost-effective, at estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of $7500 for THR and $10 000 for TKR (best estimate). ■ Other apparently highly cost-effective interventions were exercise and strength training for knee OA (<$5000/QALY), knee bracing, and use of capsaicin or glucosamine sulfate (<$10 000/QALY). ■ The cost per QALY estimates of non-specific and COX-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were affected by treatment-related deaths and highly sensitive to the discounting of life-years lost. ■ OA interventions that have been shown to be ineffective (eg, arthroscopy) are targets for redistribution of healthcare resources. ■ OA interventions which lack efficacy studies (eg, prevention programs) require further research to assist priority setting. ■ The application of the Health-sector Wide model to OA demonstrates its role as an evidence-based model that can be successfully applied to identify marginal interventions - those to be expanded and contracted to reduce the expected burden of disease, within current healthcare resources.

AB - ■ The comparison of disparate interventions for the prevention and management of osteoarthritis (OA) is limited by the quality and quantity of published efficacy studies and the use of disparate measures for reporting clinical trial outcomes. ■ The "transfer to utility" technique was used to translate published trial outcomes into a health-related quality-of-life (utility) scale, creating a common metric which supported comparisons between disparate interventions. ■ Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgery were the most effective treatments and also highly cost-effective, at estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of $7500 for THR and $10 000 for TKR (best estimate). ■ Other apparently highly cost-effective interventions were exercise and strength training for knee OA (<$5000/QALY), knee bracing, and use of capsaicin or glucosamine sulfate (<$10 000/QALY). ■ The cost per QALY estimates of non-specific and COX-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were affected by treatment-related deaths and highly sensitive to the discounting of life-years lost. ■ OA interventions that have been shown to be ineffective (eg, arthroscopy) are targets for redistribution of healthcare resources. ■ OA interventions which lack efficacy studies (eg, prevention programs) require further research to assist priority setting. ■ The application of the Health-sector Wide model to OA demonstrates its role as an evidence-based model that can be successfully applied to identify marginal interventions - those to be expanded and contracted to reduce the expected burden of disease, within current healthcare resources.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1542330059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 180

JO - The Medical journal of Australia

T2 - The Medical journal of Australia

JF - The Medical journal of Australia

SN - 0025-729X

IS - 5 SUPPL.

ER -