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

ESCAPE Research Group

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To 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.

METHODS: We 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.

RESULTS: We 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.

CONCLUSIONS: The 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 NUMBERS: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 21 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Tears
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Knee
Costs and Cost Analysis
Documentation
Therapeutics
Quality of Life
Uncertainty

Bibliographical note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Cite this

@article{3794f9bae6d5497d977e1e92502f4f45,
title = "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",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To 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.METHODS: We 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.RESULTS: We 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.CONCLUSIONS: The 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 NUMBERS: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.",
author = "{van de Graaf}, {Victor A} and {van Dongen}, {Johanna M} and Willigenburg, {Nienke W} and Noorduyn, {Julia C A} and Butter, {Ise K} and {de Gast}, Arthur and Saris, {Daniel B F} and {van Tulder}, {Maurits W} and Poolman, {Rudolf W} and {ESCAPE Research Group}",
note = "{\circledC} Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065",
language = "English",
journal = "BJSM Online",
issn = "1473-0480",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare?

T2 - A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study

AU - van de Graaf, Victor A

AU - van Dongen, Johanna M

AU - Willigenburg, Nienke W

AU - Noorduyn, Julia C A

AU - Butter, Ise K

AU - de Gast, Arthur

AU - Saris, Daniel B F

AU - van Tulder, Maurits W

AU - Poolman, Rudolf W

AU - ESCAPE Research Group

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2019/6/21

Y1 - 2019/6/21

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To 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.METHODS: We 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.RESULTS: We 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.CONCLUSIONS: The 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 NUMBERS: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To 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.METHODS: We 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.RESULTS: We 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.CONCLUSIONS: The 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 NUMBERS: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065

DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065

M3 - Article

JO - BJSM Online

JF - BJSM Online

SN - 1473-0480

ER -