Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model
نویسندگان
چکیده
■ 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 MJA 2004; 180: S11–S17 resources. Health Economics Unit, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC. Leonie Segal, MEcon, PhD, Deputy Director; Susan E Day, BA, MA, Research Fellow; Adam B Chapman, BA/BSc(Hons), MPH, Public Health Trainee on rotation to the Health Economics Unit. Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC. Richard H Osborne, PhD, Senior Lecturer. Reprints: Dr Leonie Segal, Health Economics Unit, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, PO Box 477, West Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC 3081. [email protected]
منابع مشابه
Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy
How can evidence from economic evaluations of the type the Disease Control Priorities project have synthesized be translated to better priority setting? This evidence provides insights into how investing in health, particularly though priority interventions and expanded access to health insurance and prepaid care, can not only save lives but also help alleviate poverty and provide financial ris...
متن کاملPriority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness
Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal...
متن کاملDon’t Discount Societal Value in Cost-Effectiveness; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”
As healthcare resources become increasingly scarce due to growing demand and stagnating budgets, the need for effective priority setting and resource allocation will become ever more critical to providing sustainable care to patients. While societal values should certainly play a part in guiding these processes, the methodology used to capture these values need not necessarily be limited to mul...
متن کاملBurden of Disease Study and Priority Setting in Korea: an Ethical Perspective
When thinking about priority setting in access to healthcare resources, decision-making requires that cost-effectiveness is balanced against medical ethics. The burden of disease has emerged as an important approach to the assessment of health needs for political decision-making. However, the disability adjusted life years approach hides conceptual and methodological issues regarding the claims...
متن کاملEvidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Universal Health Coverage: Broadening the Scope; Comment on “Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness”
Universal health coverage (UHC) is high on the global health agenda, and priority setting is fundamental to the fair and efficient pursuit of this goal. In a recent editorial, Rob Baltussen and colleagues point to the need to go beyond evidence on cost-effectiveness and call for evidence-informed deliberative processes when setting priorities for UHC. Such processes are crucial at every step on...
متن کامل