Back to Search
Start Over
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.
- Source :
- British Journal of Sports Medicine; May2020, Vol. 54 Issue 9, p538-546, 9p, 2 Diagrams, 3 Charts
- Publication Year :
- 2020
-
Abstract
- <bold>Objectives: </bold>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.<bold>Methods: </bold>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.<bold>Results: </bold>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.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>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.<bold>Trial Registration Numbers: </bold>NCT01850719 and NTR3908. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 03063674
- Volume :
- 54
- Issue :
- 9
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- British Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 142915750
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065