Evidence-based medicine is affordable: The cost-effectiveness of current compared with optimal treatment in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis

Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of averting the burden of disease. We used secondary population data and metaanalyses of various government-funded services and interventions to investigate the costs and benefits of various levels of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) in adults using a burden of disease framework. Method. Population burden was calculated for both diseases in the absence of any treatment as years lived with disability (YLD), ignoring the years of life lost. We then estimated the proportion of burden averted with current interventions, the proportion that could be averted with optimally implemented cut-rent evidence-based guidelines, and the direct treatment cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per YLD averted for both treatment levels. Results. The majority of people with arthritis sought medical treatment. Current treatment for RA averted 26% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 48% of the burden. with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,000 per YLD averted. Current treatment of OA in Australia averted 27% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 39% of the burden, with an unchanged cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Conclusion. While the precise dollar costs in each country will differ, the relativities at this level of coverage should remain the same. There is no evidence that closing the gap between evidence and practice would result in a drop in efficiency.

An integrated analysis of five double-blind, randomized controlled trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of a hyaluronan product for intra-articular injection in osteoarthritis of the kneel

Objective: Five double-blind, randomized, saline-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the United States marketing application for an intra-articular hyaluronan (IA-HA) product for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. We report an integrated analysis of the primary Case Report Form (CRF) data from these trials. Method. Trials were similar in design, patient population and outcome measures - all included the Lequesne Algofunctional Index (LI), a validated composite index of pain and function, evaluating treatment over 3 months. Individual patient data were pooled; a repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Analyses utilized both fixed and random effects models. Safety data from the five RCTs were summarized. Results: A total of 1155 patients with radiologically confirmed knee OA were enrolled: 619 received three or five IA-HA injections; 536 received. placebo saline injections. In the active and control groups, mean ages were 61.8 and 61.4 years; 62.4% and 58.8% were women; baseline total Lequesne scores 11.03 and 11.30, respectively. Integrated analysis of the pooled data set found a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.001) in total Lequesne score with hyaluronan (HA) (-2.68) vs placebo (-2.00); estimated difference -0.68 (95% CI: -0.56 to -0.79), effect size 0.20. Additional modeling approaches confirmed robustness of the analyses. Conclusions: This integrated analysis demonstrates that multiple design factors influence the results of RCTs assessing efficacy of intra-articular (IA) therapies, and that integrated analyses based on primary data differ from meta-analyses using transformed data. (C) 2006 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response levels in patients treated with Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis

Aim of study: The goal of this post-hoc analysis was to examine the difference between treatment groups when varying the target response level from at least a 20% improvement from baseline, to at least 50% and 70% improvements in Phase III studies of rofecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Methods: The analysis focused on results from two 6-week, placebo-controlled, ibuprofen-comparator, Phase III osteoarthritis studies. These studies employed a flare design requiring a minimum level of symptoms at entry following discontinuation of prior analgesics. Two definitions of ‘‘patient improved’’ from baseline were used: (1) WOMAC-P: a reduction in the WOMAC pain score and (2) WOMAC-PFS: a reduction in the WOMAC pain score and either a reduction in the WOMAC stiffness or function score. The improvement target was increased from 20% to 50% to 70%, relative to baseline, to investigate how the increase affects the ability to detect the differences between treatment groups. Analyses were conducted on the average and last of all measurements collected during a 6-week treatment period. Results: In the ibuprofen-comparator studies, 1545 patients were randomized to placebo, rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily, rofecoxib 25 mg once daily, and ibuprofen 800 mg three times daily in a 1:3:3:3 ratio. The percentages of patients who met the improvement targets decrease as the target increases from 20% to 50% to 70%. There were meaningful differences between the active treatment and placebo that were inversely related to the improvement target. For example, there was a 31 (P ! 0.001), 21 (P ! 0.001), and 12 (P ! 0.001) percentage-point difference between rofecoxib 25 mg and placebo for the 20%, 50%, and 70% targets for WOMAC-P. For WOMAC-PFS, the differences between rofecoxib 25 mg and placebo were 33 (P ! 0.001), 18 (P ! 0.001), and 9 (P ! 0.01) percentage points for the 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement targets. Conclusions: Meaningful differences between active treatments and placebo were detected at all three response levels associated with the WOMAC-P and WOMAC-PFS endpoints. The differences between groups were more dramatic at the 20% and 50% response levels. The WOMAC (20,50,70)-P and WOMAC (20,50,70)-PFS endpoints further confirm, at an individual patient level, the clinical benefit of rofecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis that was previously reported as a difference in means.