  Glucosamine sulphate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: cost-effectiveness comparison with paracetamol.; Bruyère, Olivier  ; et alin International Journal of Clinical Practice (2010), 64(6), 756-62 INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine sulphate (GS) compared with paracetamol and placebo (PBO) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. For this purpose ... [more ▼] INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine sulphate (GS) compared with paracetamol and placebo (PBO) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. For this purpose, a 6-month time horizon and a health care perspective was used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cost and effectiveness data were derived from Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index data of the Glucosamine Unum In Die (once-a-day) Efficacy trial study by Herrero-Beaumont et al. Clinical effectiveness was converted into utility scores to allow for the computation of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) For the three treatment arms Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio were calculated and statistical uncertainty was explored using a bootstrap simulation. RESULTS: In terms of mean utility score at baseline, 3 and 6 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between the three groups. When considering the mean utility score changes from baseline to 3 and 6 months, no difference was observed in the first case but there was a statistically significant difference from baseline to 6 months with a p-value of 0.047. When comparing GS with paracetamol, the mean baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was dominant and the mean ICER after bootstrapping was -1376 euro/QALY indicating dominance (with 79% probability). When comparing GS with PBO, the mean baseline and after bootstrapping ICER were 3617.47 and 4285 euro/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of the present cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that GS is a highly cost-effective therapy alternative compared with paracetamol and PBO to treat patients diagnosed with primary knee OA. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 48 (11 ULg)Glucosamine sulfate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: impact on health utility.; Bruyère, Olivier ; Hiligsmann, Mickaël et alin Osteoporosis International (2009, March), 20(Suppl.1), 149 Detailed reference viewed: 33 (11 ULg)Effect of glucosamine sulfate on health utility data in patients with knee osteoarthritis : reanalysis of two 3-year prospective studies.; Bruyère, Olivier ; Hiligsmann, Mickaël et alin Osteoporosis International (2009, March), 20(Suppl.1), 18 Detailed reference viewed: 27 (5 ULg)Effets du sulfate de chondroitine sur les indices d'utilité de santé chez des sujets gonarthrosiques et analyses économiques préliminaires.Bruyère, Olivier ; ; Neuprez, Audrey et alin Revue du Rhumatisme (2009), 76 Detailed reference viewed: 19 (4 ULg)Analyses coût-efficacité du sulfate de glucosamine chez des patients gonarthrosiques : comparaison avec le paracétamol.Bruyère, Olivier ; ; Neuprez, Audrey et alin Revue du Rhumatisme (2009), 76 Detailed reference viewed: 29 (1 ULg)Impact of chondroitin sulphate on health utility in patients with knee osteoarthritis: towards economic analysis.Bruyère, Olivier ; ; et alin Journal of Medical Economics (2009), 12(4), 356-360 Abstract Objectives: The first objective was to assess the effect of the chondroitin 4 and 6 sulphate (CS) on health-related quality of life using utility values in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA ... [more ▼] Abstract Objectives: The first objective was to assess the effect of the chondroitin 4 and 6 sulphate (CS) on health-related quality of life using utility values in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) during a 24-month treatment course. The second objective was, using these data, to conduct economic analyses. Methods: Data from the STOPP study was used. This study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo (PL) -controlled trial of 2-year duration. In the STOPP study, authors assessed quality of life using the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). WOMAC scores were translated into Health Utility Index (HUI) scores using a specific formula. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated taking into account the cost of CS and its effect on HUI scores, compared to PL. Results: At baseline, the mean (SD) HUI scores were 0.59 (0.17), and 0.59 (0.18) for the PL and CS groups, respectively (p=0.31 between the two groups). The mean (SD) HUI scores changes from baseline to 6 months were 0.02 (0.02), and 0.05 (0.01) for the PL and CS groups, respectively (p=0.03). After 24 months of follow-up, HUI score increases by 0.04 (0.02) in the PL group and by 0.05 (0.02) in the CS group (p=0.37). Using the price bracket of CS in Europe, ICER assessment always resulted in a cost below euro30,000 per QALY gained, after 6, 12 and 24 months of treatment. Conclusion: CS treatment increases health utilities in patients with knee OA compared to PL over the first 6 months of treatment. Economic evaluation based on these data suggests that CS treatment could be considered as cost-effective in patients with knee OA up to a period of 24 months. A limitation in this study is the absence of direct utility assessment as well as the absence of effective treatment as comparator. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 50 (16 ULg)Assessement of risk factors for osteoporotic fractures in elderly men; ; et al in Osteoporosis International (2008, April), 19(Suppl.1), 200-201 Detailed reference viewed: 6 (2 ULg) |
||
