Verlagslink DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2194805
Titel: Cost-effectiveness of a new ACI technique for the treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee compared to regularly used ACI technique and microfracture
Sprache: Englisch
Autorenschaft: Snow, Martyn 
Mandalia, Vipul 
Custers, Roel 
Emans, Pieter J. 
Kon, Elizaveta 
Niemeyer, Philipp 
Verdonk, René 
Gaissmaier, Christoph 
Roeder, André 
Weinand, Sina 
Zöllner, York 
Schubert, Tino 
Schlagwörter: articular cartilage defects of the knee; cost-effectiveness analysis; M-ACI; Markov model; matrix-associated chondrocytes implantation
Erscheinungsdatum: 2023
Verlag: Taylor & Francis
Zeitschrift oder Schriftenreihe: Journal of medical economics 
Zeitschriftenband: 26
Zeitschriftenausgabe: 1
Anfangsseite: 537
Endseite: 546
Zusammenfassung: 
Aims: For patients with cartilage defects of the knee, a new biocompatible and in situ cross-linkable albumin-hyaluronan-based hydrogel has been developed for matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (M-ACI) – NOVOCART Inject plus (Ninject; TETEC AG, Reutlingen, Germany). We aimed to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of NInject, that is not available on the market, yet compared to spheroids of human autologous matrix-associated chondrocytes (Spherox; CO.DON GmbH, Leipzig, Germany) and microfracture.

Materials and methods: An early Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom (UK) from the payer perspective. Transition probabilities, response rates, utility values and costs were derived from literature. Since NInject has not yet been launched and no prices are available, its costs were assumed equal to those of Spherox. Cycle length was set at one year and the time horizon chosen was notional patients’ remaining lifetime. Model robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA; PSA) and value of information analysis (VOIA). The Markov model was built using TreeAge Pro Healthcare.

Results: NInject was cost-effective compared to microfracture (ICER: ₤5,147) while Spherox was extendedly dominated. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER exceeded conventional WTP threshold of ₤20,000 only when the utility value after successful first treatment with NInject was decreased by 20% (ICER: ₤69,620). PSA corroborated the cost-effectiveness findings of NInject, compared to both alternatives, with probabilities of 60% of NInject undercutting the aforementioned WTP threshold and being the most cost-effective alternative. The VOIA revealed that obtaining additional evidence on the new technology will likely not be cost-effective for the UK National Health Service.

Limitations and conclusion: This early Markov model showed that NInject is cost-effective for the treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee, compared to Spherox and microfracture. However, as the final price of NInject has yet to be determined, the cost-effectiveness analysis performed in this study is provisional, assuming equal prices for NInject and Spherox.
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12738/19297
ISSN: 1941-837X
Begutachtungsstatus: Diese Version hat ein Peer-Review-Verfahren durchlaufen (Peer Review)
Einrichtung: Department Gesundheitswissenschaften (ehemalig, aufgelöst 10.2025) 
Fakultät Life Sciences (ehemalig, aufgelöst 10.2025) 
Competence Center Gesundheit 
Dokumenttyp: Zeitschriftenbeitrag
Enthalten in den Sammlungen:Publications without full text

Zur Langanzeige

Google ScholarTM

Prüfe

HAW Katalog

Prüfe

Volltext ergänzen

Feedback zu diesem Datensatz


Diese Ressource wurde unter folgender Copyright-Bestimmung veröffentlicht: Lizenz von Creative Commons Creative Commons