Early health economic modelling of single-stage cartilage repair. Guiding implementation of technologies in regenerative medicine.

Tommy S. de Windt, Juliette C. Sorel, Lucienne A. Vonk, Michelle M.A. Kip, Maarten J. IJzerman, Daniël B.F. Saris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

31 Citations (Scopus)
36 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Both the complexity of clinically applied tissue engineering techniques for articular cartilage repair – such as autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) – plus increasing healthcare costs, and market competition, are forcing a shift in focus from two-stage to single-stage interventions that are more cost-effective. Early health economic models are expected to provide essential insight in the parameters driving the cost-effectiveness of new interventions before they are introduced into clinical practice. The present study estimated the likely incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a new investigator-driven single-stage procedure (IMPACT) compared with both microfracture and ACI, and identified those parameters that affect the cost-effectiveness. A decision tree with clinical health states was constructed. The ICER was calculated by dividing the incremental societal costs by the incremental Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Costs were determined from a societal perspective. A headroom analysis was performed to determine the maximum price of IMPACT compared with both ACI and microfracture, assuming a societal willingness to pay (WTP) of €30 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify those parameters that drive the cost-effectiveness. The societal costs of IMPACT, ACI and microfracture were found to be €11 797, €29 741 and €6081, respectively. An 8% increase in all utilities after IMPACT changes the ICER of IMPACT vs. microfracture from €147 513/QALY to €28 588/QALY. Compared with ACI, IMPACT is less costly, which is largely attributable to the cell expansion procedure that has been rendered redundant. While microfracture can be considered the most cost-effective treatment option for smaller defects, a single-stage tissue engineering procedure can replace ACI to improve the cost-effectiveness for treating larger defects, especially if clinical non-inferiority can be achieved.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2950-2959
JournalJournal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine
Volume11
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2017

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Early health economic modelling of single-stage cartilage repair. Guiding implementation of technologies in regenerative medicine.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this