Open AccessGlucosamine sulphate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: cost‐effectiveness comparison with paracetamol
Author(s) -
Scholtissen S.,
Bruyère O.,
Neuprez A.,
Severens J. L.,
HerreroBeaumont G.,
Rovati L.,
Hiligsmann M.,
Reginster J. Y.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
international journal of clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.756
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1742-1241
pISSN - 1368-5031
DOI - 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02362.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cost effectiveness , bootstrapping (finance) , mean difference , placebo , osteoarthritis , randomized controlled trial , physical therapy , confidence interval , quality adjusted life year , surgery , mathematics , econometrics , alternative medicine , risk analysis (engineering) , pathology
Summary 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 €/QALY indicating dominance (with 79% probability). When comparing GS with PBO, the mean baseline and after bootstrapping ICER were 3617.47 and 4285 €/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.