Current Status of Cost Utility Analyses in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), although considered to be highly beneficial, is associated with substantial costs to the US healthcare system. Cost utility analysis has become an increasingly important means to objectively evaluate the value of a healthcare intervention from the perspective of both extending the quantity and improving the quality of life. Relatively little is known about the overall cost utility analysis evidence base in TJA. Questions/purposes The goals of this review were to (1) determine the cost utility of TJA interventions; (2) critically assess the quality of published US-based cost utility analyses using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument; and (3) determine what characteristics were common among studies receiving a high quality score. Methods A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile findings and critically appraise US-based cost utility analysis studies for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Based on review of 676 identified articles, 23 studies were included. We used the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess study quality and one-sided Fisher's exact tests were applied to analyze the predictors of high-quality cost utility analysis. Results Very few studies compare the cost utility of TJA versus nonoperative intervention; however, the available evidence suggests that TJA can be cost-saving and is highly cost-effective compared with conservative management of end-stage arthritis. The majority of identified studies are focused on the cost utility of new implant technologies or comparisons among surgical alternatives. These studies suggest that the upfront costs associated with new technologies are cost-effective when there is a major reduction in a future cost. The quality of identified studies is quite high (Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument score: mean 86.5; range, 63-100). National funding source (p = 0.095) and lifetime horizon for analysis (p = 0.07) correlate with high-quality evidence but do not reach significance.

What Are the Strength of Recommendations and Methodologic Reporting in Health Economic Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery?

“…For cost-effectiveness analysis, physical or ''natural'' units, such as cases treated or years of life gained, are used; for cost-utility analysis, health state utility values such as QALYs are used; for cost-minimization analysis, only input costs are considered to identify the least expensive way to achieve the same outcome; and for cost-benefit analysis, outcomes are measured in monetary units. The distinction between these analyses is described more fully elsewhere [1,3,4,13].…”

“…In this era of increasing cost-consciousness, when cost containment is more important than ever, healthcare economic analyses have become more common in the medical [11] and orthopaedic surgery literature [4]. Some reviews have concluded that many operative interventions in orthopaedic surgery are cost effective [7,13], while another questioned the costeffectiveness of certain procedures [19].…”

Technology assessment and cost-effectiveness in orthopedics: how to measure outcomes and deliver value in a constantly changing healthcare environment

“…Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit analyses After appropriate cost identification, cost-effectiveness, costutility, and cost-benefit analyses provide a means to compare the cost of medical interventions with the health benefits gained [26]. Cost-effectiveness analyses use objective outcomes to compare two different interventions (e.g., union rate of both-bone forearm fractures in operatively and nonoperatively treated fractures).…”

Updating Cost Effectiveness Analyses in Orthopedic Surgery: Resilience of the $50,000 per QALY Threshold

“…A recent systematic review of cost utility analyses in total joint arthroplasty identified 23 U.S. analyses. In 16 of these analyses (70%), $50,000 per QALY threshold was used, two studies used $100,000, one study used both $50,000 and $100,000 and one study used $150,000; three studies did not define a cost effectiveness threshold [11].…”