Particulated Juvenile Articular Cartilage and Matrix-Induced Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Are Cost-Effective for Patellar Chondral Lesions.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management, particulated juvenile allograft cartilage (PJAC), and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) in the management of patellar chondral lesions. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for symptomatic patellar chondral lesions: 1) nonoperative management, 2) PJAC, and 3) MACI. Model inputs (transition probabilities, utilities, and costs) were derived from literature review and an institutional cohort of 67 patients treated with PJAC for patellar chondral defects (mean age 26 years, mean lesion size 2.7 cm2). Societal and payer perspectives over a 15-year time horizon were evaluated. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using a $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model and the relative effects of variable estimates on base case conclusions. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, nonoperative management, PJAC, and MACI cost $4,140, $52,683, and $83,073 and were associated with 5.28, 7.22, and 6.92 QALYs gained, respectively. PJAC and MACI were cost-effective relative to nonoperative management (ICERs $25,010/QALY and $48,344/QALY, respectively). PJAC dominated MACI in the base case analysis by being cheaper and more effective, but this was sensitive to the estimated effectiveness of both strategies. PJAC remained cost-effective if PJAC and MACI were considered equally effective. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of symptomatic patellar cartilage defects, PJAC and MACI were both cost-effective compared to nonoperative management. Because of the need for one surgery instead of two, and less costly graft material, PJAC was cheaper than MACI. Consequently, when PJAC and MACI were considered equally effective, PJAC was more cost-effective than MACI. Sensitivity analyses accounting for the lack of robust long-term data for PJAC or MACI demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of PJAC versus MACI depended heavily on the relative probabilities of yielding similar clinical results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, economic and decision analysis.
