Despite similarities, IA-HA products should not be treated as a group, as there are differences in IA-HA products that influence both efficacy and safety. In the available literature, IA-HA products with a molecular weight ≥3000 kDa and those derived from biological fermentation relate to superior efficacy and safety-factors that may influence selection an IA-HA product for OA of the knee.

IntroductionOsteoarthritis (OA), as one of the leading causes of disability, decreases the quality of life for those suffering from the disease and creates a substantial financial burden. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) can provide relief from the symptoms of OA and multiple HA products are prescribed. The purpose of this study is to examine the single payer cost-effectiveness of various HA products in the treatment of knee OA.MethodsA single payer economic evaluation was conducted comparing Synvisc® (Sanofi, USA), Durolane® (Bioventus, USA), Hyalgan® (Fidia Pharma Inc., USA), Supartz™ (Bioventus, USA), and Euflexxa® (Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA). Utility scores for HA products were obtained by extracting Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain, stiffness and function from randomized controlled trials and converting them to health utilities index mark 3 scores. The cost of a treatment included the cost of the HA injection, cost of a knee injection procedure and cost of a doctor’s visit for each required injection. Cost–utility in 2015 USD per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved was calculated for each HA product, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to compare the effectiveness of HA products to one another and to conventional care.ResultsWhen compared to conventional care, all investigated HA products were cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained. The HA product Euflexxa had the most favorable cost–utility ratio ($5785.52/QALY) when compared to all other HA brands.ConclusionThe present study showed several HA products to be cost-effective in comparison to conventional care, with Euflexxa having the most favorable cost/QALY gained ratio compared to the other HA products.FundingFerring Pharmaceutics Inc.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0331-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background: Romosozumab is a bone-forming antibody that increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption. We conducted a double-blinded, randomized, phase-2, dose-finding trial to evaluate the effect of romosozumab on the clinical outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation of intertrochanteric or femoral neck hip fractures. Methods: Patients (55 to 94 years old) were randomized 2:3:3:3 to receive 3 subcutaneous injections of romosozumab (70, 140, or 210 mg) or a placebo postoperatively on day 1 and weeks 2, 6, and 12. The primary end point was the difference in the mean timed “Up & Go” (TUG) score over weeks 6 to 20 for romosozumab versus placebo. Additional end points included the time to radiographic evidence of healing and the score on the Radiographic Union Scale for Hip (RUSH). Results: A total of 332 patients were randomized: 243 to receive romosozumab (70 mg, n = 60; 140 mg, n = 93; and 210 mg, n = 90) and 89 to receive a placebo. Although TUG scores improved during the study, they did not differ significantly between the romosozumab and placebo groups over weeks 6 to 20 (p = 0.198). The median time to radiographic evidence of healing was 16.4 to 16.9 weeks across treatment groups. The RUSH scores improved over time across treatment groups but did not differ significantly between the romosozumab and placebo groups. The overall safety and tolerability profile of romosozumab was comparable with that of the placebo. Conclusions: Romosozumab did not improve the fracture-healing-related clinical and radiographic outcomes in the study population. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract