Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Medial Meniscus Replacement Prosthesis for the Treatment of Patients with Medial Compartment Pain in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Background The most common intra-articular knee injury is a meniscal tear, which commonly occurs secondary to trauma following twisting or hyperflexion. Treatment options for meniscal tears can either be surgical or non-surgical, and range from rest, exercise, bracing and physical therapy to surgical intervention, including meniscal repair and partial meniscectomy. In patients with persistent pain following loss of meniscus tissue, treatment can include partial replacement or meniscal allograft transplantation. The NUsurface ® prosthesis has been developed as a treatment option for patients experiencing persistent knee pain post medial meniscus (MM) surgery. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of MM replacement using NUsurface for the treatment of patients with medial compartment pain following previous partial medial meniscectomy, from a UK health service perspective. Methods An economic decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained associated with the introduction of MM replacement using NUsurface compared with non-surgical standard of care, over a lifetime time horizon. The model structure was primarily informed by a previous clinical trial (VENUS) and was developed based on the clinical pathways typically followed by patients with this condition, with treatment pathways and probabilities of clinical progression adjusted depending on whether patients were receiving the intervention or undergoing current practice. A hypothetical cohort of adult patients (mean age of 50 years) was modelled, with clinical data sourced from the VENUS study as well as relevant UK literature. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore uncertainty in the model results. Results The base-case probabilistic results indicate that MM replacement using NUsurface is likely to be cost effective across a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds (95% probability of being cost effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended £20,000 WTP threshold). Although per-patient costs increase, QALYs are also gained, with the incremental cost per QALY (probabilistic value = £5011) being below £20,000. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicate that the parameters that have the greatest impact on results are the failure rate in the control group (current practice), utility scores, and the cost of undergoing MM replacement using NUsurface. Conclusions Based on the analysis presented, MM replacement with the NUsurface prosthetic implant is likely to be a cost-effective use of UK health care service resources compared with current standard care. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-022-00336-4.