Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment Costs in the Medicare Patient Population.

BackgroundSeveral nonoperative options have been recommended for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), with varying degrees of evidence. Adhering to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines has been suggested to decrease direct treatment costs by 45% in the year before knee arthroplasty, but this does not consider the cost of the entire episode of care, including the cost of surgery and postsurgery care.ObjectivesTo analyze the total treatment costs after a diagnosis of knee OA, as well as the proportion of arthroplasty interventions as part of the total knee OA-related costs, and whether the total costs differed for patients who received intra-articular hyaluronic acid and/or had knee arthroplasty.MethodsWe identified patients newly diagnosed with knee OA using the 5% Medicare data sample from January 2010 to December 2015. Patients were excluded if they were aged <65 years, had incomplete claim history, did not reside in any of the 50 states, had claim history <12 months before knee OA diagnosis, or did not enroll in Medicare Part A and Part B. The study analyzed knee OA-related costs from a payer perspective in terms of reimbursements provided by Medicare, as well as the time from the diagnosis of knee OA to knee arthroplasty for patients who had knee arthroplasty, and the time from the first hyaluronic acid injection to knee arthroplasty for those who received the injection. We compared patients who received hyaluronic acid and those who did not receive hyaluronic acid injections. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injection who subsequently had knee arthroplasty were also compared with those who did not have subsequent knee arthroplasty.ResultsOf the 275,256 patients with knee OA, 45,801 (16.6%) received a hyaluronic acid injection and 35,465 (12.9%) had knee arthroplasty during the study period. The median time to knee arthroplasty was 16.4 months for patients who received hyaluronic acid versus 5.7 months for those who did not receive hyaluronic acid. Non-arthroplasty-related therapies and knee arthroplasty accounted for similar proportions of knee OA-related costs, with hyaluronic acid injection comprising 5.6% of the total knee OA-related costs. For patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and subsequently had knee arthroplasty, hyaluronic acid injection contributed 1.8% of the knee OA-related costs versus 76.6% of the cost from knee arthroplasty. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and did not have knee arthroplasty incurred less than 10% of the knee OA-related costs that patients who had surgery incurred.ConclusionAlthough limiting hyaluronic acid use may reduce the knee OA-related costs, in this study hyaluronic acid injection only comprised a small fraction of the overall costs related to knee OA. Among patients who had knee arthroplasty, those who received treatment with hyaluronic acid had surgery delayed by a median of 10.7 months and associated costs for a significant period. The ability to delay or avoid knee arthroplasty altogether can have a substantial impact on healthcare costs

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine.

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilization is by nonradiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases, and hydrodissections. This American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement critically reviews the literature and evaluates the accuracy, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections in major, intermediate, and small joints, and soft tissues, all of which are commonly performed in sports medicine. New ultrasound-guided procedures and future trends are also briefly discussed. Based upon the evidence, the official AMSSM position relevant to each subject is made

AMSSM Scientific Statement Concerning Viscosupplementation Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: Importance for Individual Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling disease that produces severe morbidity reducing physical activity. Our position statement on treatment of knee OA with viscosupplementation injection [hyaluronic acid (HA)] versus steroid [intra-articular corticosteroid (IAS)] and placebo [intra-articular placebo (IAP)] is based on the evaluation of treatment effect by examining the number of subjects within a treatment arm that met the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria, which is different and more relevant than methods used in other reviews which examined if the average change across the treatment groups was clinically different. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search for all relevant articles from 1960 to August 2014 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of the relevant literature to determine if there is a benefit from HA as compared with IAS and IAP. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria from the search strategy. On NMA, those subjects receiving HA were 15% and 11% more likely to respond to treatment by the OMERACT-OARSI criteria than those receiving IAS or IAP, respectively (P \u3c 0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In light of the aforementioned results of our NMA, the American Medical Society for Sport Medicine recommends the use of HA for the appropriate patients with knee OA

AMSSM scientific statement concerning viscosupplementation injections for knee osteoarthritis: importance for individual patient outcomes.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling disease that produces severe morbidity reducing physical activity. Our position statement on treatment of knee OA with viscosupplementation injection (hyaluronic acid, HA) versus steroid (intra-articular corticosteroids, IAS) and placebo (intra-articular placebo, IAP) is based on the evaluation of treatment effect by examining the number of participants within a treatment arm who met the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria, which is different and more relevant than methods used in other reviews which examined if the average change across the treatment groups were clinically different. We performed a systematic literature search for all relevant articles from 1960 to August 2014 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of the relevant literature to determine if there is a benefit from HA as compared with IAS and IAP. 11 papers met the inclusion criteria from the search strategy. On NMA, those participants receiving HA were 15% and 11% more likely to respond to treatment by OMERACT-OARSI criteria than those receiving IAS or IAP, respectively (