A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: An expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

Background: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach. Objectives: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. Methods: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards. Results: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided. Conclusions: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness

Algorithm for the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in the diagnosis, assessment and follow-up of treatment for osteoporosis

Introduction Increased biochemical bone turnover markers (BTMs) measured in serum are associated with bone loss, increased fracture risk and poor treatment adherence, but their role in clinical practice is presently unclear. The aim of this consensus group report is to provide guidance to clinicians on how to use BTMs in patient evaluation in postmenopausal osteoporosis, in fracture risk prediction and in the monitoring of treatment efficacy and adherence to osteoporosis medication. Methods A working group with clinical scientists and osteoporosis specialists was invited by the Scientific Advisory Board of European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Results Serum bone formation marker PINP and resorption marker βCTX-I are the preferred markers for evaluating bone turnover in the clinical setting due to their specificity to bone, performance in clinical studies, wide use and relatively low analytical variability. BTMs cannot be used to diagnose osteoporosis because of low sensitivity and specificity, but can be of value in patient evaluation where high values may indicate the need to investigate some causes of secondary osteoporosis. Assessing serum levels of βCTX-I and PINP can improve fracture prediction slightly, with a gradient of risk of about 1.2 per SD increase in the bone marker in addition to clinical risk factors and bone mineral density. For an individual patient, BTMs are not useful in projecting bone loss or treatment efficacy, but it is recommended that serum PINP and βCTX-I be used to monitor adherence to oral bisphosphonate treatment. Suppression of the BTMs greater than the least significant change or to levels in the lower half of the reference interval in young and healthy premenopausal women is closely related to treatment adherence. Conclusion In conclusion, the currently available evidence indicates that the principal clinical utility of BTMs is for monitoring oral bisphosphonate therapy

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: An expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO).

BACKGROUND: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach. OBJECTIVES: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. METHODS: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards. RESULTS: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness