Explore the vast range of titles available.

The main objective of this review is to summarize the evidence on the core modelling specifications and methodology on the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared to non-surgical management. Another objective of this study is to synthesize evidence of TKR cost and compare it across countries using purchasing power parity (PPP). The electronic databases used for this review were MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HTAIn repository, Cost effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry, and Google Scholar. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the validity of the methods and transparency in reporting the results. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to check the quality of economic evaluation models of the studies included. The cost of TKR surgery from high income and low- or middle-income countries were extracted and converted to single USD ($) using purchasing power parities (PPP) method. Thirty-two studies were included in this review, out of which eight studies used Markov model, five used regression model, one each reported Marginal structure model, discrete simulation model, decision tree and Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) respectively to assess the cost-effectiveness of TKR. For PPP, twenty-six studies were included in the analysis of TKR cost. The average cost of TKR surgery was the lowest in developing country-India ($3457) and highest in USA ($19568). The findings of this review showed that the Markov model was most widely used in the analysis of the cost effectiveness of TKR. Our review also concluded that the cost of TKR was higher in the developed countries as compared to the developing countries.

The main objective of this review is to summarize the evidence on the core modelling specifications and methodology on the cost-effectiveness of TKR compared to non-surgical management. Another objective of this study is to synthesize evidence of TKR cost and compare it across countries using purchasing power parity (PPP). The electronic databases used for this review were MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HTAIn repository, Cost effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry, and Google Scholar. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the validity of the methods and transparency in reporting the results. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to check the quality of economic evaluation models of the studies included. The cost of TKR surgery from high income and low- or middle-income countries were extracted and converted to single USD ( ) using purchasing power parities (PPP) method. Thirty-two studies were included in this review, out of which eight studies used Markov model, five used regression model, one each reported Marginal structure model, discrete simulation model, decision tree and Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol) respectively to assess the cost-effectiveness of TKR. For PPP, twenty-six studies were included in the analysis of TKR cost. The average cost of TKR surgery was the lowest in developing country-India ( 3457) and highest in USA (19568). The findings of this review showed that the Markov model was most widely used in the analysis of the cost effectiveness of TKR. Our review also concluded that the cost of TKR was higher in the developed countries as compared to the developing countries.

This study is an economic evaluation of total knee replacement (TKR) in comparison with non-surgical management in India. Cost-utility analysis and budget impact analysis (BIA) were conducted on individuals aged ≥ 50 years with osteoarthritis of the knee (OA knee) Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 and 3 using a provider's perspective. Three scenarios were considered, varying the age at which TKR is administered while assuming a 20-year lifespan for the implant. A Markov model was used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analysis was conducted incorporating implant costs and other input parameters. Net quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per OA knee treated with TKR were superior when performed at the age of 50, regardless of OA severity and across all scenarios. The lowest ICER was 36,107 Indian National Rupees (INR) (USD 482.9)/QALY gained, observed at 50 years, while the highest was INR 61,363 (USD 820.72)/QALY gained at 70 years for grade-2 severity. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER was most sensitive to the cost of non-surgical management, health utility values gained in an improved state, and the cost of TKR across scenarios. For the BIA in Scenario 1, with 40% coverage for TKR, costs reach INR 5013 crores (cr) (USD 670,477,060) in 2023 and INR 8444 cr (USD 1,024,628,736) in 2028 (1% of government budgets). In Scenario 2 (full coverage), costs are INR 12,532 cr (USD 1,520,683,008) (2.7%) in 2023, declining to 2.4% in 2028. In Scenario 3, covering 40% under the National Health Mission (NHM), costs vary from 17% in 2023 to 25% in 2028. This study concludes that TKR is a cost-effective treatment option compared with non-surgical management for OA knee in India, irrespective of age, implant types, and severity.

Objective This study is an economic evaluation of total knee replacement (TKR) in comparison with non-surgical management in India. Methods Cost-utility analysis and budget impact analysis (BIA) were conducted on individuals aged ≥ 50 years with osteoarthritis of the knee (OA knee) Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 and 3 using a provider’s perspective. Three scenarios were considered, varying the age at which TKR is administered while assuming a 20-year lifespan for the implant. A Markov model was used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analysis was conducted incorporating implant costs and other input parameters. Results Net quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per OA knee treated with TKR were superior when performed at the age of 50, regardless of OA severity and across all scenarios. The lowest ICER was 36,107 Indian National Rupees (INR) (USD 482.9)/QALY gained, observed at 50 years, while the highest was INR 61,363 (USD 820.72)/QALY gained at 70 years for grade-2 severity. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER was most sensitive to the cost of non-surgical management, health utility values gained in an improved state, and the cost of TKR across scenarios. For the BIA in Scenario 1, with 40% coverage for TKR, costs reach INR 5013 crores (cr) (USD 670,477,060) in 2023 and INR 8444 cr (USD 1,024,628,736) in 2028 (1% of government budgets). In Scenario 2 (full coverage), costs are INR 12,532 cr (USD 1,520,683,008) (2.7%) in 2023, declining to 2.4% in 2028. In Scenario 3, covering 40% under the National Health Mission (NHM), costs vary from 17% in 2023 to 25% in 2028. Conclusion This study concludes that TKR is a cost-effective treatment option compared with non-surgical management for OA knee in India, irrespective of age, implant types, and severity.