Disclosures This study was funded by a ESCEO-Amgen grant received from the European Society for Clinical and Economical Aspect of Osteoarthritis and Osteoporosis and by Rottapharm, Italy.
Glucosamine sulphate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: cost-effectiveness comparison with paracetamol
Article first published online: 9 APR 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Volume 64, Issue 6, pages 756–762, May 2010
How to Cite
Scholtissen, S., Bruyère, O., Neuprez, A., Severens, J. L., Herrero-Beaumont, G., Rovati, L., Hiligsmann, M. and Reginster, J. Y. (2010), Glucosamine sulphate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: cost-effectiveness comparison with paracetamol. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 64: 756–762. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02362.x
- Issue published online: 9 APR 2010
- Article first published online: 9 APR 2010
- Paper received October 2009, accepted January 2010
Introduction: The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine sulphate (GS) compared with paracetamol and placebo (PBO) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. For this purpose, a 6-month time horizon and a health care perspective was used.
Material and methods: The cost and effectiveness data were derived from Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index data of the Glucosamine Unum In Die (once-a-day) Efficacy trial study by Herrero-Beaumont et al. Clinical effectiveness was converted into utility scores to allow for the computation of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) For the three treatment arms Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio were calculated and statistical uncertainty was explored using a bootstrap simulation.
Results: In terms of mean utility score at baseline, 3 and 6 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between the three groups. When considering the mean utility score changes from baseline to 3 and 6 months, no difference was observed in the first case but there was a statistically significant difference from baseline to 6 months with a p-value of 0.047. When comparing GS with paracetamol, the mean baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was dominant and the mean ICER after bootstrapping was −1376 €/QALY indicating dominance (with 79% probability). When comparing GS with PBO, the mean baseline and after bootstrapping ICER were 3617.47 and 4285 €/QALY, respectively.
Conclusion: The results of the present cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that GS is a highly cost-effective therapy alternative compared with paracetamol and PBO to treat patients diagnosed with primary knee OA.