Who gets referred for knee or hip replacement? A theoretical model of the potential impact of evidence-based referral thresholds using data from a retrospective review of clinic records from an English musculoskeletal referral hub

Rationing in an Era of Multiple Tight Constraints: Is Cost-Utility Analysis Still Fit for Purpose?

Cost-utility analysis may not be sufficient to support reimbursement decisions when the assessed health intervention requires a large proportion of the healthcare budget or when the monetary healthcare budget is not the only resource constraint. Such cases include joint replacement, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions and settings where all resources are constrained (e.g. post-COVID-19 or in low/middle-income countries). Using literature on health technology assessment, rationing and reimbursement in healthcare, we identified seven alternative frameworks for simultaneous decisions about (dis)investment and proposed modifications to deal with multiple resource constraints. These frameworks comprised constrained optimisation; cost-effectiveness league table; 'step-in-the-right-direction' approach; heuristics based on effective gradients; weighted cost-effectiveness ratios; multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). We used numerical examples to demonstrate how five of these alternative frameworks would operate. The modified frameworks we propose could be used in local commissioning and/or health technology assessment to supplement standard cost-utility analysis for interventions that have large budget impact and/or are subject to additional constraints.

Patient appropriateness for total knee arthroplasty and predicted probability of a good outcome

OBJECTIVES

One-fifth of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) recipients experience a suboptimal outcome. Incorporation of patients' preferences in TKA assessment may improve outcomes. We determined the discriminant ability of preoperative measures of TKA need, readiness/willingness and expectations for a good TKA outcome.

METHODS

In patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing primary TKA, we preoperatively assessed TKA need (Western Ontario-McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain Score and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) function, arthritis coping), health status, readiness (Patient Acceptable Symptom State, depressive symptoms), willingness (definitely yes-yes/no) and expectations (outcomes deemed 'very important'). A good outcome was defined as symptom improvement (met Outcome Measures in Rheumatology and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responder criteria) and satisfaction with results 1 year post TKA. Using logistic regression, we assessed independent outcome predictors, model discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC) and the predicted probability of a good outcome for different need, readiness/willingness and expectations scenarios.

RESULTS

Of 1,053 TKA recipients (mean age 66.9 years (SD 8.8); 58.6% women), 78.1% achieved a good outcome. With TKA need alone (WOMAC pain subscale, KOOS physical function short-form), model discrimination was good (AUC 0.67, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.71). Inclusion of readiness/willingness, depressive symptoms and expectations regarding kneeling, stair climbing, well-being and performing recreational activities improved discrimination (p=0.01; optimism corrected AUC 0.70, 0.66-0.74). The predicted probability of a good outcome ranged from 44.4% (33.9-55.5) to 92.4% (88.4-95.1) depending on level of TKA need, readiness/willingness, depressive symptoms and surgical expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although external validation is required, our findings suggest that incorporation of patients' TKA readiness, willingness and expectations in TKA decision-making may improve the proportion of recipients that experience a good outcome.

Instruments to assess appropriateness of hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess criteria and psychometric properties of instruments for assessing appropriateness of elective joint arthroplasty (JA) for adults with primary hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Eligible articles include all study designs developing, testing, and/or using an instrument to assess JA appropriateness. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. Instruments were compared with Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Psychometric properties of instruments were described and appraised guided by Fitzpatrick's and COSMIN approaches.

RESULTS

Of 55 instruments included, none met all Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Criteria the most met were pain (n = 50), function (n = 49), quality of life (n = 33), and radiography (n = 24). Criteria the least met were clinical evidence of OA (n = 18), expectations (n = 15), readiness for surgery (n = 11), conservative treatments (n = 8), and patient/surgeon agree benefits outweigh risks (n = 0). Instrument by Arden et al. met the most criteria (6 of 9). The most tested psychometric properties were appropriateness (n = 55), face/content validity (n = 55), predictive validity (n = 29), construct validity and feasibility (n = 24). The least tested psychometric properties were intra-rater reliability (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 5), and inter-rater reliability (n = 13). Instruments by Gutacker et al. and Osborne et al. met the most psychometric properties (4 of 10).

CONCLUSION

Most instruments included traditional criteria for assessing JA appropriateness but did not include a trial of conservative treatments or shared decision-making elements. There was limited evidence on psychometric properties.