Uh, Regen is lowering health care costs, not raising them. Spoken like a true SOS denier/HOPD KOL'er. You need to brush up on your science.
Platelet-rich plasma vs. corticosteroid injections for the treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: a cost-effectiveness Markov decision analysis
Kevin M Klifto 1,
Stephen H Colbert 1,
Marc J Richard 2,
Oke A Anakwenze 2,
David S Ruch 2,
Christopher S Klifto 3
Abstract
Background: Both platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections may be used to treat lateral epicondylitis. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PRP injections vs. corticosteroid injections for the treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis.
Methods: Markov modeling was used to analyze the base-case 45-year-old patient with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis, unresponsive to conservative measures, treated with a single injection of PRP or triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Transition probabilities were derived from randomized controlled trials, quality-of-life (QOL) values from the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reported using Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores, and costs from institution financial records. Analyses were performed from health care and societal perspectives. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), reported as US dollars / quality-adjusted life-year (USDs/QALY) and net monetary benefit (NMB) to represent the values of an intervention in monetary terms. Willingness-to-pay thresholds were set at $50,000 and $100,000. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed over 10,000 iterations.
Results: Both PRP and triamcinolone 40-mg/mL injections were considered cost-effective interventions from a health care and societal perspective below the WTP threshold of $50,000. From a health care perspective, PRP injections were dominant compared with triamcinolone 40-mg/mL injections, with an ICER of -$5846.97/QALY. PRP injections provided an NMB of $217,863.98, whereas triamcinolone 40 mg/mL provided an NMB of $197,534.18. From a societal perspective, PRP injections were dominant compared to triamcinolone 40-mg/mL injections, with an ICER of -$9392.33/QALY. PRP injections provided an NMB of $214,820.16, whereas triamcinolone 40 mg/mL provided an NMB of $193,199.75.
Conclusions: Both PRP and triamcinolone 40-mg/mL injections provided cost-effective treatments from health care and societal perspectives. Overall, PRP injections were the dominant treatment, with the greatest NMB for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis over the time horizon of 5 years.
In other words, findings showed that PRP and corticosteroid injections were cost-effective options from both healthcare system and societal perspectives, meaning they provided good value for their cost. PRP injections were even better than corticosteroid injections in terms of cost-effectiveness.
From a healthcare perspective, PRP injections were dominant over corticosteroid injections, meaning they were more cost-effective and resulted in better outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PRP injections was negative, indicating that it was cheaper and more effective. The net monetary benefit (NMB) for PRP injections was also higher than for corticosteroid injections.
