Cost-Effectiveness of Particulated Juvenile Articular Cartilage Versus Matrix-Induced Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation for Patellar Chondral Lesions (176)

OBJECTIVES: Treatment options for articular cartilage lesions of the patella have evolved over the past several years due to the development of novel cell-based cartilage restoration techniques, including particulated juvenile allograft cartilage (PJAC) and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost -effectiveness of these modalities in the management of patellar cartilage defects. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was utilized to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for patients with patellar chondral lesions: (1) nonoperative management, (2) PJAC, and (3) MACI. Probabilities, health utilities, and costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols were derived from institutional data and literature review. Effectiveness was assessed using quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from societal and payer perspectives over a 15-year time horizon. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to assess their effect on base case conclusions. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, nonoperative management, PJAC, and MACI cost $4,140, $52,683, and $83,073 respectively. Nonoperative management, PJAC, and MACI were associated with 4.91, 7.07, and 7.79 QALYs gained, respectively. Therefore, PJAC and MACI were cost-effective relative to nonoperative management (ICERs $22,527/QALY and $27,456/QALY, respectively; Figure 1). Although MACI was more cost-effective than PJAC in the base case, this was strongly sensitive to the estimated probabilities of full versus intermediate benefit following PJAC and MACI (Table 1). If the probabilities of full and intermediate benefit following PJAC were assumed to be the same as those following MACI (i.e., PJAC and MACI were equally effective), then PJAC dominated MACI by being cheaper and more effective. At a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MACI, PJAC, and nonoperative management were the preferred strategies in 63%, 33%, and 4% of the Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses, respectively (Figures 2 and 3). Similar results were seen from a payer perspective. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of symptomatic patellar cartilage defects, PJAC and MACI were both cost-effective compared to nonoperative treatment in the management of symptomatic patellar cartilage defects; however, MACI was the preferred strategy in our base-case analysis. The cost-effectiveness of PJAC compared to MACI depended heavily on the probability of achieving full versus intermediate benefit after PJAC and MACI.