, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 1087–1100 | Cite as

Economic and Humanistic Burden of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Large Sample Studies

  • Feng XieEmail author
  • Bruno Kovic
  • Xuejing Jin
  • Xiaoning He
  • Mengxiao Wang
  • Camila Silvestre
Systematic Review



Osteoarthritis (OA) consumes a significant amount of healthcare resources, and impairs the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients. Previous reviews have consistently found substantial variations in the costs of OA across studies and countries. The comparability between studies was poor and limited the detection of the true differences between these studies.


To review large sample studies on measuring the economic and/or humanistic burden of OA published since May 2006.


We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using comprehensive search strategies to identify studies reporting economic burden and HRQoL of OA. We included large sample studies if they had a sample size ≥1000 and measured the cost and/or HRQoL of OA. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate, performing a cross-check between groups to verify agreement. Within- and between-group consolidation was performed to resolve discrepancies, with outstanding discrepancies being resolved by an arbitrator. The Kappa statistic was reported to assess the agreement between the reviewers. All costs were adjusted in their original currency to year 2015 using published inflation rates for the country where the study was conducted, and then converted to 2015 US dollars.


A total of 651 articles were screened by title and abstract, 94 were reviewed in full text, and 28 were included in the final review. The Kappa value was 0.794. Twenty studies reported direct costs and nine reported indirect costs. The total annual average direct costs varied from US$1442 to US$21,335, both in USA. The annual average indirect costs ranged from US$238 to US$29,935. Twelve studies measured HRQoL using various instruments. The Short Form 12 version 2 scores ranged from 35.0 to 51.3 for the physical component, and from 43.5 to 55.0 for the mental component. Health utilities varied from 0.30 for severe OA to 0.77 for mild OA.


Per-patient OA costs are considerable and a patient’s quality of life remains poor. Variations in costing methods are a barrier to understanding the true differences in the costs of OA between studies. Standardizing healthcare resource items, the definition of OA-relevant costs, and productivity loss measures would facilitate the comparison.


Indirect Cost Productivity Loss Health Utility Mental Component Summary Score Physical Component Summary Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank Lois Cottrell for her advice in developing the literature search strategies.

Author contributions

Conception and design of the study (Feng Xie, Bruno Kovic, Xuejing Jin). Literature search and review (Bruno Kovic, Xuejing Jin, Xiaoning He, Mengxiao Wang, Camila Silvestre). Analysis and interpretation of data (Feng Xie, Bruno Kovic, Xuejing Jin, Xiaoning He). Drafting of the article (Feng Xie, Bruno Kovic, Xuejing Jin, Xiaoning He). Critical revision of the article (Feng Xie, Bruno Kovic, Xuejing Jin, Xiaoning He). Study supervison and coordination (Feng Xie).

Compliance with Ethical Standards


No funding was received for the preparation of this review.

Conflict of interest

Feng Xie, Bruno Kovic, Xuejing Jin, Xiaoning He, Mengxiao Wang, and Camila Silvestre have no other conflict of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Loza E, Lopez-Gomez JM, Abasolo L, et al. Economic burden of knee and hip osteoarthritis in Spain. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:158–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pereira D, Peleteiro B, Araujo J, et al. The effect of osteoarthritis definition on prevalence and incidence estimates: a systematic review. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011;19:1270–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dillon CF, Rasch EK, Gu Q, et al. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1991–94. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:2271–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim C, Linsenmeyer KD, Vlad SC, et al. Prevalence of radiographic and symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in an urban United States community: the Framingham osteoarthritis study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66:3013–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plotnikoff R, Karunamuni N, Lytvyak E, et al. Osteoarthritis prevalence and modifiable factors: a population study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1195.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee S, Kim SJ. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis, risk factors, and quality of life: the Fifth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Int J Rheum Dis. 2015. Epub ahead of print Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tang X, Wang S, Zhan S, et al. The prevalence of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in China: Results from China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;68:648–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puig-Junoy J, Ruiz ZA. Socio-economic costs of osteoarthritis: a systematic review of cost-of-illness studies. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;44:531–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xie F, Thumboo J, Li SC. True difference or something else? Problems in cost of osteoarthritis studies. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2007;37:127–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33:363–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tarride JE, Haq M, O’Reilly DJ, et al. The excess burden of osteoarthritis in the province of Ontario, Canada. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64:1153–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xie F, Thumboo J, Fong KY, et al. Direct and indirect costs of osteoarthritis in Singapore: a comparative study among multiethnic Asian patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:165–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akobundu E, Ju J, Blatt L, et al. Cost-of-illness studies: a review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:869–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berger A, Hartrick C, Edelsberg J, et al. Direct and indirect economic costs among private-sector employees with osteoarthritis. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53:1228–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bozic KJ, Stacey B, Berger A, et al. Resource utilization and costs before and after total joint arthroplasty. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunn JD, Pill MW. A claims-based view of health care charges and utilization for commercially insured patients with osteoarthritis. Manag Care. 2009;18:44–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fenter TC, Naslund MJ, Shah MB, et al. The cost of treating the 10 most prevalent diseases in men 50 years of age or older. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12:S90–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gore M, Tai KS, Sadosky A, et al. Clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and direct medical costs of patients with osteoarthritis in usual care: a retrospective claims database analysis. J Med Econ. 2011;14:497–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gore M, Tai KS, Sadosky A, et al. Use and costs of prescription medications and alternative treatments in patients with osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain in community-based settings. Pain Pract. 2012;12:550–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kleinman N, Harnett J, Melkonian A, et al. Burden of fibromyalgia and comparisons with osteoarthritis in the workforce. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51:1384–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pasquale MK, Dufour R, Schaaf D, et al. Pain conditions ranked by healthcare costs for members of a national health plan. Pain Pract. 2014;14:117–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruetsch C, Tkacz J, Kardel PG, et al. Trajectories of health care service utilization and differences in patient characteristics among adults with specific chronic pain: analysis of health plan member claims. J Pain Res. 2013;6:137–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    White AG, Birnbaum HG, Janagap C, et al. Direct and indirect costs of pain therapy for osteoarthritis in an insured population in the United States. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50:998–1005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    White LA, Birnbaum HG, Kaltenboeck A, et al. Employees with fibromyalgia: medical comorbidity, healthcare costs, and work loss. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50:13–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Le TK, Montejano LB, Cao Z, et al. Health care costs in US patients with and without a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. J Pain Res. 2012;5:23–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Le TK, Montejano LB, Cao Z, et al. Healthcare costs associated with osteoarthritis in US patients. Pain Pract. 2012;12:633–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berger A, Bozic K, Stacey B, et al. Patterns of pharmacotherapy and health care utilization and costs prior to total hip or total knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:2268–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burgos-Vargas R, Cardiel MH, Loyola-Sanchez A, et al. Characterization of knee osteoarthritis in Latin America: a comparative analysis of clinical and health care utilization in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Reumatol Clin. 2014;10:152–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosemann T, Gensichen J, Sauer N, et al. The impact of concomitant depression on quality of life and health service utilisation in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2007;27:859–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dibonaventura MD, Gupta S, McDonald M, et al. Impact of self-rated osteoarthritis severity in an employed population: cross-sectional analysis of data from the national health and wellness survey. Health Qual Life Outc. 2012;10:30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dorner TE, Stein KV. Prevalence and status quo of osteoarthritis in Austria. Analysis of epidemiological and social determinants of health in a representative cross-sectional survey. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2013;163:206–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kotlarz H, Gunnarsson CL, Fang H, et al. Insurer and out-of-pocket costs of osteoarthritis in the US: evidence from national survey data. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:3546–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dibonaventura M, Gupta S, McDonald M, et al. Evaluating the health and economic impact of osteoarthritis pain in the workforce: results from the National Health and Wellness Survey. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bushmakin AG, Cappelleri JC, Taylor-Stokes G, et al. Relationship between patient-reported disease severity and other clinical outcomes in osteoarthritis: a European perspective. J Med Econ. 2011;14:381–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kingsbury SR, Gross HJ, Isherwood G, et al. Osteoarthritis in Europe: impact on health status, work productivity and use of pharmacotherapies in five European countries. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014;53:937–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Batsis JA, Zbehlik AJ, Barre LK, et al. The impact of waist circumference on function and physical activity in older adults: longitudinal observational data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Nutr J. 2014;13:81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bindawas SM, Vennu V, Al SS. Differences in health-related quality of life among subjects with frequent bilateral or unilateral knee pain: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45:128–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Conaghan PG, Peloso PM, Everett SV, et al. Inadequate pain relief and large functional loss among patients with knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a prospective multinational longitudinal study of osteoarthritis real-world therapies. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015;54:270–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20:327–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:353–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yelin E. The economics of osteoarthritis. In: Brandt K, Doherty M, Lohmander LS, editors. Osteoarthritis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 17–21.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sharif B, Kopec J, Bansback N, et al. Projecting the direct cost burden of osteoarthritis in Canada using a microsimulation model. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23:1654–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Soni A. Top 10 most costly conditions among men and women, 2008: estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized adult population, age 18 and older. 2011 (3-14-2016).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prior JA, Jordan KP, Kadam UT. Variations in patient-reported physical health between cardiac and musculoskeletal diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Health Qual Life Outc. 2015;13:71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hopman WM, Harrison MB, Coo H, et al. Associations between chronic disease, age and physical and mental health status. Chronic Dis Can. 2009;29:108–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ganz PA, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, et al. Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet 2015;387:857–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Manuel DG, Schultz SE, Kopec JA. Measuring the health burden of chronic disease and injury using health adjusted life expectancy and the Health Utilities Index. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:843–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:365–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pickard AS, Wilke C, Jung E, et al. Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respir Med. 2008;102:519–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, et al. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28:395–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feng Xie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bruno Kovic
    • 1
  • Xuejing Jin
    • 1
  • Xiaoning He
    • 1
  • Mengxiao Wang
    • 1
  • Camila Silvestre
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of KinesiologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations