Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

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

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Plotnikoff R, Karunamuni N, Lytvyak E, et al. Osteoarthritis prevalence and modifiable factors: a population study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1195.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

  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;68:648–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Akobundu E, Ju J, Blatt L, et al. Cost-of-illness studies: a review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:869–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Le TK, Montejano LB, Cao Z, et al. Healthcare costs associated with osteoarthritis in US patients. Pain Pract. 2012;12:633–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20:327–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:353–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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;387:857–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, et al. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:365–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Xie.

Ethics declarations

Funding

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.

Appendix: Literature search strategies

Appendix: Literature search strategies

MEDLINE

1. “Quality of Life”/

2. qol.mp.

3. hrqol.mp.

4. utility.mp.

5. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4

6. acute pain/ or breakthrough pain/ or musculoskeletal pain/ or chronic pain/

7. physical function.mp.

8. “Activities of Daily Living”/

9. 6 or 7 or 8

10. 5 and 9

11. exp Osteoarthritis/ec, ep, eh, et, mo, pa, ph, pp, pc, rh [Economics, Epidemiology, Ethnology, Etiology, Mortality, Pathology, Physiology, Physiopathology, Prevention and Control, Rehabilitation]

12. Osteoarthritis.ti,ab.

13. 11 or 12

14. cost.ti,ab.

15. costs.ti,ab.

16. productivity.mp.

17. 14 or 15 or 16

18. economic.mp.

19. burden.mp.

20. Health Resource*.mp.

21. utilization.mp.

22. “resource use”.mp.

23. absenteeism.ti,ab.

24. presenteeism.ti,ab.

25. 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24

26. 17 and 25

27. 10 or 26

28. 13 and 27

29. limit 28 to (english language and yr=“2006 - 2016”)

EMBASE

1. cost of illness.ti,ab.

2. cost.ti,ab.

3. costs.ti,ab.

4. 2 or 3

5. productivity.mp.

6. economic.mp.

7. burden.mp.

8. health resource.mp.

9. 5 or 6 or 7 or 8

10. 4 and 9

11. 1 or 10

12. “quality of life”/

13. qol.mp.

14. hrqol.mp.

15. utility.mp.

16. 12 or 13 or 14 or 15

17. pain/ or bone pain/ or breakthrough pain/ or chronic pain/ or leg pain/ or musculoskeletal pain/

18. physical activity/

19. daily life activity/

20. 17 or 18 or 19

21. 16 and 20

22. 11 or 21

23. osteoarthritis/dm, ep, et, pc, rh [Disease Management, Epidemiology, Etiology, Prevention, Rehabilitation]

24. 22 and 23

25. limit 24 to (english language and yr=“2006–2016”)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, F., Kovic, B., Jin, X. et al. Economic and Humanistic Burden of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Large Sample Studies. PharmacoEconomics 34, 1087–1100 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0424-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0424-x

Keywords

Navigation