Original Title: Avis - Utilisation du plasma autologue riche en plaquettes pour le traitement de l’arthrose du genou

Authors' objectives: The Institut national d'excellence en santé et en service sociaux (INESSS) was asked by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS) to assess the relevance of including autologous platelet-rich plasma (aPRP) injections as a treatment covered by the public insurance plan for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The MSSS also raised the need to consider the possibility of a framework for this practice.

Authors' results and conclusions: RESULTS: (#1 POPULATIONAL DIMENSION): The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is approximately 7.9% in the Québec population aged 20 years and older. The progressive nature of this disease has an increasing impact on patients' quality of life, functionality and autonomy. There is currently no curative treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The management consists of the concomitant use of various types of intervention, including conservative treatments (physiotherapy, analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.), intra-articular injections when relief is not achieved, and possibly surgery. These treatments are intended to relieve symptoms and maintain a certain level of functionality. However, they only partially meet the health needs, and only a minority of the treatments and services are accessible or covered by the public healthcare system. There are certain equity of access issues whereby patients without financial means or private insurance have access to fewer treatment options and services. Some patients may find themselves at a therapeutic impasse for several years, which can greatly affect their quality of life. In Québec, aPRP therapy is considered an additional option to treatment with corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid injections when conservative treatments, pharmacological or otherwise, have failed. Unlike corticosteroids injections, which are covered by the public system, aPRP injections are currently available only at private clinics and at varying fees (approximately $700 to $1,100, according to prices posted on certain clinic websites). For patients who do not respond to conservative treatments or injections, surgical treatment, such as knee replacement, is often the last resort. There is a waiting list for this procedure, with waiting times in Québec varying from region to region (from 11 to 90 weeks). (#2 CLINICAL DIMENSION): aPRP is an autologous regenerative medicine treatment. The techniques for preparing and isolating aPRP are not standardized and differ significantly across clinical studies. The volume of isolated plasma is enriched with a platelet concentration above the baseline. The aPRP literature is rich in clinical studies and meta-analyses, but many of them have significant methodological weaknesses. (#2.1 EFFICACY RESULTS): In the 9 prospective clinical studies considered, aPRP was compared with corticosteroids, Synvisc® hyaluronic acid, which had previously been evaluated by INESSS, or saline solution. The ability of aPRP to confer a clinical benefit appears to have been demonstrated in that the mean pain scores indicate either maintenance or improvement in patients. However, it is difficult to define the extent of this clinical benefit relative to that conferred by the comparators. The levels of evidence for the efficacy endpoints (impact on pain and functionality) are very low. (#2.2 SAFETY RESULTS): A total of 37 prospective clinical studies and 10 meta-analyses were analyzed for the purpose of evaluating this parameter. The data from these studies appear to show that the proportion of adverse events is similar following the injection of aPRP, corticosteroids, hyaluronic acids or saline solution. These adverse events (pain at the injection site, swelling, etc.) are generally mild and resolve on their own within days following the injection. Based on these data, aPRP injections for knee osteoarthritis do not seem to pose any major safety risks. The level of evidence for the safety results is moderate.(#2.3 QUALITY OF LIFE RESULTS): The quality-of-life results are heterogeneous across the 5 prospective clinical studies that were considered. An improvement in patients' post-aPRP injection quality of life appears to have been demonstrated in 3 studies, but only with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) measurement instrument, a specific questionnaire for assessing quality of life following a knee intervention. The other, more general quality-of-life measures, SF-36 and AQoL-8D, used in 3 studies, did not reveal an improvement in patients after aPRP injections. Only one study appears to have shown aPRP to be superior to corticosteroids in terms of quality of life at 6-month follow-up. The level of evidence for quality-of-life impact outcomes is low. (#2.4 ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSION): Currently, there is no framework for guiding the preparation and injection of aPRP. The expert consultations brought out the fact that, should this treatment be covered by the public plan, significant implementation challenges will arise, such as choosing the facilities where aPRP might be offered and developing mechanisms to guide the practice. (#2.5 SOCIOCULTURAL DIMENSION): The Québec population is aging, and the needs associated with knee osteoarthritis are growing, which raises certain concerns about the use of healthcare services. General interest in aPRP is also growing. A large number of private clinics are promoting it, often extolling this treatment’s virtues. Patients whose health needs are not met by conservative treatments want to know if they could obtain some benefit from this approach, if it could improve their quality of life, slow cartilage degradation and delay or obviate the need for surgery. However, the position of international agencies and practise guidelines on the advisability of using aPRP for knee osteoarthritis is equivocal. The various bodies point out limitations regarding the quality of the evidence, particularly because of the variability of the results obtained and the lack of standardization in the way aPRP is prepared. (#2.6 ECONOMIC DIMENSION): The economic evaluation consisted of a cost-minimization analysis from the perspective of MSSS and was based on the efficacy and safety equivalence assumption of aPRP injections relative to corticosteroids. This analysis shows that aPRP is not cost-effective. A budget impact analysis, which considered the costs associated with introducing aPRP into the management of knee osteoarthritis, and market growth in the eventuality of public reimbursement was performed. Based on the assumptions made, public reimbursement of aPRP would result in additional costs of $467,000, $1 million, and $1.7 million for each of the first 3 years, for a total of $3.2 million for 4100 knee osteoarthritis cases receiving aPRP, which works out to market shares of 5%, 10% and 15%.

Authors' recommendations: RESULTS: (#1 POPULATIONAL DIMENSION): The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is approximately 7.9% in the Québec population aged 20 years and older. The progressive nature of this disease has an increasing impact on patients' quality of life, functionality and autonomy. There is currently no curative treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The management consists of the concomitant use of various types of intervention, including conservative treatments (physiotherapy, analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.), intra-articular injections when relief is not achieved, and possibly surgery. These treatments are intended to relieve symptoms and maintain a certain level of functionality. However, they only partially meet the health needs, and only a minority of the treatments and services are accessible or covered by the public healthcare system. There are certain equity of access issues whereby patients without financial means or private insurance have access to fewer treatment options and services. Some patients may find themselves at a therapeutic impasse for several years, which can greatly affect their quality of life. In Québec, aPRP therapy is considered an additional option to treatment with corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid injections when conservative treatments, pharmacological or otherwise, have failed. Unlike corticosteroids injections, which are covered by the public system, aPRP injections are currently available only at private clinics and at varying fees (approximately $700 to $1,100, according to prices posted on certain clinic websites). For patients who do not respond to conservative treatments or injections, surgical treatment, such as knee replacement, is often the last resort. There is a waiting list for this procedure, with waiting times in Québec varying from region to region (from 11 to 90 weeks). (#2 CLINICAL DIMENSION): aPRP is an autologous regenerative medicine treatment. The techniques for preparing and isolating aPRP are not standardized and differ significantly across clinical studies. The volume of isolated plasma is enriched with a platelet concentration above the baseline. The aPRP literature is rich in clinical studies and meta-analyses, but many of them have significant methodological weaknesses. (#2.1 EFFICACY RESULTS): In the 9 prospective clinical studies considered, aPRP was compared with corticosteroids, Synvisc® hyaluronic acid, which had previously been evaluated by INESSS, or saline solution. The ability of aPRP to confer a clinical benefit appears to have been demonstrated in that the mean pain scores indicate either maintenance or improvement in patients. However, it is difficult to define the extent of this clinical benefit relative to that conferred by the comparators. The levels of evidence for the efficacy endpoints (impact on pain and functionality) are very low. (#2.2 SAFETY RESULTS): A total of 37 prospective clinical studies and 10 meta-analyses were analyzed for the purpose of evaluating this parameter. The data from these studies appear to show that the proportion of adverse events is similar following the injection of aPRP, corticosteroids, hyaluronic acids or saline solution. These adverse events (pain at the injection site, swelling, etc.) are generally mild and resolve on their own within days following the injection. Based on these data, aPRP injections for knee osteoarthritis do not seem to pose any major safety risks. The level of evidence for the safety results is moderate.(#2.3 QUALITY OF LIFE RESULTS): The quality-of-life results are heterogeneous across the 5 prospective clinical studies that were considered. An improvement in patients' post-aPRP injection quality of life appears to have been demonstrated in 3 studies, but only with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) measurement instrument, a specific questionnaire for assessing quality of life following a knee intervention. The other, more general quality-of-life measures, SF-36 and AQoL-8D, used in 3 studies, did not reveal an improvement in patients after aPRP injections. Only one study appears to have shown aPRP to be superior to corticosteroids in terms of quality of life at 6-month follow-up. The level of evidence for quality-of-life impact outcomes is low. (#2.4 ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSION): Currently, there is no framework for guiding the preparation and injection of aPRP. The expert consultations brought out the fact that, should this treatment be covered by the public plan, significant implementation challenges will arise, such as choosing the facilities where aPRP might be offered and developing mechanisms to guide the practice. (#2.5 SOCIOCULTURAL DIMENSION): The Québec population is aging, and the needs associated with knee osteoarthritis are growing, which raises certain concerns about the use of healthcare services. General interest in aPRP is also growing. A large number of private clinics are promoting it, often extolling this treatment’s virtues. Patients whose health needs are not met by conservative treatments want to know if they could obtain some benefit from this approach, if it could improve their quality of life, slow cartilage degradation and delay or obviate the need for surgery. However, the position of international agencies and practise guidelines on the advisability of using aPRP for knee osteoarthritis is equivocal. The various bodies point out limitations regarding the quality of the evidence, particularly because of the variability of the results obtained and the lack of standardization in the way aPRP is prepared. (#2.6 ECONOMIC DIMENSION): The economic evaluation consisted of a cost-minimization analysis from the perspective of MSSS and was based on the efficacy and safety equivalence assumption of aPRP injections relative to corticosteroids. This analysis shows that aPRP is not cost-effective. A budget impact analysis, which considered the costs associated with introducing aPRP into the management of knee osteoarthritis, and market growth in the eventuality of public reimbursement was performed. Based on the assumptions made, public reimbursement of aPRP would result in additional costs of $467,000, $1 million, and $1.7 million for each of the first 3 years, for a total of $3.2 million for 4100 knee osteoarthritis cases receiving aPRP, which works out to market shares of 5%, 10% and 15%.

Authors' methods: The evaluation was conducted according to the INESSS framework based on the overall value assessment according to its Énoncé de principes et fondements éthiques3 , which stipulates that an intervention provides value to the extent that its implementation contributes to the triple purpose of the health and social services system (clinical, population and economic dimensions) in the Quebec context (organizational and sociocultural dimensions). A review of data from the scientific literature was performed in order to document the efficacy, safety and efficiency of aPRP for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Contextual and experiential data were gathered from the stakeholders through several ad hoc consultations, advisory committees, and an expert focus group. In addition, patients with knee osteoarthritis were consulted using a questionnaire posted on INESSS’s website and disseminated via social media.

Project Status: Completed

URL for project: https://www.inesss.qc.ca/publications/repertoire-des-publications/publication/utilisation-du-plasma-autologue-riche-en-plaquettes-pour-le-traitement-de-larthrose-du-genou.html

Year Published: 2023

URL for published report: https://www.inesss.qc.ca/publications/repertoire-des-publications/publication/utilisation-du-plasma-autologue-riche-en-plaquettes-pour-le-traitement-de-larthrose-du-genou.html

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Canada

Province: Quebec

Organisation Name: Institut national d'excellence en sante et en services sociaux

Contact Address: L'Institut national d'excellence en sante et en services sociaux (INESSS) , 2021, avenue Union, bureau 10.083, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 2S9;Tel: 1+514-873-2563, Fax: 1+514-873-1369

Contact Name: demande@inesss.qc.ca

Contact Email: demande@inesss.qc.ca

Copyright: L'Institut national d'excellence en sante et en services sociaux (INESSS)