Person:
Wright, R. John

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Wright

First Name

R. John

Name

Wright, R. John

Filters

2015 - 20162

Settings

Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.e336265c-1a88-4457-bd5e-ebbd179f135d

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Defining the Value of Future Research to Identify the Preferred Treatment of Meniscal Tear in the Presence of Knee Osteoarthritis
    (Public Library of Science, 2015) Losina, Elena; Dervan, Elizabeth E.; Paltiel, A. David; Dong, Yan; Wright, R. John; Spindler, Kurt P.; Mandl, Lisa A.; Jones, Morgan H.; Marx, Robert G.; Safran-Norton, Clare E.; Katz, Jeffrey
    Background: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is extensively used to relieve pain in patients with symptomatic meniscal tear (MT) and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Recent studies have failed to show the superiority of APM compared to other treatments. We aim to examine whether existing evidence is sufficient to reject use of APM as a cost-effective treatment for MT+OA. Methods: We built a patient-level microsimulation using Monte Carlo methods and evaluated three strategies: Physical therapy (‘PT’) alone; PT followed by APM if subjects continued to experience pain (‘Delayed APM’); and ‘Immediate APM’. Our subject population was US adults with symptomatic MT and knee OA over a 10 year time horizon. We assessed treatment outcomes using societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incorporating productivity costs as a sensitivity analysis. We also conducted a value-of-information analysis using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Calculated ICERs were estimated to be $12,900/QALY for Delayed APM as compared to PT and $103,200/QALY for Immediate APM as compared to Delayed APM. In sensitivity analyses, inclusion of time costs made Delayed APM cost-saving as compared to PT. Improving efficacy of Delayed APM led to higher incremental costs and lower incremental effectiveness of Immediate APM in comparison to Delayed APM. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that PT had 3.0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY. Delayed APM was cost effective 57.7% of the time at WTP = $50,000/QALY and 50.2% at WTP = $100,000/QALY. The probability of Immediate APM being cost-effective did not exceed 50% unless WTP exceeded $103,000/QALY. Conclusions: We conclude that current cost-effectiveness evidence does not support unqualified rejection of either Immediate or Delayed APM for the treatment of MT+OA. The amount to which society would be willing to pay for additional information on treatment outcomes greatly exceeds the cost of conducting another randomized controlled trial on APM.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Association of MRI findings and expert diagnosis of symptomatic meniscal tear among middle-aged and older adults with knee pain
    (BioMed Central, 2016) Deshpande, Bhushan R.; Losina, Elena; Smith, Savannah R.; Martin, Scott; Wright, R. John; Katz, Jeffrey
    Background: Our aim was to examine the association between an expert clinician’s impression of symptomatic meniscal tears and subsequent MRI in the context of middle-aged and older adults with knee pain. Methods: Patients older than 45 were eligible for this IRB-approved substudy if they had knee pain, had not undergone MRI and saw one of two orthopaedic surgeons experienced in the diagnosis of meniscal tear. The surgeon rated their confidence that the patient’s symptoms were due to meniscal tear. The patient subsequently had a 1.5 or 3.0 T MRI within 6 months. We examined the association between presence of meniscal tear on MRI and the surgeon’s confidence that the knee pain was due to meniscal tear using a χ2 test for trend. Results: Of 84 eligible patients, 63 % were female, with a mean age of 64 years and a mean BMI of 27. The surgeon was confident that symptoms emanated from a tear among 39 %. The prevalence of meniscal tear on MRI overall was 74 %. Among subjects whose surgeon indicated high confidence that symptoms were due to meniscal tear, the prevalence was 80 % (95 % CI 63–90 %). Similarly, the prevalence was 87 % (95 % CI 62–96 %) among those whose surgeon had medium confidence and 64 % (95 % CI 48–77 %) among those whose surgeon had low confidence (p = 0.12). Conclusion: Meniscal tears were frequently found on MRI even when an expert clinician was confident that a patient’s knee symptoms were not due to a meniscal tear, indicating that providers should use MRI sparingly and cautiously to confirm or rule out the attribution of knee pain to meniscal tear. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1010-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.