Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyal...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hema Mistry, Martin Connock, Joshua Pink, Deepson Shyangdan, Christine Clar, Pamela Royle, Rachel Court, Leela C Biant, Andrew Metcalfe, Norman Waugh
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: NIHR Journals Library 2017-02-01
Series:Health Technology Assessment
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21060
_version_ 1828348406805823488
author Hema Mistry
Martin Connock
Joshua Pink
Deepson Shyangdan
Christine Clar
Pamela Royle
Rachel Court
Leela C Biant
Andrew Metcalfe
Norman Waugh
author_facet Hema Mistry
Martin Connock
Joshua Pink
Deepson Shyangdan
Christine Clar
Pamela Royle
Rachel Court
Leela C Biant
Andrew Metcalfe
Norman Waugh
author_sort Hema Mistry
collection DOAJ
description Background: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied chondrocyte implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013083. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
first_indexed 2024-04-14T00:53:45Z
format Article
id doaj.art-98397e6632244de3a34694fc8f46ac1c
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1366-5278
2046-4924
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-14T00:53:45Z
publishDate 2017-02-01
publisher NIHR Journals Library
record_format Article
series Health Technology Assessment
spelling doaj.art-98397e6632244de3a34694fc8f46ac1c2022-12-22T02:21:41ZengNIHR Journals LibraryHealth Technology Assessment1366-52782046-49242017-02-0121610.3310/hta2106013/65/01Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluationHema Mistry0Martin Connock1Joshua Pink2Deepson Shyangdan3Christine Clar4Pamela Royle5Rachel Court6Leela C Biant7Andrew Metcalfe8Norman Waugh9Warwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKWarwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UKBackground: The surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then implanting them into the chondral defect. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF). Data sources: A broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review. Review methods: Systematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies. Results: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied chondrocyte implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios. Limitations: The main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI. Conclusions: The evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013083. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21060knee articular cartilage repairautologous chondrocyte implantationmicrofractureaciregenerative medicinecost-effectiveness
spellingShingle Hema Mistry
Martin Connock
Joshua Pink
Deepson Shyangdan
Christine Clar
Pamela Royle
Rachel Court
Leela C Biant
Andrew Metcalfe
Norman Waugh
Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
Health Technology Assessment
knee articular cartilage repair
autologous chondrocyte implantation
microfracture
aci
regenerative medicine
cost-effectiveness
title Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
title_full Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
title_fullStr Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
title_short Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation
title_sort autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee systematic review and economic evaluation
topic knee articular cartilage repair
autologous chondrocyte implantation
microfracture
aci
regenerative medicine
cost-effectiveness
url https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21060
work_keys_str_mv AT hemamistry autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT martinconnock autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT joshuapink autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT deepsonshyangdan autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT christineclar autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT pamelaroyle autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT rachelcourt autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT leelacbiant autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT andrewmetcalfe autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation
AT normanwaugh autologouschondrocyteimplantationinthekneesystematicreviewandeconomicevaluation