Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different glucosamine formulations and preparations used for the management of osteoarthritis in Thailand compared with placebo. METHODS: We used a validated model to simulate the individual patient Utility score from aggregated data available from 10 different clinical trials. We then used the Utility score to calculate the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 3 and 6 months treatment period. We used the public costs of glucosamine products available in Thailand in 2019 to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We separated the analyses for prescription-grade crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) and other formulations of glucosamine. A cost-effectiveness cut-off of 3.260 USD/QALY was considered. RESULTS: Irrespective of the glucosamine preparation (tablet or powder/capsule), the data show that pCGS is cost-effective compared with placebo over a 3 and 6 months. However, the other glucosamine formulations (e.g., glucosamine hydrochloride) never reached the breakeven point at any time. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that pCGS is cost-effective for the management of osteoarthritis in the Thai context while other glucosamine formulations are not.