Assessing value beyond clinical outcomes

Beyond clinical efficacy and safety, Cingal has been evaluated using health-economic modelling to understand its value within healthcare systems.¹

A published cost-utility analysis, based on outcomes from a randomised Phase III clinical trial in knee osteoarthritis, compared Cingal with a two-injection regimen of sequential corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid injections.

Cost-Utility Analysis at a Glance

Analysis type	Cost-utility analysis (CUA)
Comparator	Two-injection sequential regimen (CS + HA)
Time horizon	6 months
Outcome measure	QALYs gained
WTP threshold	$50,000 per QALY
Result	Cingal dominated comparator
Authors	Belzile, Deakon, Vannabouathong, Bhandari et al.

Key findings

The analysis demonstrated that, over a 6-month time horizon:

Cingal dominated over the two-injection strategy

Economic dominance means Cingal delivered comparable or greater clinical benefit (measured in quality-adjusted life years) at a lower overall cost. This is the strongest possible outcome in a cost-utility analysis. Cost-effectiveness was maintained across multiple sensitivity analyses, remaining below a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY.

Dominant

Less costly & at least as effective, the strongest health-economic outcome

Less costly

vs. Two-Injection Regimen

The single-injection Cingal approach was less costly than a sequential two-injection regimen of corticosteroid followed by hyaluronic acid, over a 6-month period.

≥ QALYs

Quality-Adjusted Life Years Gained

Cingal was at least as effective as the two-injection comparator in terms of QALYs gained, the standard measure of combined quantity and quality of life in health-economic analyses.

<$50K

Per QALY: Sensitivity Analyses

Cost-effectiveness was maintained across multiple sensitivity analyses, consistently remaining below a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY, demonstrating robustness of the economic result.

Clinical relevance

These findings suggest that a single-injection approach may reduce overall costs, with no compromise on clinical outcomes, across three key areas:

Avoiding additional procedures and clinic visits

A single injection eliminates the need for a second administration appointment, reducing procedural burden on both patient and clinical practice, and the costs associated with additional visits.

Simplifying treatment pathways

A one-injection protocol is simpler to coordinate, schedule, and administer than a sequential two-injection regimen, reducing complexity for prescribers and healthcare systems managing OA at scale.

Delivering clinical benefit without added economic burden

Cingal delivers comparable or greater clinical benefit than the sequential approach without the additional cost, supporting value-based prescribing decisions in systems under reimbursement pressure.

“Economic modelling supports Cingal as a value-based option for osteoarthritis management alongside its established clinical performance.”¹

Real-world context

Economic outcomes are based on knee osteoarthritis clinical trial data
Results represent modelled cost-utility, not real-world utilisation studies
Findings are intended to inform, not replace, clinical and reimbursement decision-making