An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, from a healthcare perspective, a specific occupational health intervention is cost effective in reducing sickness absence when compared with usual care in occupational health in workers with high risk of sickness absence. METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. 418 workers with high risk of sickness absence from one corporation were randomised to intervention (n = 209) or to usual care (n = 209). The subjects in the intervention group were invited to occupational health service for a consultation. The intervention included, if appropriate, a referral to specialist treatment. Register data of sickness absence were available for 384 subjects and questionnaire data on healthcare costs from 272 subjects. Missing direct total cost data were imputed using a two-part regression model. Primary outcome measures were sickness absence days and direct healthcare costs up to 12 months after randomisation. Cost effectiveness (CE) was expressed as an incremental CE ratio, CE plane and CE acceptability curve with both available direct total cost data and missing total cost data imputed. RESULTS: After one year, the mean of sickness absence was 30 days in the usual care group (n = 192) and 11 days less (95% CI 1 to 20 days) in the intervention group (n = 192). Among the employees with available cost data, the mean days of sickness absence were 22 and 24, and the mean total cost euro974 and euro1049 in the intervention group (n = 134) and in the usual care group (n = 138), respectively. The intervention turned out to be dominant-both cost saving and more effective than usual occupational health care. The saving was euro43 per sickness absence day avoided with available direct total cost data, and euro17 with missing total cost data imputed. CONCLUSIONS: One year follow-up data show that occupational health intervention for workers with high risk of sickness absence is a cost effective use of healthcare resources.

Does arthroscopic acromioplasty provide any additional value in the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome?: a two-year randomised controlled trial.

We report a randomised controlled trial to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic acromioplasty in the treatment of stage II shoulder impingement syndrome. A total of 140 patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups: supervised exercise programme (n = 70, exercise group) and arthroscopic acromioplasty followed by a similar exercise programme (n = 70, combined treatment group). The main outcome measure was self-reported pain on a visual analogue scale of 0 to 10 at 24 months, measured on the 134 patients (66 in the exercise group and 68 in the combined treatment group) for whom endpoint data were available. An intention-to-treat analysis disclosed an improvement in both groups but without statistically significant difference in outcome between the groups (p = 0.65). The combined treatment was considerably more costly. Arthroscopic acromioplasty provides no clinically important effects over a structured and supervised exercise programme alone in terms of subjective outcome or cost-effectiveness when measured at 24 months. Structured exercise treatment should be the basis for treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome, with operative treatment offered judiciously until its true merit is proven.

Cost-effectiveness of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: is tailored and dose-escalated chemotherapy with growth factor support (GFS) more costly and less effective than marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy - results from a randomized study.

Based on randomized studies bone-marrow supported (BMS) high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) is not superior to conventional CT as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these treatments we examined the data of Finnish patients in the SBG9401 trial 1. Patients were randomized to receive either dose-escalated (de FEC) (group A, n =59) or FEC and HDCT+BMS (group B, n =70). They received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) + tamoxifen. All direct health care costs of first line treatment at the oncology units were considered as well as productivity costs within the first 3 years of follow-up. Effectiveness was measured by the number of survival days during 5 years of follow-up. The mean direct health care costs were significantly higher in group B (25829 euro in group A vs. 36605 euro in group B, p <0.001), mainly due to a higher number of hospital days. Half of the costs in group A was due to the use of filgrastim (15335 euro in A and 2969 euro in B, p <0.001). The costs of RT were only 5% of total costs. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the number of survival days, but sensitivity analysis based on bootstrapping suggested that treatment A would be a less costly and more effective alternative in a great majority of cases.