RESUMO
Background: Spinal pain is a common and disabling condition with considerable socioeconomic burden. Spine pain management in the United States has gathered increased scrutiny amidst concerns of overutilization of costly and potentially harmful interventions and diagnostic tests. Conservative interventions such as spinal manipulation, exercise and self-management may provide value for the care of spinal pain, but little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the U.S. Our primary objective for this project is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. Methods/design: We will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management using cost and clinical outcome data collected in eight randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both societal and healthcare perspectives using QALYs, pain intensity, and disability as effectiveness measures. The eight randomized clinical trials used similar methods and included different combinations of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, or self-management for spinal pain. They also collected similar clinical outcome, healthcare utilization, and work productivity data. A two-stage approach to individual patient data meta-analysis will be conducted. Discussion: This project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to combine clinical and economic data collected in a several clinical trials that used similar methods. The findings will provide important information on the value of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain management in the U.S.
Assuntos
Dor nas Costas/economia , Dor nas Costas/terapia , Terapia por Exercício/economia , Manipulação da Coluna/economia , Cervicalgia/economia , Cervicalgia/terapia , Autogestão/economia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Criança , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/economia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic neck pain is a prevalent and disabling condition among older adults. Despite the large burden of neck pain, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of home exercise and advice (HEA), spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus HEA, and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) plus HEA. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 241 older adults (≥65 years) with chronic mechanical neck pain comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were direct and indirect costs, neck pain, neck disability, SF-6D-derived quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 1-year time horizon. METHODS: This work was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (#F32AT007507), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (#P60AR062799), and Health Resources and Services Administration (#R18HP01425). The RCT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00269308). A societal perspective was adopted for the primary analysis. A healthcare perspective was adopted as a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectivenesswas a secondary aim of the RCT which was not powered for differences in costs or QALYs. Differences in costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Total costs for SMT+HEA were 5% lower than HEA (mean difference: -$111; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$1,354 to $899) and 47% lower than SRE+HEA (mean difference: -$1,932; 95% CI -$2,796 to -$1,097). SMT+HEA also resulted in a greater reduction of neck pain over the year relative to HEA (0.57; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92) and SRE+HEA (0.41; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Differences in disability and QALYs favored SMT+HEA. The probability that adding SMT to HEA is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY gained ranges from 0.75 to 0.81. If adopting a health-care perspective, costs for SMT+HEA were 66% higher than HEA (mean difference: $515; 95% CI $225 to $1,094), resulting in an ICER of $55,975 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: On average, SMT+HEA resulted in better clinical outcomes and lower total societal costs relative to SRE+HEA and HEA alone, with a 0.75 to 0.81 probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Terapia por Exercício/economia , Manipulação da Coluna/economia , Cervicalgia/terapia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Cervicalgia/reabilitação , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed. METHODS AND DESIGN: This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial. DISCUSSION: This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333.
Assuntos
Prestação Integrada de Cuidados de Saúde , Dor Lombar/terapia , Manipulação Quiroprática , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente , Medicina de Precisão , Adolescente , Adulto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Prestação Integrada de Cuidados de Saúde/economia , Avaliação da Deficiência , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Dor Lombar/economia , Manipulação Quiroprática/economia , Medição da Dor , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/economia , Satisfação do Paciente , Medicina de Precisão/economia , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Projetos de Pesquisa , Inquéritos e Questionários , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common conditions in old age, leading to impaired functional ability and decreased independence. Manual and exercise therapies are common and effective therapies for the general LBP and NP populations. However, these treatments have not been adequately researched in older LBP and NP sufferers. The primary aim of these studies is to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) manual treatment plus home exercise, 2) supervised rehabilitative exercise plus home exercise, and 3) home exercise alone, in terms of patient-rated pain, for senior LBP and NP patients. Secondary aims are to compare the three treatment approaches in regards to patient-rated disability, general health status, satisfaction, improvement and medication use, as well as objective outcomes of spinal motion, trunk strength and endurance, and functional ability. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility will also be assessed. Finally, using qualitative methods, older LBP and NP patient's perceptions of treatment will be explored and described. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the design of two multi-methods clinical studies focusing on elderly patients with non-acute LBP and NP. Each study includes a randomized clinical trial (RCT), a cost-effectiveness study alongside the RCT, and a qualitative study. Four hundred and eighty participants (240 per study), ages 65 and older, will be recruited and randomized to one of three, 12-week treatment programs. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcomes are assessed by examiners masked to treatment assignment at baseline and 12 weeks. Health care cost data is collected through standardized clinician forms, monthly phone interviews, and self-report questionnaires throughout the study. Qualitative interviews using a semi-structured format are conducted at the end of the 12 week treatment period. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, these are the first randomized clinical trials to comprehensively address clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' perceptions of commonly used treatments for elderly LBP and NP sufferers.
Assuntos
Terapia por Exercício , Dor Lombar/terapia , Manipulação Quiroprática , Cervicalgia/terapia , Idoso , Fenômenos Biomecânicos , Protocolos Clínicos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Definição da Elegibilidade , Terapia por Exercício/economia , Humanos , Dor Lombar/fisiopatologia , Dor Lombar/reabilitação , Manipulação Quiroprática/economia , Cervicalgia/fisiopatologia , Cervicalgia/reabilitação , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Satisfação do Paciente , Coluna Vertebral/fisiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accrual rates and recruitment processes among 3 Midwestern sites during a pilot study on manual therapy for chronic pelvic pain. DESIGN: Multisite pilot study for a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Three chiropractic institutions in or near major metropolitan cities in the Midwestern United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-nine women aged 18 to 45 with chronic pelvic pain of at least 6 months duration, diagnosed by a board certified gynecologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The method of recruitment was collected for each individual who responded to an advertisement and completed an interviewer-administered telephone screen. Participants who were willing and eligible after 3 baseline visits were entered into a randomized clinical trial. The number of responses and accrual rates were determined for the overall study, each of the 3 treatment sites, and each of the 5 recruitment efforts. RESULTS: In this study, 355 women were screened over the telephone and 39 were randomized, making the rate of randomization approximately 10%. The most effective recruitment methods leading to randomization were direct mail (38%) and radio advertisements (34%). However, success of the recruitment process differed by site. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the accrual of this multisite pilot study, a full-scale trial would not be feasible using this study's parameters. However, useful information was gained on recruitment effectiveness, eligibility criteria, and screening protocols among the 3 metropolitan sites.