Effectiveness, safety, and economic evaluation of adjuvant moxibustion therapy for aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia of postmenopausal breast cancer stage I to III patients: Study protocol for a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, usual-care controlled, parallel-group, pilot clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study is a prospective, assessor-blinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled pilot trial to explore the effectiveness of 12-week adjuvant moxibustion therapy for arthralgia in menopausal females at stage I to III breast cancer on aromatase inhibitor (AI) administration, compared with those receiving usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: Forty-six menopausal female patients with breast cancer who completed cancer therapy will be randomly allocated to either adjuvant moxibustion or usual care groups with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention group will undergo 24 sessions of adjuvant moxibustion therapy with usual care for 12 weeks, whereas the control group will receive only usual care during the same period. The usual care consists of acetaminophen administration on demand and self-directed exercise education to manage AI-related joint pain. The primary outcome is the mean change of the worst pain level according to the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form between the initial visit and the endpoint. The mean changes in depression, fatigue, and quality of life will also be compared between groups. Safety and pharmacoeconomic evaluations will also be included. DISCUSSION: Continuous variables will be compared by an independent t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the adjuvant moxibustion and usual care groups. Adverse events will be analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher exact test. The statistical analysis will be performed by a 2-tailed test at a significance level of .05.

First-contact care with a medical vs chiropractic provider after consultation with a swiss telemedicine provider: comparison of outcomes, patient satisfaction, and health care costs in spinal, hip, and shoulder pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify differences in outcomes, patient satisfaction, and related health care costs in spinal, hip, and shoulder pain patients who initiated care with medical doctors (MDs) vs those who initiated care with doctors of chiropractic (DCs) in Switzerland. METHODS: A retrospective double cohort design was used. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by first-contact care spinal, hip, and shoulder pain patients who, 4 months previously, contacted a Swiss telemedicine provider regarding advice about their complaint. Related health care costs were determined in a subsample of patients by reviewing the claims database of a Swiss insurance provider. RESULTS: The study sample included 403 patients who had seen MDs and 316 patients who had seen DCs as initial health care providers for their complaint. Differences in patient sociodemographic characteristics were found in terms of age, pain location, and mode of onset. Patients initially consulting MDs had significantly less reduction in their numerical pain rating score (difference of 0.32) and were significantly less likely to be satisfied with the care received (odds ratio = 1.79) and the outcome of care (odds ratio = 1.52). No significant differences were found for Patient's Global Impression of Change ratings. Mean costs per patient over 4 months were significantly lower in patients initially consulting DCs (difference of CHF 368; US $368). CONCLUSION: Spinal, hip, and shoulder pain patients had clinically similar pain relief, greater satisfaction levels, and lower overall cost if they initiated care with DCs, when compared with those who initiated care with MDs.

Analysis of provider specialties in the treatment of patients with clinically diagnosed back and joint problems.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Although several studies have compared patient outcomes by provider specialty in the treatment of back and joint pain, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of improving patient outcomes across specialties. This study uses a large-scale, nationally representative database to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of being treated by specific provider specialists for back and joint pain in the United States. METHOD: The 2002-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were used to examine patients diagnosed with back and/or joint problems seeking treatment from doctors (internal medicine, family/general, osteopathic medicine, orthopaedics, rheumatology, neurology) or other providers (chiropractor, physical therapist, acupuncturist, massage therapist). A total of 16,546 respondents aged 18 to 85 and clinically diagnosed with back/joint pain were examined. Self-reported measures of physical and mental health and general quality of life (measured by the EuroQol-5D) were compared with average total costs of treatment across medical providers. RESULTS: Total annual treatment costs per person ranged from $397 for family/general doctors to $1205 for rheumatologists. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that osteopathic, family/general, internal medicine doctors and chiropractors and massage therapists were more cost-effective than other specialties in improving physical function to back pain patients. For mental health measures, family/general and orthopaedic doctors and physical therapists were more cost-effective compared with other specialties. Similar to results on physical function, family/general, osteopathic and internal medicine doctors dominated other specialties. However, only massage therapy was cost-effective among non-doctor providers in improving quality of life measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients seeking care for back and joint-related health problems face a wide range of treatments, costs and outcomes depending on which specialist provider they see. This study provides important insight on the relationship between health care costs and patients' perceived physical and mental health status from receiving treatment for diagnosed back/joint problems.