Cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic neck pain.

Acupuncture is increasingly used in patients with chronic pain, but there is a lack of evidence on the cost-benefit relationship of this treatment strategy. The objective of this study was to assess costs and cost-effectiveness of additional acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic neck pain compared to patients receiving routine care alone. A randomized controlled trial including patients (18 years of age) with chronic neck pain (>6 months) was carried out. We assessed the resource use and health related quality of life (SF-36) at baseline and after 3 months using complete social health insurance funds and standardized questionnaires, respectively. The main outcome parameters were direct and indirect cost differences during the 3 months study period and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of acupuncture treatment. A total of 3,451 patients (1,753 acupuncture-group, 1,698 control-group) were randomized (31% men, age 53.5+/-12.9 years; 69% women, 49.2+/-12.7 years). Acupuncture treatment was associated with significantly higher costs over the 3 months study duration compared to routine care (925.53+/-1,551.06 euros vs. 648.06+/-1,459.13 euros; mean difference: 277.47 euros [95% CI: 175.71 euros-379.23 euros]). This cost increase was mainly due to costs of acupuncture (361.76+/-90.16 euros). The ICER was 12,469 euros per QALY gained and proved robust in additional sensitivity analyses. Since health insurance databases were used, private medical expenses such as over the counter medication were not included. Beyond the 3 months study duration, acupuncture might be associated with further health economic effects. According to international cost-effectiveness threshold values, acupuncture is a cost-effective treatment strategy in patients with chronic neck pain.

Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain.

In a randomized controlled trial plus a nonrandomized cohort, the authors investigated the effectiveness and costs of acupuncture in addition to routine care in the treatment of chronic low back pain and assessed whether the effects of acupuncture differed in randomized and nonrandomized patients. In 2001, German patients with chronic low back pain were allocated to an acupuncture group or a no-acupuncture control group. Persons who did not consent to randomization were included in a nonrandomized acupuncture group. All patients were allowed to receive routine medical care in addition to study treatment. Back function (Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire), pain, and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after 3 and 6 months, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed. Of 11,630 patients (mean age=52.9 years (standard deviation, 13.7); 59% female), 1,549 were randomized to the acupuncture group and 1,544 to the control group; 8,537 were included in the nonrandomized acupuncture group. At 3 months, back function improved by 12.1 (standard error (SE), 0.4) to 74.5 (SE, 0.4) points in the acupuncture group and by 2.7 (SE, 0.4) to 65.1 (SE, 0.4) points among controls (difference=9.4 points (95% confidence interval 8.3, 10.5); p<0.001). Nonrandomized patients had more severe symptoms at baseline and showed improvements in back function similar to those seen in randomized patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro10,526 (euros) per quality-adjusted life year. Acupuncture plus routine care was associated with marked clinical improvements in these patients and was relatively cost-effective.

Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: a comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of homoeopathy versus conventional treatment in routine care. DESIGN: Comparative cohort study. SETTING: Patients with selected chronic diagnoses were enrolled in medical practice. INTERVENTIONS: Conventional treatment or homeopathy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of symptoms assessed by patients and physicians (visual rating scale, 0-10) at baseline, 6 and 12 months and costs. RESULTS: The analyses of 493 patients (315 adults, 178 children) indicated greater improvement in patients' assessments after homoeopathic versus conventional treatment (adults: homeopathy from 5.7 to 3.2; conventional, 5.9-4.4; p=0.002; children from 5.1 to 2.6 and from 4.5 to 3.2). Physician assessments were also more favourable for children who had received homoeopathic treatment (4.6-2.0 and 3.9-2.7; p<0.001). Overall costs showed no significant differences between both treatment groups (adults, 2155 versus 2013, p=0.856; children, 1471 versus 786, p=0.137). CONCLUSION: Patients seeking homoeopathic treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment, whereas total costs in both groups were similar.