A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early intervention to address psychosocial risk factors associated with long-term disability. We assessed the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a brief pain management program (BPM) targeting psychosocial factors compared with physical therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration. METHODS: A total of 402 patients were randomly assigned to BPM or PT. We adopted a health care perspective, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 12-month change scores on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Resource use data related to back pain were collected at 12-month followup. Cost effectiveness was expressed as incremental ratios, with uncertainty assessed using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in mean health care costs or outcomes between treatments. PT had marginally greater effectiveness at 12 months, albeit with greater health care costs (BPM 142 pounds, PT 195 pounds). The incremental cost-per-QALY ratio was 2,362 pounds. If the UK National Health Service were willing to pay 10,000 pound per additional QALY, there is only a 17% chance that BPM provides the best value for money. CONCLUSION: PT is a cost-effective primary care management strategy for low back pain. However, the absence of a clinically superior treatment program raises the possibility that BPM could provide an additional primary care approach, administered in fewer sessions, allowing patient and doctor preferences to be considered.

Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening. DESIGN: Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm. SETTING: 50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices. PARTICIPANTS: 14,802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Newly identified atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, -0.5% to 0.5%). CONCLUSION: Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732 [controlled-trials.com].

Self management of oral anticoagulation: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of self management compared with routine care in patients on long term oral anticoagulants. DESIGN: Multicentre open randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Midlands region of the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 617 patients aged over 18 and receiving warfarin randomised to intervention (n = 337) and routine care (n = from 2470 invited; 193/337 (57%) completed the 12 month intervention. INTERVENTION: Intervention patients used a point of care device to measure international normalised ratio twice a week and a simple dosing chart to interpret their dose of warfarin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of time spent within the therapeutic range of international normalised ratio. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in percentage of time in the therapeutic range between self management and routine care (70% v 68%). Self managed patients with poor control before the study showed an improvement in control that was not seen in the routine care group. Nine patients (2.8/100 patient years) had serious adverse events in the self managed group, compared with seven (2.7/100 patient years) in the routine care arm (chi2(df = 1) = 0.02, P = 0.89). CONCLUSION: With appropriate training, self management is safe and reliable for a sizeable proportion of patients receiving oral anticoagulation treatment. It may improve the time spent the therapeutic range for patients with initially poor control. Trial registration ISRCTN 19313375.

Econometric issues in testing the age neutrality of health care expenditure.

A recent study by Zweifel et al. (Zweifel P, Felder S, Meiers M. Ageing of the population and health care expenditure: a red herring? Health Economics 1999; 8: 485-496) suggests that age is not related to health care expenditure among the elderly once 'closeness to death' is controlled for. If correct, this finding has major policy implications, but flaws in the econometric analysis undermine its credibility. We highlight two in particular, and propose methods to deal with them.

A randomized controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of a district co-ordinating service for terminally ill cancer patients.

The objective of this paper is to compare the cost effectiveness of a co-ordination service with standard services for terminally ill cancer patients with a prognosis of less than one year. We designed a randomized controlled trial, with patients randomized by the general practice with which they were registered. Co-ordination group patients received the assistance of two nurse coordinators whose role was to ensure that patients had access to appropriate services. The setting was in a South London health authority. Complete service use and outcome data were collected on 167 patients, 86 in the co-ordination group, and 81 in the control group. Our results, as previously reported, show that no differences in outcomes were detected between the co-ordination and control groups; the mean total costs incurred by the co-ordination group were significantly less than those of the control group. The co-ordinated group used significantly fewer inpatient days (mean 24 versus 40 inpatient days; t = 2.4, p = 0.002) and nurse home visits (mean 14.5 versus 37.5 visits; t = 0.3, p = 0.01). Mean cost per co-ordinated patient was almost half that of the control group patients 4774 pounds versus 8034 pounds, t = 2.8, p = 0.006). Although the unit cost data were relatively crude, these cost reductions were insensitive to a wide range of unit costs. These differences persisted when, in order to control for any putative differences in severity between the two groups, the analysis was restricted to patients who had died by the end of the study. The ratio of potential cost savings to the cost of co-ordination service was between 4:1 and 8:1. In conclusion, the co-ordination service for cancer patients who were terminally ill with a prognosis of less than one year was more cost effective than standard services, due to achieving the same outcomes at lower service use, particularly inpatient days in acute hospital. Assuming that the observed effects are real, improved co-ordination of palliative care offers the potential for considerable savings. Further research is needed to explore this issue.