Lloyd Adam, Scott David A, Akehurst Ron L, Lurie-Luke Elena, Jessen George
Fourth Hurdle Consulting Ltd, London, UK.
Value Health. 2004 Jul-Aug;7(4):413-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.74004.x.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a new heat wrap therapy for low back pain compared to paracetamol and ibuprofen from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).
We evaluated cost-effectiveness using data from a phase III trial comparing the three therapies in 371 patients aged 18 to 55 years presenting with acute uncomplicated low back pain. The primary effectiveness measure used was successful treatment, defined as both clinically meaningful pain relief and clinically meaningful reduction in disability. We conducted a simple evaluation using NHS prescription costs and a modeled extrapolation including the costs of further treatment and consultations for patients treated unsuccessfully or with adverse events. Uncertainty was addressed using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses.
Successful treatment was reported by 57% of patients treated with heat wrap therapy, 26% treated with paracetamol and 18% treated with ibuprofen (P < 0.05 for heat wrap vs. both other groups). NHS prescription cost per patient was estimated to be 1.35 pounds Sterling for heat wrap therapy, 0.26 pounds Sterling for paracetamol, and 0.28 pounds Sterling for ibuprofen and cost per successful treatment was 3.52 pounds Sterling for heat wrap therapy compared to paracetamol, and 2.72 pounds Sterling compared to ibuprofen. In the modeled extrapolation, NHS cost per patient was 27.77 pounds Sterling for heat wrap therapy, 34.20 pounds Sterling for paracetamol, and 36.04 pounds Sterling for ibuprofen. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the findings were robust to plausible changes in data and assumptions.
Economic evaluation of this study suggests that the NHS cost of introducing heat wrap therapy in place of oral analgesics would be modest and heat wrap therapy might potentially reduce the total cost of managing episodes of lower back pain.
从英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)的角度,评估一种用于治疗腰痛的新型热裹疗法与扑热息痛和布洛芬相比的成本效益及预算影响。
我们利用一项III期试验的数据评估成本效益,该试验比较了371例年龄在18至55岁、患有急性非复杂性腰痛的患者使用这三种疗法的情况。使用的主要疗效指标是成功治疗,定义为临床上有意义的疼痛缓解和残疾程度的临床上有意义的降低。我们使用NHS处方成本进行了简单评估,并进行了模型外推,包括对治疗不成功或出现不良事件的患者的进一步治疗和咨询成本。使用非参数自助法和敏感性分析来处理不确定性。
接受热裹疗法的患者中有57%报告成功治疗,接受扑热息痛治疗的为26%,接受布洛芬治疗的为18%(热裹疗法与其他两组相比,P<0.05)。热裹疗法每位患者的NHS处方成本估计为1.35英镑,扑热息痛为0.26英镑,布洛芬为0.28英镑,与扑热息痛相比,热裹疗法每次成功治疗的成本为3.52英镑,与布洛芬相比为2.72英镑。在模型外推中,热裹疗法每位患者的NHS成本为27.77英镑,扑热息痛为34.20英镑,布洛芬为36.04英镑。敏感性分析表明,研究结果对数据和假设的合理变化具有稳健性。
本研究的经济评估表明,NHS用热裹疗法替代口服镇痛药的成本适中,热裹疗法可能会降低管理腰痛发作的总成本。