Rivero-Arias Oliver, Gray Alastair, Frost Helen, Lamb Sarah E, Stewart-Brown Sarah
Health Economics Research Centre, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 20;31(12):1381-7. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000218486.13659.d5.
Economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial from the National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspective.
To perform a cost-utility analysis of routine physiotherapy treatment compared with an assessment session and advice from a physiotherapist for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain.
Lack of evidence for some types of physiotherapy intervention and a paucity of cost-effectiveness data for treatment of low back pain has led to controversy and uncertainty within the medical and allied professions.
A total of 286 patients with low back pain of more than a 6-week duration were randomized to physiotherapy treatment or advice on remaining active from a physiotherapist. Data were collected on back pain-related NHS and patients' costs over a 12-month post randomization period. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index at 12 months, with additional Oswestry Disability Index measures at 2 and 6 months. The EuroQol EQ-5D was used to calculate quality adjusted life years. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained. Uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses for the ratio and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
The total NHS costs were not significantly different at 179 pounds sterling (221 pounds sterling) for physiotherapy and 159 pounds sterling (260 pounds sterling) for the advice group. However, patients in the physiotherapy group had significantly higher out-of-pocket health care expenditure (40 pounds sterling, 95% confidence interval 9 pounds sterling to 71 pounds sterling). Utility levels improved in both groups from baseline to 12 months, with no significant differences between groups.
The results indicate no significant differences in either NHS costs or effects. However, the significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients receiving routine physiotherapy suggests that advice given by a physiotherapist should be considered as the first-line treatment for patients with this level of back pain disability.
从英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)和社会角度进行的经济评估,同时开展一项实用的多中心随机对照试验。
对亚急性和慢性下背痛患者进行常规物理治疗与接受物理治疗师的评估及建议的成本效用分析。
某些类型的物理治疗干预缺乏证据,且治疗下背痛的成本效益数据匮乏,这在医学及相关专业领域引发了争议和不确定性。
总共286名下背痛持续超过6周的患者被随机分为接受物理治疗组或接受物理治疗师关于保持活动的建议组。在随机分组后的12个月期间收集与背痛相关的NHS成本和患者成本数据。主要结局指标是12个月时的奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数,另外在2个月和6个月时也测量奥斯威斯利功能障碍指数。使用欧洲五维度健康量表(EuroQol EQ - 5D)计算质量调整生命年。成本效益表示为每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本。使用比率的置信椭圆和成本效益可接受性曲线处理不确定性。
物理治疗组的NHS总成本为179英镑(221英镑),建议组为159英镑(260英镑),两者无显著差异。然而,物理治疗组患者的自付医疗保健支出显著更高(40英镑,95%置信区间9英镑至71英镑)。两组从基线到12个月时效用水平均有所改善,组间无显著差异。
结果表明NHS成本和效果均无显著差异。然而,接受常规物理治疗的患者自付费用显著更高,这表明对于此类背痛残疾程度的患者,物理治疗师给出的建议应被视为一线治疗方法。