Research Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 1;36(21):1807-14. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821cba1f.
Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a factorial randomized controlled trial.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of a rehabilitation program and/or an education booklet each compared with usual care for the postoperative management of patients undergoing discectomy or lateral nerve root decompression surgery.
There is little knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of postoperative management of patients after spinal surgery.
A total of 338 patients were recruited into the study between June 2005 and March 2009. Patients were randomized to rehabilitation only, booklet only, rehabilitation plus booklet, or usual care only. Interactions between booklet and rehabilitation were nonsignificant; hence, we compare booklet versus no booklet and rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation. We adopt an English National Health Service and personal social services perspective. Data on outcomes and costs are based on patient level data from the trial. A 1-year time horizon was used. Outcomes were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years. Health-related quality of life was reported by patients using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). A comprehensive range of health service contacts were included in the cost analysis.
There were no significant differences in costs or outcomes associated with either intervention. Mean incremental costs and mean quality-adjusted life years gained per patient of booklet versus no booklet were -£87 (95% CI: -£1221 to £1047) and -0.023 (95% CI: -0.068 to 0.023), respectively. Figures for rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation were £160 (95% CI: -£984 to £1304) and 0.002 (95% CI: -0.044 to 0.048), respectively. Neither intervention was cost-effective when compared with the threshold range commonly used to judge whether or not an intervention is cost-effective in the English National Health Service.
Cost-effectiveness evidence does not support use of booklet over no booklet or rehabilitation over no rehabilitation for the postoperative management of patients after spinal surgery.
成本效益分析与因子随机对照试验相结合。
评估康复计划和/或教育手册各自与常规护理相比,对接受椎间盘切除术或侧神经根减压术的患者术后管理的成本效益。
关于脊柱手术后患者术后管理的成本效益,知之甚少。
2005 年 6 月至 2009 年 3 月期间,共招募了 338 名患者参加研究。患者被随机分配到仅康复、仅手册、康复加手册或仅常规护理组。手册与康复之间的相互作用不显著;因此,我们将手册与无手册、康复与无康复进行比较。我们采用英国国民保健制度和个人社会服务的视角。结果和成本数据基于试验中的患者水平数据。使用了 1 年的时间范围。结果以质量调整生命年来衡量。患者使用 EuroQol-5D(EQ-5D)报告健康相关生活质量。成本分析中包括了广泛的卫生服务接触。
两种干预措施均与成本或结果无关。与无手册相比,手册的增量成本和每位患者获得的质量调整生命年分别为-£87(95%CI:-£1221 至 £1047)和-0.023(95%CI:-0.068 至 0.048)。与无康复相比,康复的增量成本和每位患者获得的质量调整生命年分别为£160(95%CI:-£984 至 £1304)和 0.002(95%CI:-0.044 至 0.048)。与英国国民保健制度中常用于判断干预措施是否具有成本效益的阈值范围相比,两种干预措施均不具有成本效益。
成本效益证据不支持在脊柱手术后患者的术后管理中使用手册而不是无手册或康复而不是无康复。