Suppr超能文献

经针药结合与常规治疗慢性颈痛的经济性评价:一项实用随机对照试验

An economic evaluation of pharmacopuncture versus usual care for chronic neck pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Jaseng Spine and Joint Research Institute, Jaseng Medical Foundation, 540, Gangnamdae-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06110, Republic of Korea.

College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, Gainesville, Florida, FL, 32610, USA.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Nov 23;23(1):1286. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10325-w.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the cost utility of pharmacopuncture in comparison with usual care for patients with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

A 12-week, multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted, and 101 patients suffering from chronic neck pain for more than six months were randomly placed into the pharmacopuncture and usual care groups to receive four weeks of treatment and 12 weeks of follow-up observations. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was calculated using EQ-5D and SF-6D. Concerning costs in 2019, a primary analysis was performed on societal perspective cost, and an additional analysis was performed on healthcare perspective cost.

RESULTS

Compared to usual care, pharmacopuncture was superior as it showed a slightly higher QALY and a lower incremental cost of $1,157 from a societal perspective. The probability that pharmacopuncture would be more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $26,374 was 100%. Pharmacopuncture was also superior from a healthcare perspective, with a lower incremental cost of $26. The probability that pharmacopuncture would be more cost-effective at a WTP of $26,374 was 83.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, pharmacopuncture for chronic neck pain was found to be more cost-effective compared to usual care, implying that clinicians and policy makers should consider new treatment options for neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Number NCT04035018 (29/07/2019) Clinicaltrials.gov; Number KCT0004243 (26/08/2019) Clinical Research Information Service.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在评估与常规护理相比,药针疗法治疗慢性颈痛患者的成本效用。

方法

进行了一项为期 12 周、多中心、实用随机对照试验,101 例患有慢性颈痛超过 6 个月的患者被随机分为药针组和常规护理组,分别接受四周的治疗和 12 周的随访观察。采用 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 计算质量调整生命年(QALY)。关于 2019 年的成本,进行了基于社会视角的成本的主要分析,并进行了基于医疗保健视角的成本的额外分析。

结果

与常规护理相比,药针疗法具有更高的 QALY 和稍低的增量成本(从社会视角来看,增量成本为 1157 美元),具有更高的成本效益。在愿意支付(WTP)26374 美元的情况下,药针疗法更具成本效益的概率为 100%。从医疗保健角度来看,药针疗法也具有优势,增量成本较低,为 26 美元。在愿意支付(WTP)26374 美元的情况下,药针疗法更具成本效益的概率为 83.7%。

结论

总的来说,与常规护理相比,药针疗法治疗慢性颈痛更具成本效益,这意味着临床医生和决策者应该考虑新的颈痛治疗方案。

试验注册

编号 NCT04035018(2019 年 7 月 29 日)Clinicaltrials.gov;编号 KCT0004243(2019 年 8 月 26 日)Clinical Research Information Service。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验