MedElevator
Войти в исследования Physical therapy · 2011
Cost-effectiveness of acupuncture care as an adjunct to exercise-based physical therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Whitehurst David G T, Bryan Stirling, Hay Elaine M, Thomas Elaine, Young Julie, Foster Nadine E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The delivery of acupuncture alongside mainstream interventions and the cost-effectiveness of "alternative" treatments remain areas of controversy.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of adding acupuncture to a course of advice and exercise delivered by UK National Health Service (NHS) physical therapists to people with osteoarthritis of the knee.
DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: A total of 352 adults (aged 50 years or older) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 interventions. The primary analysis focused on participants receiving advice and exercise (AE) or advice and exercise plus true acupuncture (AE+TA). A secondary analysis considered participants receiving advice and exercise plus nonpenetrating acupuncture (AE+NPA). The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured by the EQ-5D, and UK NHS costs.
RESULTS: were expressed as the incremental cost per QALY gained over 12 months. Sensitivity analyses included a broader cost perspective to incorporate private out-of-pocket costs. Results NHS costs were higher for AE+TA (£314 [British pounds sterling]) than for AE alone (£229), and the difference in mean QALYs favored AE+TA (mean difference=0.022). The base-case cost per QALY gained was £3,889; this value was associated with a 77% probability that AE+TA would be more cost-effective than AE at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Cost-utility data for AE+NPA provided cost-effectiveness estimates similar to those for AE+TA.
LIMITATIONS: As with all trial-based economic evaluations, caution should be exercised when generalizing results beyond the study perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS: A package of AE+TA delivered by NHS physical therapists provided a cost-effective use of health care resources despite an associated increase in costs. However, the economic benefits could not be attributed to the penetrating nature of conventional acupuncture; therefore, further research regarding the mechanisms of acupuncture is needed. An analysis of alternative cost perspectives suggested that the results are generalizable to other health care settings.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of adding acupuncture to a course of advice and exercise delivered by UK National Health Service (NHS) physical therapists to people with osteoarthritis of the knee.
DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: A total of 352 adults (aged 50 years or older) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 interventions. The primary analysis focused on participants receiving advice and exercise (AE) or advice and exercise plus true acupuncture (AE+TA). A secondary analysis considered participants receiving advice and exercise plus nonpenetrating acupuncture (AE+NPA). The main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured by the EQ-5D, and UK NHS costs.
RESULTS: were expressed as the incremental cost per QALY gained over 12 months. Sensitivity analyses included a broader cost perspective to incorporate private out-of-pocket costs. Results NHS costs were higher for AE+TA (£314 [British pounds sterling]) than for AE alone (£229), and the difference in mean QALYs favored AE+TA (mean difference=0.022). The base-case cost per QALY gained was £3,889; this value was associated with a 77% probability that AE+TA would be more cost-effective than AE at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Cost-utility data for AE+NPA provided cost-effectiveness estimates similar to those for AE+TA.
LIMITATIONS: As with all trial-based economic evaluations, caution should be exercised when generalizing results beyond the study perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS: A package of AE+TA delivered by NHS physical therapists provided a cost-effective use of health care resources despite an associated increase in costs. However, the economic benefits could not be attributed to the penetrating nature of conventional acupuncture; therefore, further research regarding the mechanisms of acupuncture is needed. An analysis of alternative cost perspectives suggested that the results are generalizable to other health care settings.