International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2018
EXPOSURE IN VIVO VERSUS PAIN-CONTINGENT PHYSICAL THERAPY IN COMPLEX REGIONAL PAIN SYNDROME TYPE I: A COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
den Hollander Marlies, Heijnders Noortje, de Jong Jeroen R, Vlaeyen Johan W S, Smeets Rob J E M, Goossens Mariëlle E J B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exposure in vivo (EXP, a cognitive-behavioral treatment targeting pain-related fear) in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I (CRPS-I), as compared to pain-contingent physical therapy (PPT).
METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of EXP versus PPT from a societal perspective. Intervention costs, other healthcare costs, costs to patient and family, and productivity losses were included. The main outcomes were changes in the SF-36 physical component scale and quality-adjusted life-years. Changes were followed until 6 months after treatment. Uncertainty was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap analysis, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check robustness of findings.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients were randomized and thirty-eight completed the study. Over 6 months, EXP resulted in greater improvement in physical health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years than PPT. Despite higher initial treatment costs, EXP showed a tendency to reduce all costs compared with PPT; healthcare costs were significantly reduced. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness planes were in favor of EXP. Sensitivity analyses, for different program costs and complete cases only, confirmed robustness of these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: EXP, a cognitive-behavioral treatment, seems more cost-effective than PPT in CRPS patients with pain-related fear. The initial higher costs for EXP are offset by a long-term reduction of costs for healthcare use, and a tendency to lower work absenteeism and reduced societal costs. Due to low sample sizes, replication of findings is required to confirm results.
METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of EXP versus PPT from a societal perspective. Intervention costs, other healthcare costs, costs to patient and family, and productivity losses were included. The main outcomes were changes in the SF-36 physical component scale and quality-adjusted life-years. Changes were followed until 6 months after treatment. Uncertainty was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap analysis, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check robustness of findings.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients were randomized and thirty-eight completed the study. Over 6 months, EXP resulted in greater improvement in physical health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years than PPT. Despite higher initial treatment costs, EXP showed a tendency to reduce all costs compared with PPT; healthcare costs were significantly reduced. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness planes were in favor of EXP. Sensitivity analyses, for different program costs and complete cases only, confirmed robustness of these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: EXP, a cognitive-behavioral treatment, seems more cost-effective than PPT in CRPS patients with pain-related fear. The initial higher costs for EXP are offset by a long-term reduction of costs for healthcare use, and a tendency to lower work absenteeism and reduced societal costs. Due to low sample sizes, replication of findings is required to confirm results.