PDF(Pubmed)
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.
BACKGROUND: Number NCT04035018 (29/07/2019) Clinicaltrials.gov; Number KCT0004243 (26/08/2019) Clinical Research Information Service.
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.
BACKGROUND: Number NCT04035018 (29/07/2019) Clinicaltrials.gov; Number KCT0004243 (26/08/2019) Clinical Research Information Service.
摘要：
背景：本研究旨在评估慢性颈痛患者药物穿刺与常规治疗的成本效用。
方法：12周，多中心，进行了务实的随机对照试验，将101例慢性颈部疼痛超过6个月的患者随机分为药物穿刺组和常规治疗组,接受4周的治疗和12周的随访观察.使用EQ-5D和SF-6D计算质量调整生命年(QALY)。关于2019年的成本，对社会视角成本进行了初步分析，并对医疗保健角度成本进行了额外分析.
结果：与常规护理相比，药物穿刺更优,因为从社会角度来看,它显示出略高的QALY和较低的增量成本1,157美元.在26,374美元的支付意愿（WTP）下，药物穿刺更具成本效益的可能性为100％。从医疗保健的角度来看，药物穿刺也是优越的，增加的成本较低，为26美元。药物穿刺在WTP为26,374美元时更具成本效益的可能性为83.7%。
结论：总体而言，与常规治疗相比，慢性颈痛的药物穿刺更具成本效益，这意味着临床医生和政策制定者应该考虑新的颈部疼痛治疗方案。
背景：编号NCT04035018（29/07/2019）Clinicaltrials.gov；编号KCT0004243（26/08/2019）临床研究信息服务。
方法：12周，多中心，进行了务实的随机对照试验，将101例慢性颈部疼痛超过6个月的患者随机分为药物穿刺组和常规治疗组,接受4周的治疗和12周的随访观察.使用EQ-5D和SF-6D计算质量调整生命年(QALY)。关于2019年的成本，对社会视角成本进行了初步分析，并对医疗保健角度成本进行了额外分析.
结果：与常规护理相比，药物穿刺更优,因为从社会角度来看,它显示出略高的QALY和较低的增量成本1,157美元.在26,374美元的支付意愿（WTP）下，药物穿刺更具成本效益的可能性为100％。从医疗保健的角度来看，药物穿刺也是优越的，增加的成本较低，为26美元。药物穿刺在WTP为26,374美元时更具成本效益的可能性为83.7%。
结论：总体而言，与常规治疗相比，慢性颈痛的药物穿刺更具成本效益，这意味着临床医生和政策制定者应该考虑新的颈部疼痛治疗方案。
背景：编号NCT04035018（29/07/2019）Clinicaltrials.gov；编号KCT0004243（26/08/2019）临床研究信息服务。
