Spine Stabilisation Trial Group (Including: Rivero-Arias, Oliver, Campbell, Helen, Gray, Alastair, 1953-, Fairbank, Jeremy, Frost, Helen and Wilson-MacDonald, James). (2005) Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain : cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. BMJ, Vol.330 (No.7502). pp. 1239-1243. ISSN 0959-8146

Preview

PDF WRAP_Frost_surgical_Stabilisation.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (153Kb)

Abstract

Objective To determine whether from a health provider and patient perspective, surgical stabilisation of the spine is cost effective when compared with an intensive programme of rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain. Design Economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting Secondary care. Participants 349 patients randomised to surgery (n =176) or to an intensive rehabilitation programme (n = 173) from 15 centres across the United Kingdom between June 1996 and February 2002. Main outcome measures Costs related to back pain and incurred by the NHS and patients up to 24 months after randomisation. Return to paid employment and total hours worked. Patient utility as estimated by using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire at several time points and used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost per QALY. Results At two years, 38 patients randomised to rehabilitation had received rehabilitation and surgery whereas just seven surgery patients received had both treatments. The mean total cost per patient was estimated to be 7830 pound (SD 5202) pound in the surgery group and 4526 pound (SD 4155) pound in the intensive rehabilitation arm, a significant difference of 3304 pound (95% confidence interval 2317 pound to 4291) pound. Mean QALYs over the trial period were 1.004 (SD 0.405) in the surgery group and 0.936 (SD 0.43 1) in the intensive rehabilitation group, giving a non-significant difference of 0.068 (- 0.020 to 0.156). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was estimated to be A:48 588 per QALY gained (- 279 pound 883 to 372 pound 406). Conclusion Two year follow-up data show that surgical stabilisation of the spine may not be a cost effective use of scarce healthcare resources. However, sensitivity analyses show that this could change-for example, if the proportion of rehabilitation patients requiring subsequent surgery continues to increase.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Backache -- Treatment -- Cost effectiveness, Chronic pain -- Treatment -- Cost effectiveness, Spine -- Surgery -- Cost effectiveness
Journal or Publication Title:	BMJ
Publisher:	BMJ Group
ISSN:	0959-8146
Date:	23 May 2005
Volume:	Vol.330
Number:	No.7502
Number of Pages:	7
Page Range:	pp. 1239-1243
Identification Number:	10.1136/bmj.38441.429618.8F
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	Medical Research Council (Great Britain) (MRC), National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development (Great Britain), Synthes (Firm)
References:	1 Maniadakis N, Gray A. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain 2000;84:95- 103. 2 BUPA. Health information, ABC of health, back pain. http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/ mosby_factsheets/backpain.html (accessed 8 Apr 2005). 3 Fritzell P, Hägg P,Wessburg P, Nordwall A. 2001 Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. A multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish lumbar spine group. Spine 2001;26:2521-34. 4 Moller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis—a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine 2000;25:1711-5. 5 Brox JI, Sorensen R, Friis A, Nygaard O, Indahl A, Keller A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine 2003;28:1913-21. 6 Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, Yu L, Barker K, Collins R, for the Spine Stabilisation Trial Group. The MRC spine stabilisation trial: a randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine versus an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain. BMJ 2005;330: (in press, May 28 issue). 7 Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-3. 8 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine 2000;25:2940-52. 9 EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208. 10 Netten A, Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2003. 11 MASS Group. Multicentre aneurysm screening study (MASS): cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms based on four year results from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002;325:1135-41. 12 Dion P. The cost of anaesthetic vapours. Can J Anaesthesia 1992;39:633. 13 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The health service financial database and comparative tool. Croydon: Institute of Public Finance, 2000. 14 Mallender Hancock Associates (MHA). National average specialty treatment and hotel costs. London: Department of Health, 1998. 15 Information Services Division NHS Scotland. The cost book 2003. www.isdscotland.org/ isd/info3.jsp?p_service = Content.show&pContentID = 360&p_applic = CCC& (accessed 1 Jul 2004). 16 Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2003. Wetherby: DoH, 2004. 17 Bulman J. Patterns of pay: results of the 2003 new earnings survey. In: Labour Market Trends. Newport,Wales: Office for National Statistics, 2003:601-12. 18 Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996;5:141-54. 19 Great Britain H.M. Treasury. Green book, appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: Stationery Office, 2003. 20 Van Buuren S, Boshuizen H, Knook D. Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med 2000;18:681-94. 21 Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327-40. 22 Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Costs, effects and the C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994;3:309-19. 23 Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004;329:224-7. 24 Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson D, Nordwall A. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish lumbar spine study: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2004;29:421-34. 25 Skouen JS, Gradsal AL, Haldorsen EM, Ursin H. Relative cost-effectiveness of extensive and light multidisciplinary treatment programs versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic low back pain on long term sick leave: randomized controlled study. Spine 2002;27:901-9. 26 Kuntz KM, Snider RK, Weinstein JN, Pope MH, Katz JN. Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 2000;25:1132-9.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/7029

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item