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
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
WRAP_Frost_surgical_Stabilisation.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38441.429618.8F
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|
|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|
|Official Date:||23 May 2005|
|Number of Pages:||7|
|Page Range:||pp. 1239-1243|
|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)|
1 Maniadakis N, Gray A. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain 2000;84:95-
Actions (login required)