Implementing stratified primary care management for low back pain: cost utility analysis alongside a prospective, population-based, sequential comparison study

STUDY DESIGN: Within-study cost-utility analysis. OBJECTIVE:To explore the cost-utility of implementing stratified care for low back pain (LBP) in general practice, compared with usual care, within risk-defined patient subgroups (that is, patients at low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling pain). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Individual-level data collected alongside a prospective, sequential comparison of separate patient cohorts with 6-month follow-up. METHODS: Adopting a cost-utility framework, the base case analysis estimated the incremental LBP-related health care cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) by risk subgroup. QALYs were constructed from responses to the 3-level EQ-5D, a preference-based health-related quality of life instrument. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses examined alternative methodological approaches, including a complete case analysis, the incorporation of non-back pain-related health care use and estimation of societal costs relating to work absence. RESULTS: Stratified care was a dominant treatment strategy compared with usual care for patients at high risk, with mean health care cost savings of £124 and an incremental QALY estimate of 0.023. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources for patients at low and medium risk is no greater than 60% irrespective of a decision makers' willingness-to-pay for additional QALYs. Patients at medium and high risk of persistent disability in paid employment at 6-month follow-up reported, on average, 6 fewer days of LBP-related work absence in the stratified care cohort compared with usual care (associated societal cost savings per employed patient of £736 and £652, respectively). CONCLUSION: At the observed level of adherence to screening tool recommendations for matched treatments, stratified care for LBP is cost-effective for patients at high risk of persistent disabling LBP only. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.The IMPaCT Back study was funded by the Health Foundation (grant code: 346/4540) with support from the National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) Primary Care Research Network-North West, the Keele Academic General Practice Partnership and the Primary Care Musculoskeletal Research Consortium. NEF was supported, in part, by a National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development (NCCRCD) Primary Care Career Scientist Award and is currently supported by an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Fulltext/2015/03150/Implementing_Stratified_Primary_Care_Management.14.aspx

A randomised clinical trial of subgrouping and targeted treatment for low back pain compared with best current care. The STarT Back Trial Study Protocol

Back pain is a major health problem and many sufferers develop persistent symptoms. Detecting relevant subgroups of patients with non-specific low back pain has been highlighted as a priority area for research, as this could enable better secondary prevention through the targeting of prognostic indicators for persistent, disabling symptoms. We plan to conduct a randomised controlled trial to establish whether subgrouping using a novel tool, combined with targeted treatment, is better than best current care at reducing long-term disability from low back pain

Exclusion criteria in national health state valuation studies : a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Health state valuation data are often excluded from studies that aim to provide a nationally representative set of values for preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. The purpose was to provide a systematic examination of exclusion criteria used in the derivation of societal scoring algorithms for preference-based HRQoL instruments. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, official instrument websites, and publication reference lists. Analyses that used data from national valuation studies and reported a scoring algorithm for a generic preference-based HRQoL instrument were included. Data extraction included exclusion criteria and associated justifications, exclusion rates, the characteristics of excluded respondents, and analyses that explored consequential implications of exclusion criteria on the respective national tariff. RESULTS: Seventy-six analyses (from 70 papers) met the inclusion criteria. In addition to being excluded for logical inconsistencies, respondents were often excluded if they valued fewer than 3 health states or if they gave the same value to all health states. Numerous other exclusion criteria were identified, with varying degrees of justification, often based on an assumption that respondents did not understand the task or as a consequence of the chosen statistical modeling techniques. Rates of exclusion ranged from 0% to 65%, with excluded respondents more likely to be older, less educated, and less healthy. Limitations included that the database search was confined to MEDLINE; study selection focused on national valuation studies that used standard gamble, time tradeoff, and/or visual analog scale techniques; and only English-language studies were included. CONCLUSION: Exclusion criteria used in national valuation studies vary considerably. Further consideration is necessary in this important and influential area of research, from the design stage to the reporting of results

Self management, joint protection and exercises in hand osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial with cost effectiveness analyses

Background: There is limited evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of occupational therapy (OT) approaches in the management of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Joint protection and hand exercises have been proposed by European guidelines, however the clinical and cost effectiveness of each intervention is unknown. This multicentre two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial aims to address the following questions: • Is joint protection delivered by an OT more effective in reducing hand pain and disability than no joint protection in people with hand OA in primary care? • Are hand exercises delivered by an OT more effective in reducing hand pain and disability than no hand exercises in people with hand OA in primary care? • Which of the four management approaches explored within the study (leaflet and advice, joint protection, hand exercise, or joint protection and hand exercise combined) provides the most cost-effective use of health care resources Methods/Design: Participants aged 50 years and over registered at three general practices in North Staffordshire and Cheshire will be mailed a health survey questionnaire (estimated mailing sample n = 9,500). Those fulfilling the eligibility criteria on the health survey questionnaire will be invited to attend a clinical assessment to assess for the presence of hand or thumb base OA using the ACR criteria. Eligible participants will be randomised to one of four groups: leaflet and advice; joint protection (looking after your joints); hand exercises; or joint protection and hand exercises combined (estimated n = 252). The primary outcome measure will be the OARSI/OMERACT responder criteria combining hand pain and disability (measured using the AUSCAN) and global improvement, 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes will also be collected for example pain, functional limitation and quality of life. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. The main analysis will be on an intention to treat basis and will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of joint protection and hand exercises for managing hand OA. Discussion: The findings will improve the cost-effective evidence based management of hand OA

Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundBack pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).Methods1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.Findings851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06–2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25–1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19–0·45) and 0·19 (0·04–0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group.InterpretationThe results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.FundingArthritis Research UK