Open AccessCost-effectiveness of acupuncture versus standard care for pelvic and low back pain in pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Stephanie Nicolian,
Thibault Butel,
Laëtitia Gambotti,
Ma Durand,
Antoine Filipović-Pierucci,
Alain Mallet,
M Koné,
Isabelle DurandZaleski,
Marc Dommergues
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0214195
Subject(s) - medicine , acupuncture , physical therapy , randomized controlled trial , presenteeism , health care , absenteeism , cost effectiveness , population , indirect costs , pregnancy , randomization , surgery , alternative medicine , risk analysis (engineering) , business , management , accounting , pathology , biology , economics , genetics , economic growth , environmental health
Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture for pelvic girdle and low back pain (PGLBP) during pregnancy. Design Pragmatic-open-label randomised controlled trial. Setting Five maternity hospitals Population Pregnant women with PGLBP Method 1:1 randomization to standard care or standard care plus acupuncture (5 sessions by an acupuncturist midwife). Main outcome measure Efficacy: proportion of days with self-assessed pain by numerical rating scale (NRS) ≤ 4/10. Cost effectiveness (societal viewpoint, time horizon: pregnancy): incremental cost per days with NRS ≤ 4/10. Indirect non-healthcare costs included daily compensations for sick leave and productivity loss caused by absenteeism or presenteeism. Results 96 women were allocated to acupuncture and 103 to standard care (total 199). The proportion of days with NRS ≤ 4/10 was greater in the acupuncture group than in the standard care group (61% vs 48%, p = 0.007). The mean Oswestry disability score was lower in the acupuncture group than with standard care alone (33 versus 38, Δ = 5, 95% CI: 0.8 to 9, p = 0.02). Average total costs were higher in the control group (€2947) than in the acupuncture group (€2635, Δ = —€312, 95% CI: -966 to +325), resulting from the higher indirect costs of absenteeism and presenteeism. Acupuncture was a dominant strategy when both healthcare and non-healthcare costs were included. Costs for the health system (employer and out-of-pocket costs excluded) were slightly higher for acupuncture (€1512 versus €1452, Δ = €60, 95% CI: -272 to +470). Conclusion Acupuncture was a dominant strategy when accounting for employer costs. A 100% probability of cost-effectiveness was obtained for a willingness to pay of €100 per days with pain NRS ≤ 4.