Cost-Utility of Group Versus Individual Acupuncture for Cancer-Related Pain Using Quality-Adjusted Life Years in a Noninferiority Trial.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Devesh V Oberoi, Christopher J Longo, Erica Nicole Reed, Jessa Landmann, Katherine-Ann Laura Piedalue, Linda E Carlson
{"title":"Cost-Utility of Group Versus Individual Acupuncture for Cancer-Related Pain Using Quality-Adjusted Life Years in a Noninferiority Trial.","authors":"Devesh V Oberoi,&nbsp;Christopher J Longo,&nbsp;Erica Nicole Reed,&nbsp;Jessa Landmann,&nbsp;Katherine-Ann Laura Piedalue,&nbsp;Linda E Carlson","doi":"10.1089/acm.2020.0386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Individual acupuncture (AP) is the gold standard method of AP delivery for cancer-related pain; however, costs can be prohibitive. Group AP allows four to six patients to be treated in a single session. This study sought to examine the cost-utility of group AP compared with individual AP from a patient perspective. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Effectiveness and cost data from a noninferiority randomized trial of group versus individual AP for cancer-related pain were used. In the trial, 74 patients were randomly assigned to individual or group AP treatments twice per week for 6 weeks. The EuroQol five-dimension five level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) was used to assess health-related quality of life, and the EQ-5D Utility Index was used as a composite measure constituted of five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety-depression, and pain-discomfort). Linear mixed models were used to compare the change in EQ-5D-5L states pre-post intervention between the two arms. A cost-utility analysis was performed in terms of the incremental costs per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Group AP participants experienced more significant relief in the pain-discomfort subscale of the EQ-5D-5L measure compared with individual AP participants (<i>group</i> × <i>time</i>, <i>F</i> = 6.18; <i>p</i> = 0.02). The effect size on pain-discomfort for group AP (<i>d</i> = 0.80) was higher than that of individual AP (<i>d</i> = 0.34). There were no significant differences between the two study arms for other subscales of the EQ-5D-5L over time. QALYs at 6 weeks were slightly higher for group AP (0.020) compared with individual AP (0.007) leading to an incremental QALY gained by the group arm of 0.013, but this difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.07). The cost of delivering AP treatment for the group arm over 6 weeks ($201.25) was nearly half of the individual arm ($400). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Group AP was superior to individual AP in cancer patients. These findings have implications for the use of group AP in low-resource settings and in health care systems where AP for cancer patients is not covered by public health insurance. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03641222). Registered July 10, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03641222.</p>","PeriodicalId":14944,"journal":{"name":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine","volume":"27 5","pages":"390-397"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2020.0386","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Individual acupuncture (AP) is the gold standard method of AP delivery for cancer-related pain; however, costs can be prohibitive. Group AP allows four to six patients to be treated in a single session. This study sought to examine the cost-utility of group AP compared with individual AP from a patient perspective. Materials and Methods: Effectiveness and cost data from a noninferiority randomized trial of group versus individual AP for cancer-related pain were used. In the trial, 74 patients were randomly assigned to individual or group AP treatments twice per week for 6 weeks. The EuroQol five-dimension five level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) was used to assess health-related quality of life, and the EQ-5D Utility Index was used as a composite measure constituted of five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety-depression, and pain-discomfort). Linear mixed models were used to compare the change in EQ-5D-5L states pre-post intervention between the two arms. A cost-utility analysis was performed in terms of the incremental costs per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: Group AP participants experienced more significant relief in the pain-discomfort subscale of the EQ-5D-5L measure compared with individual AP participants (group × time, F = 6.18; p = 0.02). The effect size on pain-discomfort for group AP (d = 0.80) was higher than that of individual AP (d = 0.34). There were no significant differences between the two study arms for other subscales of the EQ-5D-5L over time. QALYs at 6 weeks were slightly higher for group AP (0.020) compared with individual AP (0.007) leading to an incremental QALY gained by the group arm of 0.013, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). The cost of delivering AP treatment for the group arm over 6 weeks ($201.25) was nearly half of the individual arm ($400). Conclusions: Group AP was superior to individual AP in cancer patients. These findings have implications for the use of group AP in low-resource settings and in health care systems where AP for cancer patients is not covered by public health insurance. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03641222). Registered July 10, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03641222.

在一项非劣效性试验中,使用质量调整生命年的群体与个体针灸治疗癌症相关疼痛的成本效用。
个体化针灸(AP)是治疗癌症相关疼痛的金标准方法;然而,成本可能令人望而却步。AP组允许在一次治疗中治疗4 - 6名患者。本研究试图从患者的角度来比较群体AP与个体AP的成本-效用。材料和方法:使用了一项非劣效性随机试验的有效性和成本数据,该试验是分组与个体AP治疗癌症相关疼痛。在试验中,74名患者被随机分配到每周两次的单独或组AP治疗,持续6周。EuroQol五维五水平问卷(EQ-5D- 5l)用于评估健康相关生活质量,EQ-5D效用指数作为由五个领域(行动能力、自我护理、日常活动、焦虑-抑郁和疼痛-不适)组成的复合测量。采用线性混合模型比较两组干预前后EQ-5D-5L状态的变化。根据每增加一个质量调整寿命年(QALY)的增量成本进行了成本效用分析。结果:AP组受试者在EQ-5D-5L测量的疼痛-不适亚量表上比AP个体受试者有更显著的缓解(组×时间,F = 6.18;p = 0.02)。AP组疼痛不适的效应量(d = 0.80)高于AP个体(d = 0.34)。随着时间的推移,EQ-5D-5L的其他分量表在两个研究组之间没有显著差异。6周时,AP组的QALY(0.020)略高于AP个体(0.007),导致组组的QALY增加0.013,但这种差异无统计学意义(p = 0.07)。在6周的时间里,给组组提供AP治疗的费用(201.25美元)几乎是单个组(400美元)的一半。结论:在肿瘤患者中,AP组优于单个AP组。这些发现对在低资源环境和公共健康保险不包括癌症患者AP的卫生保健系统中使用群体AP具有启示意义。ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03641222)。2018年7月10日注册-追溯注册,https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03641222。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of alternative and complementary medicine
Journal of alternative and complementary medicine 医学-全科医学与补充医学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine: Paradigm, Practice, and Policy Advancing Integrative Health is the leading peer-reviewed journal providing scientific research for the evaluation and integration of complementary and alternative medicine into mainstream medical practice. The Journal delivers original research that directly impacts patient care therapies, protocols, and strategies, ultimately improving the quality of healing. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine coverage includes: -Botanical Medicine -Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine -Other Traditional Medicine Practices -Mind-Body Medicine -Nutrition and Dietary Supplements -Integrative Health / Medicine -Yoga -Ayurveda -Naturopathy -Creative Arts Therapies -Integrative Whole Systems / Whole Practices -Homeopathy -Tai Chi -Qi Gong -Massage Therapy -Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine -Integrative Cost Studies / Comparative Effectiveness -Neurostimulation -Integrative Biophysics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信