Dataset Information

Cost-Utility Analysis of Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care for Chronic Neck Pain: A Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy and usual care for patients with chronic neck pain. A cost-utility analysis alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted in five South Korean hospitals. Data were procured from surveys and nationally representative data. Participants were 108 patients aged between 19 and 60 years, with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months and a pain intensity score of ≥5 on the numerical rating scale in the last 3 days. The study was conducted for 1 year, including 5 weeks of intervention and additional observational periods. Participants were divided into a manual therapy (Chuna) group and a usual care group, and quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. The quality-adjusted life-years of the manual therapy group were 0.024 higher than that of the usual care group. From the societal perspective, manual therapy incurred a lower cost-at $2,131-and was, therefore, the more cost-effective intervention. From a healthcare system perspective, the cost of manual therapy was higher, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio amount of $11,217. Manual therapy is more cost-effective for non-specific chronic neck pain management from both a healthcare system and societal perspective.

SUBMITTER: Ha IH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9131099 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Utility Analysis of Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care for Chronic Neck Pain: A Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Ha In-Hyuk IH Kim Eun-San ES Lee Sook-Hyun SH Lee Yoon Jae YJ Song Hyun Jin HJ Kim Younhee Y Kim Koh-Woon KW Cho Jae-Heung JH Lee Jun-Hwan JH Shin Byung-Cheul BC Lee Jinho J Shin Joon-Shik JS

Frontiers in medicine 20220511

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy and usual care for patients with chronic neck pain. A cost-utility analysis alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted in five South Korean hospitals. Data were procured from surveys and nationally representative data. Participants were 108 patients aged between 19 and 60 years, with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months and a pain intensity score of ≥5 on the numerical rating scale in the last ...[more]

PMID: 35646995

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe incidence rate of neck pain is increasing worldwide, and the disease is associated with a high social burden. Manual therapy has been widely applied in the treatment of neck pain, but a high-quality, pragmatic randomized clinical trial for this treatment has not been conducted to date.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy with that of usual care for patients with chronic neck pain.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted between October 18, 2017, and June 28, 2019. This intention-to-treat analysis included 108 patients with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months; patients were recruited from 5 hospitals in Korea.InterventionsTen sessions (2 sessions per week for 5 weeks) of Chuna manual therapy or usual care (electrotherapy and oral medication) were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the difference in visual analog scale (VAS) score for chronic neck pain between baseline and 5 weeks after randomization.ResultsThis randomized clinical trial recruited 108 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [9.3] years; 73 women [67.6%]). Fifty-four patients were allocated to the Chuna therapy group, and 54 received usual care. At 5 weeks after randomization, manual therapy showed statistically superior results compared with usual care in terms of pain (difference in chronic neck pain VAS, 16.8 mm; 95% CI, 10.1-23.5 mm), function (difference in Neck Disability Index, 8.6%; 95% CI, 4.2%-13.1%), and quality of life (difference in the European Quality of Life-5 Dimension 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) scores, -0.07 points; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02 points). Regarding the 1-year cumulative values measured using area under the curve analyses, superior outcomes were attained in the manual therapy group in terms of the numerical rating scale for chronic neck pain (1.3 points; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0 points), Neck Disability Index (6.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.9%), Neck Pain Questionnaire (7.4%; 95% CI, 2.3%-12.6%), and EQ-5D-5L scores (-0.03 points; -0.07 to 0.00 points).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03294785.

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain is a highly prevalent medical condition that incurs substantial social burden. Although manual therapy is widely used for treatment of neck pain, the body of evidence supporting its effectiveness and safety is not conclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the effect, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy, a traditional Korean manual therapy for treatment of various musculoskeletal complaints.Methods/designThis study is the protocol for a two-armed parallel, assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. A total 108 patients with chronic neck pain (time to onset ≥ 3 months, numeric rating scale [NRS] of neck pain ≥ 5) will be recruited at five Korean medicine hospital sites. Participants will be allotted to one of two groups (n = 54, respectively): the Chuna manual therapy group, and the usual care (conventional physical therapy and medication treatment) group. Ten sessions of Chuna manual therapy or usual care will be administered twice a week for five weeks. Since the study design does not permit patient or physician blinding, the outcome assessor and statistician will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the visual analogue scale (VAS) of neck pain at 5 weeks after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the VAS of radiating arm pain, NRS of neck pain and radiating arm pain, Vernon-Mior neck disability index (NDI), Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), EQ-VAS, patient global impression of change (PGIC), economic evaluation, adverse effects, and drug consumption. Follow-up outcome assessments will be conducted at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization.DiscussionThis study will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy and usual care on chronic neck pain. Adverse events, and costs and effectiveness (utility) data will be evaluated to assess safety and exploratory cost-effectiveness (economic evaluation). This study aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy.Trial registrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS), KCT0002732 . Registered on 13 March 2018. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03294785 . Registered on 27 September 2017.

Project description:BackgroundChronic neck pain is a highly prevalent condition. Learning a relaxation technique is recommended by numerous guidelines for chronic neck pain. Smartphone apps can provide relaxation exercises; however, their effectiveness, especially in a self-care setting, is unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this pragmatic randomized trial is to evaluate whether app-based relaxation exercises, including audio-based autogenic training, mindfulness meditation, or guided imagery, are more effective in reducing chronic neck pain than usual care alone.MethodsSmartphone owners aged 18 to 65 years with chronic (>12 weeks) neck pain and the previous week's average neck pain intensity ≥4 on the Numeric Rating Scale (0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain) were randomized into either an intervention group to practice app-based relaxation exercises or a control group (usual care and app for data entry only). For both groups, the follow-up data were collected using app-based diaries and questionnaires. The primary outcome was the mean neck pain intensity during the first 3 months based on daily measurements. Secondary outcomes included neck pain based on weekly measurements, pain acceptance, neck pain-related stress, sick-leave days, pain medication intake, and adherence, which were all measured until the 6-month follow-up. For the primary analysis, analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline neck pain intensity was used.ResultsWe screened 748 participants and enrolled 220 participants (mean age 38.9, SD 11.3 years; mean baseline neck pain 5.7, SD 1.3 points). The mean neck pain intensity in both groups decreased over 3 months; however, no statistically significant difference between the groups was found (intervention: 4.1 points, 95% CI 3.8-4.4; control: 3.8 points, 95% CI 3.5-4.1; group difference: 0.3 points, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.7; P=.23). In addition, no statistically significant between-group differences regarding neck pain intensity after 6 months, responder rate, pain acceptance, pain medication intake, or sick-leave days were observed. There were no serious adverse events that were considered related to the trial intervention. In week 12, only 40% (44/110) of the participants in the intervention group continued to practice the exercises with the app.ConclusionsThe study app did not effectively reduce chronic neck pain or keep the participants engaged in exercising in a self-care setting. Future studies on app-based relaxation interventions should take into account the most recent scientific findings for behavior change techniques.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02019134; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02019134.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/1745-6215-15-490.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a challenging disease whose prevalence has increased over the last decades. Non-pharmacological therapies such as pulmonary rehabilitation occupy a core position in patient management. Among these therapies, manual therapy reduces symptoms and increases exercise capacity targeting musculoskeletal problems. Chuna, a traditional Korean manual therapy, has improved pulmonary disorders in clinical practice but unfortunately has not had its effects reported. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy, focused on the use of Chuna in the management of COPD patients. METHODS:The following databases will be used in this study: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Database (CNKI), KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database (KMbase), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS). The primary outcome comprises lung function and exercise capacity. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, quality of life, and adverse events. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the searched studies, determine if they are suitable for inclusion, and perform data extraction. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. When appropriate, data will be pooled across studies for meta-analysis using a fixed or random effects model. When quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, the evidence will be summarized qualitatively. RESULTS:This study will provide a comprehensive review of the available evidence to assess the efficacy of Chuna for COPD patients. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated electronically and in print. CONCLUSIONS:This study will provide high-quality current evidence for evaluation the efficacy of Chuna for patients with COPD. Clinicians, patients and policy makers may find this review useful in making decisions regarding the use of Chuna for patients with COPD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019141150.

Project description:BackgroundLow back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.MethodsThe two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.ConclusionsOur results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Dataset Information

Cost-Utility Analysis of Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care for Chronic Neck Pain: A Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Cost-Utility Analysis of Chuna Manual Therapy and Usual Care for Chronic Neck Pain: A Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets