Dataset Information

An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS).

ABSTRACT: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture and usual care, and Alexander Technique lessons and usual care, compared with usual GP care alone for chronic neck pain patients.An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside the ATLAS trial, taking both NHS and wider societal viewpoints. Participants were offered up to twelve acupuncture sessions or twenty Alexander lessons (equivalent overall contact time). Costs were in pounds sterling. Effectiveness was measured using the generic EQ-5D to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as using a specific neck pain measure-the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ).In the base case analysis, incremental QALY gains were 0.032 and 0.025 in the acupuncture and Alexander groups, respectively, in comparison to usual GP care, indicating moderate health benefits for both interventions. Incremental costs were £451 for acupuncture and £667 for Alexander, mainly driven by intervention costs. Acupuncture was likely to be cost-effective (ICER = £18,767/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI £4,426 to £74,562) and was robust to most sensitivity analyses. Alexander lessons were not cost-effective at the lower NICE threshold of £20,000/QALY (£25,101/QALY bootstrapped 95% CI -£150,208 to £248,697) but may be at £30,000/QALY, however, there was considerable statistical uncertainty in all tested scenarios.In comparison with usual care, acupuncture is likely to be cost-effective for chronic neck pain, whereas, largely due to higher intervention costs, Alexander lessons are unlikely to be cost-effective. However, there were high levels of missing data and further research is needed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

SUBMITTER: Essex H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5718562 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS).

Essex Holly H Parrott Steve S Atkin Karl K Ballard Kathleen K Bland Martin M Eldred Janet J Hewitt Catherine C Hopton Ann A Keding Ada A Lansdown Harriet H Richmond Stewart S Tilbrook Helen H Torgerson David D Watt Ian I Wenham Aniela A Woodman Julia J MacPherson Hugh H

PloS one 20171206 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture and usual care, and Alexander Technique lessons and usual care, compared with usual GP care alone for chronic neck pain patients.<h4>Methods</h4>An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside the ATLAS trial, taking both NHS and wider societal viewpoints. Participants were offered up to twelve acupuncture sessions or twenty Alexander lessons (equivalent overall contact time). Costs were in pounds sterling. Effectiveness was meas ...[more]

PMID: 29211741

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to provide evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of abdominal acupuncture for neck pain.MethodsThis randomized, patient and assessor-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted at a Chinese medicine center in Hong Kong between November 2014 and March 2016. A total of 154 eligible participants (age range, 18-65 years) with neck pain were randomly assigned to receive abdominal (n = 77) or non-penetrating sham abdominal (sham group; n = 77) acupuncture. Each participant was administered treatment over six sessions by Registered Chinese Medicine Practitioners, in accordance with a standardized protocol. The primary outcome was mean improvement in neck pain disability scores evaluated by the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Secondary outcomes included intensity of neck pain and health-related quality-of-life measures. The outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 2 and 6 weeks from baseline. Patients in the abdominal acupuncture group received additional follow-up evaluation at 14 weeks from baseline. Outcomes were evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsAll participants provided informed consent for treatment and follow-up evaluation. Patients who received abdominal acupuncture exhibited greater improvement in NPQ scores than those who received sham treatment at both 2 and 6 weeks from baseline (intergroup mean differences, -5.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.48 to -2.03; P = 0.008 and -8.65; 95% CI, -12.13 to -5.16; P < 0.001, respectively). The improvement in NPQ scores in the abdominal acupuncture group was even more significant at 14 weeks from baseline. Patients in the abdominal acupuncture group also exhibited significantly greater improvements in intensity of neck pain and a few quality-of-life measures than those in the sham abdominal acupuncture group, without any serious adverse events.ConclusionThese findings suggest that abdominal acupuncture is an effective alternative treatment for neck pain.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-TRC-14004932.

Project description:BackgroundIn prospective experimental studies of neck pain patients, it is difficult to determine whether responses to sham acupuncture differ from responses to real acupuncture due to the heterogeneous methodologies in control/sham interventions. Here we aim to compare the specific and nonspecific effects of electroacupuncture with four types of sham acupuncture.MethodsIn this double-blind, sham-controlled study, we randomly assigned 175 patients with neck pain to receive 10 sessions of electroacupuncture, shallow puncture, nonacupoint deep puncture, nonacupoint shallow puncture, or nonpenetration acupuncture. We used the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) as our primary outcome, and Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS), and Pain Threshold as secondary outcomes to measure the changes from baseline to a 3-month follow up.ResultsAll groups, except nonacupoint shallow puncture, had significant improvement in all outcome measurements. Electroacupuncture only showed superior improvements than the shallow puncture, nonacupoint shallow puncture, and nonpenetration groups when compared using the NPQ and VAS scale (*p < 0.001). Interestingly, the nonacupoint shallow puncture produced even less placebo response than nonpenetration acupuncture.ConclusionOur study demonstrates the high variability of placebo response among different types of sham controls depending on the depth of needle insertion and the puncture location. An important implication of our results is nonacupoint deep puncture produced similar analgesic effects as electroacupuncture. Our study may shed a new light on the predominant underlying mechanisms among different types of sham acupuncture controls, which can help with interpreting the effect of acupuncture in other studies.Trial registrationChinese clinical trial registry (ChiCTR-IOR-15006886).SignificanceThis study compared the observed specific and nonspecific analgesia effect in four different types of sham acupuncture stimulation with neck pain patients, assessed by four outcomes. Although all of the sham controls produced significant reduction in neck pain, electroacupuncture had superior significant improvement. Importantly, placebo responses differed significantly between the sham controls and responses were inconsistent according to different outcome assessments. This study emphasizes the importance of taking into consideration which sham control and method of outcome measurement were used in a pain research study when evaluating its results.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is increasingly being used for many conditions including chronic neck pain. However the evidence remains inconclusive, indicating the need for further well-designed research. The aim of this study was to conduct a pilot randomised controlled parallel arm trial, to establish key features required for the design and implementation of a large-scale trial on acupuncture for chronic neck pain. METHODS: Patients whose GPs had diagnosed neck pain were recruited from one general practice, and randomised to receive usual GP care only, or acupuncture (up to 10 treatments over 3 months) as an adjunctive treatment to usual GP care. The primary outcome measure was the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) at 3 months. The primary analysis was to determine the sample size for the full scale study. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients with neck pain identified from the GP database, 28 (12.3%) consenting patients were eligible to participate in the pilot and 24 (10.5%) were recruited to the trial. Ten patients were randomised to acupuncture, receiving an average of eight treatments from one of four acupuncturists, and 14 were randomised to usual GP care alone. The sample size for the full scale trial was calculated from a clinically meaningful difference of 5% on the NPQ and, from this pilot, an adjusted standard deviation of 15.3%. Assuming 90% power at the 5% significance level, a sample size of 229 would be required in each arm in a large-scale trial when allowing for a loss to follow-up rate of 14%. In order to achieve this sample, one would need to identify patients from databases of GP practices with a total population of 230,000 patients, or approximately 15 GP practices roughly equal in size to the one involved in this study (i.e. 15,694 patients). CONCLUSION: This pilot study has allowed a number of recommendations to be made to facilitate the design of a large-scale trial, which in turn will help to clarify the existing evidence base on acupuncture for neck pain.

Project description:Chronic neck pain (CNP) is a common painful medical condition with a significant socioeconomic impact. In spite of widespread usage, the effectiveness and safety of combined treatments between conventional and complementary alternative medical treatment modalities has not been fully established in a rigorous randomized clinical trial (RCT). This pilot study will provide the clinical evidence to evaluate the feasibility and refine the protocol for a full-scale RCT on combined treatment of bee venom acupuncture (BVA) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with CNP.This is a randomized, single-blind clinical trial with three parallel arms. Sixty patients between 18 and 65 years of age with non-specific, uncomplicated neck pain lasting for at least three months will be enrolled. Participants will be randomly allocated into the BVA, NSAIDs or combined treatment group. Assessors and statisticians will be blinded to the random allocation. All researchers will receive training to ensure their strict adherence to the study protocol. Patients from the BVA and combined treatment group will be treated with a bee venom increment protocol into predefined acupoints for six sessions over a three week period. BVA intervention is developed through a comprehensive discussion among interdisciplinary spine disorder experts, according to the guidelines of Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA). Patients from the NSAIDs and combined treatment groups will be prescribed loxoprofen (one tablet to be taken orally, three times a day for three weeks). Bothersomeness from CNP measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) will be the primary outcome assessed at screening, visit two (baseline), four, six, eight (4th week assessment) and nine (8th week assessment) follow-up session. VAS for pain intensity, neck disability index (NDI), quality of life, depressive status and adverse experiences will also be analyzed.Our study results will contribute to feasibility evaluation and to relevant RCT protocol development for a full-scale RCT on combined treatment of BVA and NSAIDs for CNP patients.This study is registered with the United States (US) National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry: NCT01922466.

Dataset Information

An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS).

Publications

An economic evaluation of Alexander Technique lessons or acupuncture sessions for patients with chronic neck pain: A randomized trial (ATLAS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure