Cost-effectiveness of acupuncture versus standard care for pelvic and low back pain in pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial

Stephanie Nicolian, Thibault Butel, Laetitia Gambotti, Manon Durand, Antoine Filipovic-Pierucci, Alain Mallet, Mamadou Kone, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski and Marc Dommergues

PLOS ONE, 2019, vol. 14, issue 4, 1-16

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214195 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 14195&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0214195

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214195

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().