Manipulative therapy in addition to usual medical care accelerates recovery of shoulder complaints at higher costs: economic outcomes of a randomized trial

Gert J D Bergman, Jan C Winter, Maurits W van Tulder, Betty Meyboom-de Jong, Klaas Postema, Geert J M G van der Heijden, Gert J D Bergman, Jan C Winter, Maurits W van Tulder, Betty Meyboom-de Jong, Klaas Postema, Geert J M G van der Heijden

Abstract

Background: Shoulder complaints are common in primary care and have unfavourable long term prognosis. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of manipulative therapy of the cervicothoracic spine and the adjacent ribs in addition to usual medical care (UMC) by the general practitioner in the treatment of shoulder complaints.

Methods: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized trial in primary care. Included were 150 patients with shoulder complaints and a dysfunction of the cervicothoracic spine and adjacent ribs. Patients were treated with UMC (NSAID's, corticosteroid injection or referral to physical therapy) and were allocated at random (yes/no) to manipulative therapy (manipulation and mobilization). Patient perceived recovery, severity of main complaint, shoulder pain, disability and general health were outcome measures. Data about direct and indirect costs were collected by means of a cost diary.

Results: Manipulative therapy as add-on to UMC accelerated recovery on all outcome measures included. At 26 weeks after randomization, both groups reported similar recovery rates (41% vs. 38%), but the difference between groups in improvement of severity of the main complaint, shoulder pain and disability sustained. Compared to the UMC group the total costs were higher in the manipulative group (€1167 vs. €555). This is explained mainly by the costs of the manipulative therapy itself and the higher costs due sick leave from work. The cost effectiveness ratio showed that additional manipulative treatment is more costly but also more effective than UMC alone. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows that a 50%-probability of recovery with AMT within 6 months after initiation of treatment is achieved at €2876.

Conclusion: Manipulative therapy in addition to UMC accelerates recovery and is more effective than UMC alone on the long term, but is associated with higher costs. INTERNATIONAL STANDARD RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL NUMBER REGISTER: ISRCTN11216.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of patients throughout the trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness plane for patient perceived recovery for manipulative therapy in addition to usual medical care by the GP compared to usual medical care alone.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient perceived recovery.

References

    1. Picavet HS, van Gils HW, Schouten JS. Musculoskeletal complaints in the Dutch Population: prevalences, consequences and people at risk. the Netherlands: National Institute of Public Health and the Environment; 2000. Klachten van het bewegingsapparaat in de Nederlandse bevolking: prevalenties, consequenties en risicogroepen. Report No.: RIVM Report No. 266807002.
    1. van der Heijden GJ. Shoulder disorders: a state-of-the-art review. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 1999;13(2):287–309. doi: 10.1053/berh.1999.0021.
    1. Guideline for Shoulder Complaints of the Dutch Society for General Practitioners. 2003. Accessed September 1, 2003.
    1. Winters JC, De Jong AC, van der Windt DAWM, Jonquiere M, de Winter AF, van der Heijden GJMG, Sobel JS, Goudswaard AN. NHG-Standaard Schouderklachten (versie 1999) [Guidelines for Shoulder Complaints of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (version 1999)] Huisarts Wet. 1999;42(5):222–31.
    1. van der Windt DA, Koes BW, Boeke AJ, Deville W, De Jong BA, Bouter LM. Shoulder disorders in general practice: prognostic indicators of outcome. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(410):519–523.
    1. Winters JC, Sobel JS, Groenier KH, Arendzen JH, Meyboom-de Jong B. Rheumatology. 2. Vol. 38. Oxford; 1999. The long-term course of shoulder complaints: a prospective study in general practice; pp. 160–163.
    1. Meerding WJ, Bonneux L, Polder JJ, Koopmanschap MA, van der Maas PJ. Demographic and epidemiological determinants of healthcare costs in Netherlands: cost of illness study. BMJ. 1998;317(7151):111–115.
    1. Nygren A, Berglund A, von Koch M. Neck-and-shoulder pain, an increasing problem. Strategies for using insurance material to follow trends. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1995;32:107–112.
    1. Bergman GJ, Winters JC, van der Heijden GJ, Postema K, Meyboom-de Jong B. Groningen Manipulation Study. The effect of manipulation of the structures of the shoulder girdle as additional treatment for symptom relief and for prevention of chronicity or recurrence of shoulder symptoms. Design of a randomized controlled trial within a comprehensive prognostic cohort study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25(9):543–549. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.128373.
    1. Bergman GJD, Winters JC, Groenier KH, Pool JJM, Meyboom-de Jong B, Postema K, van der Heijden GJMG. Manipulative therapy in addition to usual medical care for patients with shoulder pain and dysfunction. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:432–439.
    1. Guideline for Shoulder Complaints of the Dutch Society for General Practitioners. 2003. Accessed September 1, 2003.
    1. Greenman PE. Principles of Manual Medicine. Second. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
    1. Lewit K. Manipulative therapy in rehabilitation of the locomotor system. Third. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999.
    1. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ, Lindeman E, van der Heijden GJ, Regtop W, Knipschild PG. A patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22(3):144–148. doi: 10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70127-2.
    1. Winters JC, Sobel JS, Groenier KH, Arendzen JH, Meyboom-de Jong B. A shoulder pain score: a comprehensive questionnaire for assessing pain in patients with shoulder complaints. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1996;28(3):163–167.
    1. van der Heijden GJ, Leffers P, Bouter LM. Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(1):29–38. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00078-5.
    1. van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ, de Winter AF, Koes BW, Deville W, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998;57(2):82–87. doi: 10.1136/ard.57.2.82.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Goossens ME, Rutten-van Molken MP, Vlaeyen JW, van der Linden SM. The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(7):688–695. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00177-8.
    1. Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en richtlijnen en prijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. [Handbook for cost studies, methods and guidelines for economic evaluation in health care.] The Hague, The Netherlands: Health Care Insurance Counsil; 2000.
    1. Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Standardisation of costs: the Dutch Manual for Costing in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(7):443–454. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200220070-00002.
    1. Tax report: Z-Index [in Dutch] the Hague the Netherlands; 2000.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357(9263):1191–1194. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3.
    1. O'Brien BJ, Briggs AH. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11(6):455–468. doi: 10.1191/0962280202sm304ra.
    1. Campbell MK, Torgerson DJ. Bootstrapping: estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. QJM. 1999;92(3):177–182. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/92.3.177.
    1. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993.
    1. Chaudhary MA, Stearns SC. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. Stat Med. 1996;15(13):1447–1458. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960715)15:13<1447::AID-SIM267>;2-V.
    1. Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(3):212–214. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9001000308.
    1. van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3(5):309–319. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030505.
    1. Bergman GJ, Winters JC, van der Heijden GJ, Postema K, Meyboom-de Jong B. Groningen Manipulation Study. The effect of manipulation of the structures of the shoulder girdle as additional treatment for symptom relief and for prevention of chronicity or recurrence of shoulder symptoms. Design of a randomized controlled trial within a comprehensive prognostic cohort study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25(9):543–549. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.128373.
    1. Gardiner JC, Huebner M, Jetton J, Bradley CJ. Power and sample assessments for tests of hypotheses on cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 2000;9(3):227–234. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<227::AID-HEC509>;2-Z.
    1. Norlander S, Aste-Norlander U, Nordgren B, Sahlstedt B. Mobility in the cervico-thoracic motion segment: an indicative factor of musculo-skeletal neck-shoulder pain. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1996;28(4):183–192.
    1. Norlander S, Gustavsson BA, Lindell J, Nordgren B. Reduced mobility in the cervico-thoracic motion segment-a risk factor for musculoskeletal neck-shoulder pain: a two-year prospective follow-up study. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1997;29(3):167–174.
    1. Korthals-de Bos IB, Hoving JL, van Tulder MW, Rutten-van Molken MP, Ader HJ, de Vet HC, Koes BW, Vondeling H, Bouter LM. Cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, manual therapy, and general practitioner care for neck pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2003;326(7395):911. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7395.911.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj