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

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture for pelvic girdle and low back pain (PGLBP) during pregnancy.DesignPragmatic-open-label randomised controlled trial.SettingFive maternity hospitals.PopulationPregnant women with PGLBP.Method1:1 randomization to standard care or standard care plus acupuncture (5 sessions by an acupuncturist midwife).Main outcome measureEfficacy: 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.Results96 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).ConclusionAcupuncture 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.