Cost-utility analysis of antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in Norway (the AIM study).
Amoxicillin
/ therapeutic use
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ therapeutic use
Bone Marrow Diseases
/ drug therapy
Chronic Disease
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Double-Blind Method
Edema
/ drug therapy
Humans
Intention to Treat Analysis
Low Back Pain
/ drug therapy
Middle Aged
Norway
Pain Measurement
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
back pain
clinical trials
health economics
pain management
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 06 2020
15 06 2020
Historique:
entrez:
18
6
2020
pubmed:
18
6
2020
medline:
16
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the cost-utility of 100 days of antibiotics in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and type I or II Modic changes included in the Antibiotic treatment In patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes (AIM) study. A cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective alongside a double-blinded, parallel group, placebo, multicentre trial. Hospital outpatient clinics at six hospitals in Norway. The main results from the AIM study showed a small effect in back-related disability in favour of the antibiotics group, and slightly larger in those with type I Modic changes, but this effect was below the pre-defined threshold for clinically relevant effect. 180 patients with chronic LBP, previous disc herniation and Modic changes type I (n=118) or type II (n=62) were randomised to antibiotic treatment (n=89) or placebo-control (n=91). Oral treatment with either 750 mg amoxicillin or placebo three times daily for 100 days. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by EuroQoL-5D over 12 months and costs for healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro (€1=NOK 10), in the intention-to-treat population. Cost-utility was expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Mean (SD) total cost was €21 046 (20 105) in the amoxicillin group and €19 076 (19 356) in the placebo group, mean difference €1970 (95% CI; -3835 to 7774). Cost per QALY gained was €24 625. In those with type I Modic changes, the amoxicillin group had higher healthcare consumption than the placebo group, resulting in €39 425 per QALY gained. Given these ICERs and a willingness-to-pay threshold of €27 500 (NOK 275 000), the probability of amoxicillin being cost-effective was 51%. Even when the willingness-to-pay threshold increased to €55 000, the probability of amoxicillin being cost-effective was never higher than 53%. Amoxicillin treatment showed no evidence of being cost-effective for people with chronic LBP and Modic changes during 1-year follow-up. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32546490
pii: bmjopen-2019-035461
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035461
pmc: PMC7299049
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Amoxicillin
804826J2HU
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02323412']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e035461Investigateurs
Audny Anke
(A)
Terese Fors
(T)
Maja Wilhelmsen
(M)
Guro Kjos
(G)
Ida Beate Østhus
(IB)
Gunn Hege Marchand
(GH)
Britt Elin Lurud
(BE)
Fredrik Granviken
(F)
Hege Andersen
(H)
Vidar Rao
(V)
Jan Sture Skouen
(JS)
Thomas Istvan Kadar
(TI)
Siv Krüger Claussen
(SK)
Nils Vetti
(N)
Erling Andersen
(E)
Sigrun Randen
(S)
Hilde Presberg
(H)
Linda Margareth Pedersen
(LM)
Bendik Slagsvold Winsvold
(BS)
Elina Iordanova Schistad
(EI)
Karianne Wiger Gammelsrud
(KW)
Benedicte Alexandra Lie
(BA)
Maria Dehli Vigeland
(MD)
Siri Tennebø Flåm
(ST)
Mads Peder Rolfsen
(MP)
Christian Hellum
(C)
Anne Julsrud Haugen
(AJ)
Veronica Sørensen
(V)
Marianne Thorsø
(M)
Knut Morten Huneide
(KM)
Olav Lutro
(O)
Jörg Aßmus
(J)
Thor Einar
(T)
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: KS reports that funding was granted by governmental organisations (Helse Sør-Øst and Helse Vest) during the conduct of the study.
Références
Global Spine J. 2018 Dec;8(8):872-886
pubmed: 30560041
Eur Spine J. 2016 Nov;25(11):3723-3734
pubmed: 26914098
Eur Spine J. 2013 Apr;22(4):697-707
pubmed: 23404353
Br J Sports Med. 2019 Feb;53(3):172-181
pubmed: 29678893
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Dec;30(6):981-993
pubmed: 29103555
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014 Apr;14(2):221-33
pubmed: 24625040
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Mar;41(6):455-62
pubmed: 26966970
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1211-1259
pubmed: 28919117
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;58(6):595-602
pubmed: 15878473
Eur Spine J. 2011 Jul;20(7):1024-38
pubmed: 21229367
BMJ. 2016 Mar 09;352:i1336
pubmed: 26960807
JAMA. 2008 Feb 13;299(6):656-64
pubmed: 18270354
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Apr 26;14:148
pubmed: 23622053
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Jun;73(6):982-9
pubmed: 24550172
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2368-2383
pubmed: 29573872
Pain. 2000 Jan;84(1):95-103
pubmed: 10601677
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2384-2388
pubmed: 29573871
BMJ. 2019 Oct 16;367:l5654
pubmed: 31619437
Trials. 2017 Dec 15;18(1):596
pubmed: 29246188
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 1;13(8):e0200677
pubmed: 30067777
Eur Spine J. 2011 Jul;20(7):1012-23
pubmed: 21203890
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):367-75
pubmed: 24477679
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
Radiology. 1988 Jan;166(1 Pt 1):193-9
pubmed: 3336678
Spine J. 2008 Jan-Feb;8(1):8-20
pubmed: 18164449