United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care

UK BEAM Trial Team, Anthony Burton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

358 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of adding spinal manipulation, exercise classes, or manipulation followed by exercise (“combined treatment”) to “best care” in general practice for patients consulting with low back pain.

Design Stochastic cost utility analysis alongside pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.

Setting 181 general practices and 63 community settings for physical treatments around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.

Participants 1287 (96%) of 1334 trial participants.

Main outcome measures Healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY over 12 months.

Results Over one year, mean treatment costs relative to “best care” were £195 ($360; €279; 95% credibility interval £85 to £308) for manipulation, £140 (£3 to £278) for exercise, and £125 (£21 to £228) for combined treatment. All three active treatments increased participants' average QALYs compared with best care alone. Each extra QALY that combined treatment yielded relative to best care cost £3800; in economic terms it had an “incremental cost effectiveness ratio” of £3800. Manipulation alone had a ratio of £8700 relative to combined treatment. If the NHS was prepared to pay at least £10 000 for each extra QALY (lower than previous recommendations in the United Kingdom), manipulation alone would probably be the best strategy. If manipulation was not available, exercise would have an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £8300 relative to best care.

Conclusions Spinal manipulation is a cost effective addition to “best care” for back pain in general practice. Manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1381-1385
Number of pages5
JournalThe BMJ
Volume329
Early online date29 Nov 2004
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 Dec 2004

Fingerprint

Back Pain
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Primary Health Care
Exercise
General Practice
Spinal Manipulation
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health Care Costs
Therapeutics
Pragmatic Clinical Trials
Low Back Pain
United Kingdom
Economics
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Cite this

@article{7896079ebfa94b2bb8b7ca85028464f8,
title = "United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care",
abstract = "Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of adding spinal manipulation, exercise classes, or manipulation followed by exercise (“combined treatment”) to “best care” in general practice for patients consulting with low back pain.Design Stochastic cost utility analysis alongside pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.Setting 181 general practices and 63 community settings for physical treatments around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.Participants 1287 (96{\%}) of 1334 trial participants.Main outcome measures Healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY over 12 months.Results Over one year, mean treatment costs relative to “best care” were £195 ($360; €279; 95{\%} credibility interval £85 to £308) for manipulation, £140 (£3 to £278) for exercise, and £125 (£21 to £228) for combined treatment. All three active treatments increased participants' average QALYs compared with best care alone. Each extra QALY that combined treatment yielded relative to best care cost £3800; in economic terms it had an “incremental cost effectiveness ratio” of £3800. Manipulation alone had a ratio of £8700 relative to combined treatment. If the NHS was prepared to pay at least £10 000 for each extra QALY (lower than previous recommendations in the United Kingdom), manipulation alone would probably be the best strategy. If manipulation was not available, exercise would have an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £8300 relative to best care.Conclusions Spinal manipulation is a cost effective addition to “best care” for back pain in general practice. Manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise.",
author = "{UK BEAM Trial Team} and Anthony Burton",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.38282.607859.AE",
language = "English",
volume = "329",
pages = "1381--1385",
journal = "The BMJ",
issn = "0959-535X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial : cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. / UK BEAM Trial Team, ; Burton, Anthony.

In: The BMJ, Vol. 329, 09.12.2004, p. 1381-1385.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial

T2 - The BMJ

AU - UK BEAM Trial Team,

AU - Burton, Anthony

PY - 2004/12/9

Y1 - 2004/12/9

N2 - Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of adding spinal manipulation, exercise classes, or manipulation followed by exercise (“combined treatment”) to “best care” in general practice for patients consulting with low back pain.Design Stochastic cost utility analysis alongside pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.Setting 181 general practices and 63 community settings for physical treatments around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.Participants 1287 (96%) of 1334 trial participants.Main outcome measures Healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY over 12 months.Results Over one year, mean treatment costs relative to “best care” were £195 ($360; €279; 95% credibility interval £85 to £308) for manipulation, £140 (£3 to £278) for exercise, and £125 (£21 to £228) for combined treatment. All three active treatments increased participants' average QALYs compared with best care alone. Each extra QALY that combined treatment yielded relative to best care cost £3800; in economic terms it had an “incremental cost effectiveness ratio” of £3800. Manipulation alone had a ratio of £8700 relative to combined treatment. If the NHS was prepared to pay at least £10 000 for each extra QALY (lower than previous recommendations in the United Kingdom), manipulation alone would probably be the best strategy. If manipulation was not available, exercise would have an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £8300 relative to best care.Conclusions Spinal manipulation is a cost effective addition to “best care” for back pain in general practice. Manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise.

AB - Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of adding spinal manipulation, exercise classes, or manipulation followed by exercise (“combined treatment”) to “best care” in general practice for patients consulting with low back pain.Design Stochastic cost utility analysis alongside pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.Setting 181 general practices and 63 community settings for physical treatments around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.Participants 1287 (96%) of 1334 trial participants.Main outcome measures Healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY over 12 months.Results Over one year, mean treatment costs relative to “best care” were £195 ($360; €279; 95% credibility interval £85 to £308) for manipulation, £140 (£3 to £278) for exercise, and £125 (£21 to £228) for combined treatment. All three active treatments increased participants' average QALYs compared with best care alone. Each extra QALY that combined treatment yielded relative to best care cost £3800; in economic terms it had an “incremental cost effectiveness ratio” of £3800. Manipulation alone had a ratio of £8700 relative to combined treatment. If the NHS was prepared to pay at least £10 000 for each extra QALY (lower than previous recommendations in the United Kingdom), manipulation alone would probably be the best strategy. If manipulation was not available, exercise would have an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £8300 relative to best care.Conclusions Spinal manipulation is a cost effective addition to “best care” for back pain in general practice. Manipulation alone probably gives better value for money than manipulation followed by exercise.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.38282.607859.AE

DO - 10.1136/bmj.38282.607859.AE

M3 - Article

VL - 329

SP - 1381

EP - 1385

JO - The BMJ

JF - The BMJ

SN - 0959-535X

ER -