• Leininger BD
• Kuntz KM
• Hodges JS
• Evans R
• Enns E
• Johnson PJ
• Bronfort G

• Adult
• Affiliation / University of Minnesota. Department of Health Policy and Management
• Affiliation / University of Minnesota. Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality and Healing
• Back Pain / economics
• Back Pain / therapy
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Female
• Male
• Manipulation, Spinal / economics
• Middle Aged
• Neck Pain / economics
• Neck Pain / therapy
• Open Access Document
• United States

Background: The United States spends more money on the care of back and neck pain than any other health condition. Despite this, the cost-effectiveness for many recommended treatments is unclear. Our primary objective for this project was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), supervised exercise therapy (ET), and home exercise and advice (HEA) for spinal pain in the U.S.

Methods: We analyzed cost and clinical outcome data from eight randomized trials conducted in the U.S. using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach. We calculated cost-effectiveness from the societal and healthcare perspective of various comparisons between SMT, ET, and HEA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using quality-adjusted life years as the main outcome.

Results: The trials included a total of 1803 participants and 1488 (83%) provided complete data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probabilities of cost-effectiveness varied substantially between studies; thus, we did not conduct meta-analysis and report findings from individual trials. Cost-effectiveness findings were favorable for SMT compared to HEA for acute neck pain (ICERs below $50k/QALY) and when added to HEA for chronic back-related leg pain and chronic neck pain in older adults (better outcomes and lower costs). However, SMT was not likely cost-effective compared to HEA for chronic back pain in adults or when added to HEA for older adults (higher costs and worse outcomes). Findings for SMT were favorable when compared to ET in adults with chronic back pain and when added to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (better outcomes and lower costs) and chronic back pain in adolescents (ICERs below $50k/QALY). However, SMT is not likely cost-effective when compared to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (ICERs below $70k/QALY for exercise) and findings were inconsistent across outcomes in older adults with chronic back pain. Finally, ET may be cost-effective compared to HEA for adults with chronic neck pain (ICERs largely between $100-$200k/QALY), but not for chronic back pain or when added to HEA for older adults with chronic neck or back pain (higher costs and worse outcomes).

Discussion: Cost-effectiveness findings differed between populations based on pain location, duration, and age.

Keywords: Back pain; Cost-effectiveness; Exercise; Neck pain; Self-management; Spinal manipulation.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text. Online access only.