Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The aim was to assess costs and cost-effectiveness of additional acupuncture treatment in patients with headache compared with patients receiving routine care alone. A randomized, controlled trial was conducted, including patients (> or =18 years old) with primary headache (more than 12 months, at least two headaches/month). Outcome parameters were quality of life (Short Form 36), direct and indirect costs differences during the 3-month study period and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of acupuncture treatment. A total of 3182 patients (1613 acupuncture; 1569 controls) with headache were included (77.4% women, mean age and standard deviation 42.6 +/- 12.3; 22.6% men, 47.2 +/- 13.4). Over 3 months costs were higher in the acupuncture group compared with the control [euro857.47; 95% confidence interval 790.86, 924.07, vs. euro527.34 (459.81, 594.88), P < 0.001, mean difference: euro330.12 (235.27, 424.98)]. This cost increase was primarily due to costs of acupuncture [euro365.64 (362.19, 369.10)]. The ICER was euro11 657 per QALY gained. According to international cost-effectiveness threshold values, acupuncture is a cost-effective treatment in patients with primary headache.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Witt et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: