To explore the cost-utility of implementing stratified care for low back pain (LBP) in general practice, compared with usual care, within patient risk subgroups (low, medium and high risk of persistent disabling pain determined by the STarT Back tool). Adopting a cost-utility framework alongside a prospective, sequential comparison of separate patient cohorts (922 patients in total) with six-month follow-up, the base case analysis estimated the incremental LBP-related healthcare cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) by risk subgroup. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses examined alternative approaches (a complete case analysis, the incorporation of non-LBP-related healthcare use and estimation of societal costs relating to work absence).Purpose and background
Methods
One untested back pain treatment model is to stratify management depending on prognosis (low, medium or high-risk). This 2-arm RCT investigated: (i) overall clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention), versus non-stratified current best practice (control); and (ii) whether low-risk patients had non-inferior outcomes, and medium/high-risk groups had superior outcomes. 1573 adults with back pain (+/− radiculopathy) consulting at 10 general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic, at which 851 eligible participants were randomised (intervention n=568; control n=283). Primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis was the difference in change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included 4-month RMDQ change between arms overall, and at risk-group level at both time-points. The economic evaluation estimated incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and back pain-related health care costs.Background
Methods
