Cost-effectiveness of specialised manual therapy versus orthopaedic care for musculoskeletal disorders: long-term follow-up and health economic model

Abstract

Background: Physiotherapy is usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. If pain persists, an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon is indicated, but many disorders for which patients are placed on orthopaedic waiting lists cannot be treated in an orthopaedic clinic. Specialised manual therapy, although not mainstream, can be an effective alternative to orthopaedic care, although its cost-effectiveness beyond 12 months is unknown. Objectives: To perform an 8-year follow-up of the quality of life and costs of specialised manual therapy versus standard orthopaedic care for working-age patients with common nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons and to develop a health economic model. Design: Cost-effectiveness study using Markov modelling. Methods: The index group of a previously published pragmatic randomised controlled trial received a maximum of five treatment sessions of specialised manual therapy, while the control group received orthopaedic ‘care as usual’. At 3, 6, 12 and 96 months, Health-Related Quality of Life and costs were measured with Short Form Health Survey 36, Short Form Health Survey 6D and Diagnostic Related Groups. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, a Markov model was developed and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Overall, 95% ( n = 75) of the participants completed the 8-year follow-up. Recovery rates during the first 3 months (‘per protocol’) in the index and control group were 69% and 58%, respectively. The index group had 0.159 more gains in quality-adjusted life years and cost 40,270 SEK (€4027) less per patient over 8 years. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the main results. Conclusion: Specialised manual therapy dominated standard care after 8 years. The results of this small but very first study are promising; therefore, further exploration within other health care professions, clinics and/or countries is required. Our study raises questions about the triaging of orthopaedic outpatients, cost-effectiveness and resource allocation. Registration: Not applicable per the information provided by ClinicalTrials.gov. Plain Language Summary Specialised manual therapy is more cost-effective than ‘care as usual’ for working-age patients referred to an orthopaedist. This study provides an 8-year follow-up of the cost effects and quality of life of a previously published trial. Why was this study conducted? The standard care for musculoskeletal pain consists of exercises with a physiotherapist in primary care. If the pain persists, a referral to an orthopaedic clinic is often made. Many of these referrals are inappropriate because they concern pain from muscles and joints that do not benefit from surgery or the resources available in an orthopaedic clinic. There is a gap in competence and treatment between primary and specialised care that is costly, time- and resource-consuming and causes prolonged patient suffering. Although specialised manual therapy (MT) is effective, its use is not mainstream. Costs and effects after more than 12 months of treatment that may shorten waiting lists have never been evaluated. What did the researchers do? Quality of life and costs were compared in 75 patients with nonsurgical disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons at 8 years after treatment with specialised MT or standard orthopaedic care. A health economics model for the probability of recovery was also developed and tested. What did the researchers find? Compared with the control group, the study participants treated with specialised MT had a better quality of life, required fewer health care interventions, underwent less surgery, incurred significantly lower costs and demonstrated an increased probability of recovery. What do these findings mean? It seems probable that using specialised MT for an old, well-known structural problem may yield better treatment effects at a significantly lower cost. Our study findings suggest that policy recommendations should focus on costs and effects rather than resource utilisation alone. The study is small and requires expansion using its economic health model.