Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto
◽
Katherinne Ferro Moura Franco
◽
Johanna M van Dongen
◽
Yuri Rafael dos Santos Franco
◽
Naiane Teixeira Bastos de Oliveira
◽
...
ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and cost-utility of the addition of different doses of Pilates to an advice for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) from a societal perspective.DesignRandomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.SettingPhysiotherapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil.Participants296 patients with NSCLBP.InterventionsAll patients received advice and were randomly allocated to four groups (n=74 per group): booklet group (BG), Pilates once a week (Pilates group 1, PG1), Pilates twice a week (Pilates group 2, PG2) and Pilates three times a week (Pilates group 3, PG3).Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were pain and disability at 6-week follow-up.ResultsCompared with the BG, all Pilates groups showed significant improvements in pain (PG1, mean difference (MD)=−1.2, 95% CI −2.2 to −0.3; PG2, MD=−2.3, 95% CI −3.2 to −1.4; PG3, MD=−2.1, 95% CI −3.0 to −1.1) and disability (PG1, MD=−1.9, 95% CI −3.6 to −0.1; PG2, MD=−4.7, 95% CI −6.4 to −3.0; PG3, MD=−3.3, 95% CI −5.0 to −1.6). Among the different doses, PG2 showed significant improvements in comparison with PG1 for pain (MD=−1.1, 95% CI −2.0 to −0.1) and disability (MD=−2.8, 95% CI −4.5 to −1.1). The cost-utility analysis showed that PG3 had a 0.78 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.ConclusionsAdding two sessions of Pilates exercises to advice provided better outcomes in pain and disability than advice alone for patients with NSCLBP; non-specific elements such as greater attention or expectation might be part of this effect. The cost-utility analysis showed that Pilates three times a week was the preferred option.Trial registration numberNCT02241538, Completed.
Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial