Biomedical subjects
Maurits Van Tulder
Publications and source records attributed to Maurits Van Tulder.
Indirect and total costs of early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine with sulfasalazine alone.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the effect of indirect costs for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within the COBRA trial (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis) on the cost-effectiveness of both therapies. Analyses of the efficacy and direct costs of the treatments have already been reported. METHODS: Patients with early RA selected for the 56-week trial were randomly assigned to prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine (the COBRA combination) (n = 76, tapered after 28 weeks) or to sulfasalazine (SSZ; n = 79, of which 78 patients were evaluable) alone. The main efficacy outcomes were a pooled index and radiographic damage score in hands and feet, and utilities. Direct and indirect costs were measured (from a societal perspective) by means of cost diaries and interviews completed by patients during the intervention phase and the followup phase, each lasting 28 weeks. Differences in mean costs between groups and cost-utility ratios were evaluated by applying nonparametric bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: In the first 28 weeks, indirect costs per patient totaled US $2,578 and US $3,638 for COBRA and SSZ therapy, respectively (p = 0.09). The total costs were $5,931 and $7,853, respectively (p < 0.05). These differences were lost in the second 28 weeks. For the total period the mean total costs per patient were $10,262 and $12,788, respectively (p = 0.11). Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the data. The point estimate of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year based on the rating scale was negative at $-385, suggesting dominance of COBRA (more effect at lower cost). CONCLUSION: COBRA therapy adds additional disease control (improvements in disease activity, physical function, and rate of damage progression) at lower or equal cost compared to SSZ in early RA.
Advances in the field of low back pain in primary care: a report from the fourth international forum.
STUDY DESIGN: Review of advances in the primary care research on low back pain (LBP) from a unique international forum, and analysis of open-ended questionnaires from participants. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LBP continues to be one of the most common and challenging problems in primary care. It is associated with enormous costs in terms of direct health care expenditures, and indirect work and disability-related losses. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the current status and state of the art regarding LBP in primary care. METHODS: Four reviewers independently assessed the content and implications of presentations at the Fourth International Forum for Primary Care Research on LBP, pooled the data, and then augmented it with open-ended questionnaires completed by 35 participants. RESULTS: The Fourth Forum documented the field's emergent new paradigm-a transition from thinking about back pain as a biomedical "injury" to viewing LBP as a multifactorial biopsychosocial pain syndrome. The paradigm shift has occurred in the context of increased interest in evidence-based medicine regarding LBP in primary care. The Forum demonstrated the strides taken in moving from research and evidence gathering, through guidelines and policy formulations and finally to the dissemination and implementation imperative. There was an increasing confidence among the Forum researchers that LBP can be managed successfully in primary care settings through a combination of encouraging activity, reassurance, short-term symptom control, and alteration of inappropriate beliefs about the correlations of back pain with impairment and disability. There is also recognition that a wide range of international, evidence-based guidelines now exists that have very similar messages. CONCLUSIONS: The Fourth Forum reflected a major shift in the conceptualization of LBP in primary care and an increased emphasis on implementation and dissemination of LBP research findings and clinical guidelines. Although there is a wide array of challenges ahead, the Fourth Forum provided a clear message regarding the need to focus research energies on changing practitioner behavior.