BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare non-pharmacological (non-PHM) and pharmacological (PHM) treatment for patients with non-acute lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and determine the feasibility of a large-scale study. METHODS: This was a two-armed, parallel, multicenter, pragmatic controlled trial performed in South Korea. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans both at the screening stage and the last follow-up. Patients with LDH findings on MRI were randomly assigned to non-PHM and PHM groups. Treatment was administered twice a week for a total of 8 weeks, and follow-up assessments were performed at weeks 9, 13, and 27 post-randomization. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. A linear mixed model was used for primary analysis from intention-to-treat perspectives. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for economic evaluation. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled, and thirty-five were included in the final analysis. At Week 9, the difference in ODI scores between the two groups was 5.17 (95% CI -4.00 to 14.35, p = 0.262), and the numeric rating scale scores for lower back and leg pains were 1.89 (95% CI 0.68 to 3.10, p = 0.003) and 1.52 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.77, p = 0.018), respectively, confirming greater improvement in the non-PHM group than in the PHM group. The non-PHM group showed lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life years than the PHM group. The ICER calculated using the EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) was USD 20,926. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the possibility that a non-PHM strategy could be a more effective and cost-effective treatment option than PHM for patients with non-acute lumbar disc herniation. Furthermore, this pilot study confirmed the feasibility of the main study in terms of design and patient compliance.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• PubMed Central
• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher