Cost-Utility Analysis of Acupuncture for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine from a Lifetime Canadian Health System and Societal Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the prevention of episodic migraine from both a Canadian public health care payer and societal perspective. Background: Acupuncture has been used for pain relief for thousands of years in China and could be an alternative to drugs in managing pain. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence to determine if acupuncture is cost-effective in migraine prevention in the Canadian setting. Methods: A cost-utility analysis with a decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to compare acupuncture with drug prophylaxis and no active treatment among adult patients with episodic migraine over their lifetime. The efficacy inputs (migraine days) were based on a Cochrane systematic literature review. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the modeled health outcome. Direct and indirect medical costs were derived from a Canadian burden of illness study on patients with migraine. All costs were inflated and reported as the present value of lifetime costs in 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD), discounting at 1.5%. Results: From a health system perspective, acupuncture was cost-effective when compared with no active treatment (CAD 35,060/QALY) and drug prophylaxis (CAD 47,128/QALY) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD 50,000/QALY gained. Acupuncture was dominant compared with no active treatment and drug prophylaxis from a societal perspective. Cost savings were driven by reduced productivity loss from fewer migraine days with acupuncture treatment. Conclusion: Acupuncture could be a cost-effective option for patients with episodic migraine. Future studies are encouraged to inform decisions regarding the use of acupuncture in the management of episodic migraine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".