ArticleSpine surgery and related research2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Monotherapy versus Polypharmacy in Cervicobrachial Symptoms: A Nationwide Multicenter Analysis.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervicobrachial symptoms are common causes of disability worldwide, yet the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy remains unclear. In this nationwide multicenter study, we aimed to compare the economic value of multiple-drug therapy with that of monotherapy for cervicobrachial symptoms. Methods: This prospective observational study, conducted through the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research, included 261 adults with cervicobrachial symptoms across 28 institutions (July 2020 to July 2022). Patients received monotherapy (n=112) or multiple-drug therapy (n=149) using five pre-specified agents: loxoprofen, celecoxib, acetaminophen, tramadol-acetaminophen, and pregabalin. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), calculated from monthly EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level assessments over six months. The secondary outcomes were drug costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), evaluated against Japan's reference threshold of 5,000,000 JPY per QALY. Results: Mean QALY gains were similar between the monotherapy (0.00267±0.00544) and multiple-drug therapy (0.00284±0.00774) groups, with no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). However, total drug costs were substantially higher with multiple-drug therapy (19,243 JPY vs. 8,275 JPY). ICERs were more favorable for monotherapy (3,093,957 JPY/QALY) than for multiple-drug therapy (6,781,101 JPY/QALY). Among agents used as monotherapy, loxoprofen (744,409 JPY/QALY) and acetaminophen (781,293 JPY/QALY) showed the most favorable cost-effectiveness profiles, whereas tramadol-acetaminophen (6,370,451 JPY/QALY) and pregabalin (10,995,651 JPY/QALY) had the least favorable cost-effectiveness. Most QALY gains occurred during the first three months in both groups. Conclusions: Multiple-drug therapy approximately doubled pharmaceutical costs without providing additional QALY gains over six months. Monotherapy, particularly with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen, offers superior cost-effectiveness and should be prioritized as first-line treatment. These findings underscore the need for restraint in polypharmacy and provide real-world evidence to guide clinical decision-making and national healthcare policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.