Introduction: Dry needling is a non-pharmacological approach that has proven to be effective in different neurological conditions. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single dry needling session in patients with chronic stroke. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on a randomized controlled clinical trial. The results obtained from the values of the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and the Modified Modified Ashworth Scale were processed in order to obtain the percentage of treatment responders and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each alternative. The cost analysis was that of the hospital, clinic, or health center, including the equipment and physiotherapist. The cost per respondent and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each alternative were assessed. Results: Twenty-three patients with stroke were selected. The cost of DN treatment was EUR 14.96, and the data analysis showed a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of both EUR/QALY and EUR/responder for IG, although the sensitivity analysis using limit values did not confirm the dominance (higher effectiveness with less cost) of the dry needling over the sham dry needling. Conclusions: Dry needling is an affordable alternative with good results in the cost-effectiveness analysis—both immediately, and after two weeks of treatment—compared to sham dry needling in persons with chronic stroke.

Both manual therapy techniques and dry needling have shown to be effective treatment options for the treatment of plantar heel pain; however, in recent years, other techniques based on dry needling (DN), such as percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE), have also emerged. Currently, PNE is being used in clinical practice to manage myofascial trigger points, despite the lack of studies comparing the effects of this technique over dry needling. Therefore, the aim of this randomized controlled study is to compare the effectiveness of DN versus PNE for improving the level of pain experienced by patients suffering from plantar heel pain provoked by myofascial trigger points. A randomized controlled trial will be conducted with blinded participants and outcome assessors. A sample of 94 patients with a medical diagnosis of plantar heel pain will be recruited and divided into two treatment groups. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to either (a) treatment group with DN and a self-stretching home program or (b) treatment group with PNE and a self-stretching home program. Each group will receive one treatment session per week over a period of 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the pain subscale of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire. The secondary outcome measures will be a visual analogue scale for pain (average and highest level of pain experienced during the previous 48 h; level of pain immediately after the treatment session) and health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQoL-5 dimensions). Cost-effectiveness data will be extracted based on the EuroQoL-5 dimensions. Follow-up measurements will take place at baseline and at 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The justification for this trial is the need to improve current understanding regarding the effectiveness of treatments targeting the rehabilitation of plantar heel pain. This study will be the first randomized controlled trial to directly compare the effectiveness of DN and PNE combined with a specific stretching program for the treatment of plantar heel pain provoked by myofascial trigger points. Clinical Trials NCT03236779. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov 2 August 2017.

Plantar heel pain is a common cause of foot pain that affects patients’ quality of life and represents a significant cost for the healthcare system. Dry needling and percutaneous needle electrolysis are two minimally invasive treatments that were shown to be effective for the management of plantar heel pain. The aim of our study was to compare these two treatments in terms of health and economic consequences based on the results of a published randomized controlled trial. For this, we evaluated the costs from the point of view of the hospital and we carried out a cost-effectiveness study using quality of life as the main variable according to the Eq-5D-5L questionnaire. The cost of the complete treatment with dry needling (DN) was €178.86, while the percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) was €200.90. The quality of life of patients improved and was translated into +0.615 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for DN and +0.669 for PNE. PNE presented an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €411.34/QALY against DN. These results indicate that PNE had a better cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of plantar heel pain than DN.

Stroke is one of the most common causes of disability and exerts a high burden of direct and indirect costs. Stroke may cause spasticity, which limits patients’ abilities and affects their activities of daily living, decreasing their quality of life. Conventional treatments are based on physical therapy, anti-spasticity medication, and botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A). However, recently, non-pharmacological approaches have been used, such as dry needling (DN) of myofascial trigger points. BTX-A and DN are two treatments that aim to decrease spasticity in patients with stroke, but their mode of action, application, and costs differ. Thus, there is a need to determine the comparative economics of post-stroke spasticity treatments. For this purpose, a search for all types of cost-effectiveness studies (randomized controlled trials, matched controls, and cohorts) and models of epidemiological data was performed. Studies were selected if they included economic outcomes in stroke patients treated with BTX-A or DN. As a result, 7 studies of BTX-A and 2 of DN were selected. Similarities were found in the outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of both treatments in most studies, with modifications of the Ashworth Scale [Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)/Modified Modified Ashworth Scale (MMAS)] and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) being the main indicators of effectiveness. However, both the duration of the studies and the evaluation of costs were highly heterogeneous, making comparison difficult. In conclusion, both BTX-A and DN are cost-effective to treat spasticity in patients with stroke, but there is a need for comparative studies to make direct comparisons of cost-effectiveness with the most frequently used outcomes such as the MMAS and QALYs.

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of three patellar tendinopathy treatments. Design: Secondary (cost-effectiveness) analysis of a blinded, randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 10 and 22 weeks. Settings: Recruitment was performed in sport clubs. The diagnosis and the intervention were carried out at San Jorge University. Participants: The participants were adults between 18 and 45 years (n = 48) with patellar tendinopathy. Interventions: Participants received percutaneous needle electrolysis, dry needling or sham needling, all of which were combined with eccentric exercise. Main outcome measures: Costs, quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for each group. Results: The total cost per session was similar in the three groups: €9.46 for the percutaneous needle electrolysis group; €9.44 for the dry needling group; and €8.96 for the sham group. The percutaneous needle electrolysis group presented better cost-effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years and 96% and 93% probability of being cost-effective compared to the sham and dry needling groups, respectively. Conclusion: Our study shows that percutaneous needle electrolysis has a greater probability of being cost-effective than sham or dry needling treatment.