Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.

ABSTRACT: STUDY DESIGN:Economic evaluation alongside a randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus usual care alone (UC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP). OBJECTIVE:To determine 1-year cost-effectiveness of CBT and MBSR compared to 33 UC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:CLBP is expensive in terms of healthcare costs and lost productivity. Mind-body interventions have been found effective for back pain, but their cost-effectiveness is unexplored. METHODS:A total of 342 adults in an integrated healthcare system with CLBP were randomized to receive MBSR (n?=?116), CBT (n?=?113), or UC (n?=?113). CBT and MBSR were offered in 8-weekly 2-hour group sessions. Cost-effectiveness from the societal perspective was calculated as the incremental sum of healthcare costs and productivity losses over change in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The payer perspective only included healthcare costs. This economic evaluation was limited to the 301 health plan members enrolled ?180 days in the years pre-and postrandomization. RESULTS:Compared with UC, the mean incremental cost per participant to society of CBT was $125 (95% confidence interval, CI: -4103, 4307) and of MBSR was -$724 (CI: -4386, 2778)-that is, a net saving of $724. Incremental costs per participant to the health plan were $495 for CBT over UC and -$982 for MBSR, and incremental back-related costs per participant were $984 for CBT over UC and -$127 for MBSR. These costs (and cost savings) were associated with statistically significant gains in QALYs over UC: 0.041 (0.015, 0.067) for CBT and 0.034 (0.008, 0.060) for MBSR. CONCLUSION:In this setting CBT and MBSR have high probabilities of being cost-effective, and MBSR may be cost saving, as compared with UC for adults with CLBP. These findings suggest that MBSR, and to a lesser extent CBT, may provide cost-effective treatment for CLBP for payers and society. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:2.

SUBMITTER: Herman PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5694631 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Herman Patricia M PM Anderson Melissa L ML Sherman Karen J KJ Balderson Benjamin H BH Turner Judith A JA Cherkin Daniel C DC

Spine 20171001 20

<h4>Study design</h4>Economic evaluation alongside a randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus usual care alone (UC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP).<h4>Objective</h4>To determine 1-year cost-effectiveness of CBT and MBSR compared to 33 UC.<h4>Summary of background data</h4>CLBP is expensive in terms of healthcare costs and lost productivity. Mind-body interventions have been found effective for back pain, but their cost-effectiv ...[more]

PMID: 28742756

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain.To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care.Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n?=?116), CBT (n?=?113), or usual care (n?=?113).CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received.Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (?30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks.There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P?=?.04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P?=?.01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes.Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Project description:BackgroundNonpharmacologic mind-body therapies have demonstrated efficacy in low back pain. However, the mechanisms underlying these therapies remain to be fully elucidated.ObjectiveIn response to these knowledge gaps, the Stanford Center for Low Back Pain-a collaborative, National Institutes of Health P01-funded, multidisciplinary research center-was established to investigate the common and distinct biobehavioral mechanisms of three mind-body therapies for chronic low back pain: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) that is used to treat pain, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), and electroacupuncture. Here, we describe the design and implementation of the center structure and the associated randomized controlled trials for characterizing the mechanisms of chronic low back pain treatments.MethodsThe multidisciplinary center is running two randomized controlled trials that share common resources for recruitment, enrollment, study execution, and data acquisition. We expect to recruit over 300 chronic low back pain participants across two projects and across different treatment arms within each project. The first project will examine pain-CBT compared with MBSR and a wait-list control group. The second project will examine real versus sham electroacupuncture. We will use behavioral, psychophysical, physical measure, and neuroimaging techniques to characterize the central pain modulatory and emotion regulatory systems in chronic low back pain at baseline and longitudinally. We will characterize how these interventions impact these systems, characterize the longitudinal treatment effects, and identify predictors of treatment efficacy.ResultsParticipant recruitment began on March 17, 2015, and will end in March 2023. Recruitment was halted in March 2020 due to COVID-19 and resumed in December 2021.ConclusionsThis center uses a comprehensive approach to study chronic low back pain. Findings are expected to significantly advance our understanding in (1) the baseline and longitudinal mechanisms of chronic low back pain, (2) the common and distinctive mechanisms of three mind-body therapies, and (3) predictors of treatment response, thereby informing future delivery of nonpharmacologic chronic low back pain treatments.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02503475; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02503475.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/37823.

Project description:Study designMarkov model.ObjectiveFurther validity test of a previously published model.Summary of background dataThe previous model was built using data from ten randomized trials and examined the 1-year effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 17 nonpharmacologic interventions for chronic low back pain (CLBP), each compared to usual care alone. This update incorporated data from five additional trials.MethodsBased on transition probabilities that were estimated using patient-level trial data, a hypothetical cohort of CLBP patients transitioned over time among four defined health states: high-impact chronic pain with substantial activity limitations; higher (moderate-impact) and lower (low-impact) pain without activity limitations; and no pain. As patients transitioned among health states, they accumulated quality-adjusted life-years, as well as healthcare and productivity costs. Costs and effects were calculated incremental to each study's version of usual care.ResultsFrom the societal perspective and assuming a typical patient mix (25% low-impact, 35% moderate-impact, and 40% high-impact chronic pain), most interventions-including those newly added-were cost-effective (<$50,000/QALY) and demonstrated cost savings. From the payer perspective, fewer were cost-saving, but the same number were cost-effective. Results for the new studies generally mirrored others using the same interventions-for example, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and physical therapy. A new acupuncture study had similar effectiveness to other acupuncture studies, but higher usual care costs, resulting in higher cost savings. Two new yoga studies' results were similar, but both differed from those of the original yoga study. Mindfulness-based stress reduction was similar to CBT for a typical patient mix but was twice as effective for those with high-impact chronic pain.ConclusionMarkov modeling facilitates comparisons across interventions not directly compared in trials, using consistent outcome measures after balancing the baseline mix of patients. Outcomes also differed by pain impact level, emphasizing the need to measure CLBP subgroups.Level of evidenceN/A.

Project description:BackgroundCognitive behavioral therapy is known to improve the management of chronic pain. However, the components of this therapy are still being investigated and debated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the effectiveness of an integrated cognitive behavioral therapy program with new components (attention-shift, memory work, video feedback, and image training) delivered via videoconferencing.MethodsThis study was unblinded and participants were recruited and assessed face-to-face in the outpatient department. We conducted a randomized controlled trial for chronic pain to compare 16 weekly videoconference-based cognitive behavioral therapy (vCBT) sessions provided by a therapist with treatment as usual (TAU). Thirty patients (age range, 22-75 years) with chronic pain were randomly assigned to either vCBT (n=15) or TAU (n=15). Patients were evaluated at week 1 (baseline), week 8 (midintervention), and week 16 (postintervention). The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity, which was recorded using the numerical rating scale at 16 weeks from the baseline. Secondary outcomes were pain severity and pain interference, which were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory. Additionally, we evaluated disability, pain catastrophizing cognition, depression, anxiety, quality of life, and cost utility.ResultsIn the eligibility assessment, 30 patients were eventually randomized and enrolled; finally, 15 patients in the vCBT and 14 patients in the TAU group were analyzed. Although no significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of changes in pain intensity by the numerical rating scale scores at week 16 from baseline (P=.36), there was a significant improvement in the comprehensive evaluation of pain by total score of Brief Pain Inventory (-1.43, 95% CI -2.49 to -0.37, df=24; P=.01). Further, significant improvement was seen in pain interference by using the Brief Pain Inventory (-9.42, 95% CI -14.47 to -4.36, df=25; P=.001) and in disability by using the Pain Disability Assessment Scale (-1.95, 95% CI -3.33 to -0.56, df=24; P=.008) compared with TAU. As for the Medical Economic Evaluation, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 1 year was estimated at 2.9 million yen (about US $25,000) per quality-adjusted life year gained.ConclusionsThe findings of our study suggest that integrated cognitive behavioral therapy delivered by videoconferencing in regular medical care may reduce pain interference but not pain intensity. Further, this treatment method may be cost-effective, although this needs to be further verified using a larger sample size.Trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network UMIN000031124; https://tinyurl.com/2pr3xszb.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of custom-made insoles compared with general practitioner (GP)-led usual care after 26 weeks of follow-up in individuals with plantar heel pain (PHP) from a societal perspective.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis of a double-blinded randomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practice in the Netherlands.Participants116 participants with PHP for at least 2 weeks, aged 18-65 years and presenting to the GP.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to GP-led usual care (n=46) or referral to a podiatrist for treatment with a custom-made insole (n=70). Participant randomised to a sham insole (n=69) were excluded from this analysis.Primary and secondary outcomesOutcomes comprised pain during rest and activity, and quality of life. Costs included healthcare and lost productivity costs. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping and presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsParticipants in the custom-made insole group experienced statistically significant more pain during activity at 26 weeks than participants in the usual care group (overall effect 1.06; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.75). There were no significant differences between groups in other outcomes. Total societal costs in the custom-made insole group were non-significantly higher than in the usual care group (mean difference €376; 95% CI -€1775 to €2038). The intervention with custom-made insoles was dominated by usual care by the GP (ie, more expensive and less effective) for pain during activity and quality of life outcomes. For the outcome pain at rest, the intervention was more expensive and more effective than usual care. However, the maximum probability of cost-effectiveness was only 0.59 at very high ceiling ratios.ConclusionsThese findings show that that custom-made insoles are not cost-effective in comparison with GP-led usual care. Clinicians should be reserved in prescribing custom-made insoles for PHP as a primary intervention.Trial registration numberNTR5346.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a significant problem affecting millions of people worldwide. Three widely implemented psychological techniques used for CLBP management are cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and behavioral activation (BA). This study aimed to evaluate the relative immediate (pre- to post-treatment) and longer term (pre-treatment to 3- and 6-month follow-ups) effects of group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM for CLBP.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a three-arm, randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of three active treatments-CT, BA, and MM-with no inert control condition. Participants were N = 302 adults with CLBP, who were randomized to condition. The primary outcome was pain interference, and other secondary outcomes were also examined. The primary study end-point was post-treatment. Intent-to-treat analyses were undertaken for each time point, with the means of the changes in outcomes compared among the three groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Effect sizes and confidence intervals are also reported.ResultsMedium-to-large effect size reductions in pain interference were found within BA, CT, and MM (ds from - .71 to - 1.00), with gains maintained at both follow-up time points. Effect sizes were generally small to medium for secondary outcomes for all three conditions (ds from - .20 to - .71). No significant between-group differences in means or changes in outcomes were found at any time point, except for change in sleep disturbance from pre- to post-treatment, improving more in BA than MM (d = - .49).ConclusionsThe findings from this trial, one of the largest telehealth trials of psychological treatments to date, critically determined that group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM are effective for CLBP and can be implemented in clinical practice to improve treatment access. The pattern of results demonstrated similar improvements across treatments and outcome domains, with effect sizes consistent with those observed in prior research testing in-person delivered and multi-modal psychological pain treatments. Thus, internet treatment delivery represents a tool to scale up access to evidence-based chronic pain treatments and to overcome widespread disparities in healthcare.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT03687762.

Project description:BackgroundLow back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.MethodsThe two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.ConclusionsOur results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets