STUDY DESIGN: Multicentered randomized controlled trial with quality of life and resource use data collected. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of yoga intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone for chronic or recurrent low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Yoga has been shown as an effective intervention for treating chronic or recurrent low back pain. However, there is little evidence on its cost-effectiveness. The data are extracted from a pragmatic, multicentered, randomized controlled trial that has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-week progressive program of yoga plus usual care in patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain. METHODS: With this trial data, a cost-effectiveness analysis during the time period of 12 months from both perspectives of the UK National Health Service and the societal is presented. Main outcome measure is an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: From the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service, yoga intervention yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,606 per QALY. Given a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000, the probability of yoga intervention being cost-effective is 72%. From the perspective of the society, yoga intervention is a dominant treatment compared with usual care alone. This result is surrounded by fewer uncertainties-the probability of yoga being cost-effective reaches 95% at a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000. Sensitive analyses suggest the same results that yoga intervention is likely to be cost-effective in both perspectives. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this trial, 12 weekly group classes of specialized yoga are likely to be a cost-effective intervention for treating patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Multicentered randomized controlled trial with quality of life and resource use data collected. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of yoga intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone for chronic or recurrent low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Yoga has been shown as an effective intervention for treating chronic or recurrent low back pain. However, there is little evidence on its cost-effectiveness. The data are extracted from a pragmatic, multicentered, randomized controlled trial that has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-week progressive program of yoga plus usual care in patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain. METHODS: With this trial data, a cost-effectiveness analysis during the time period of 12 months from both perspectives of the UK National Health Service and the societal is presented. Main outcome measure is an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: From the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service, yoga intervention yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,606 per QALY. Given a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000, the probability of yoga intervention being cost-effective is 72%. From the perspective of the society, yoga intervention is a dominant treatment compared with usual care alone. This result is surrounded by fewer uncertainties-the probability of yoga being cost-effective reaches 95% at a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000. Sensitive analyses suggest the same results that yoga intervention is likely to be cost-effective in both perspectives. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this trial, 12 weekly group classes of specialized yoga are likely to be a cost-effective intervention for treating patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain.
Authors: L Susan Wieland; Nicole Skoetz; Karen Pilkington; Ramaprabhu Vempati; Christopher R D'Adamo; Brian M Berman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-01-12
Authors: Crystal L Park; Erik Groessl; Meghan Maiya; Andrew Sarkin; Susan V Eisen; Kristen Riley; A Rani Elwy Journal: Complement Ther Med Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 2.446
Authors: Patricia M Herman; Melissa L Anderson; Karen J Sherman; Benjamin H Balderson; Judith A Turner; Daniel C Cherkin Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-10-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Robert B Saper; Karen J Sherman; Anthony Delitto; Patricia M Herman; Joel Stevans; Ruth Paris; Julia E Keosaian; Christian J Cerrada; Chelsey M Lemaster; Carol Faulkner; Maya Breuer; Janice Weinberg Journal: Trials Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Eric J Roseen; Hanna Gerlovin; Alexandra Femia; Jae Cho; Suzanne Bertisch; Susan Redline; Karen J Sherman; Robert Saper Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sandra Hollinghurst; Joanna Coast; John Busby; Annette Bishop; Nadine E Foster; Angelo Franchini; Sean Grove; Jeanette Hall; Cherida Hopper; Surinder Kaur; Alan A Montgomery; Chris Salisbury Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 2.692