Patricia M Herman1, Melissa L Anderson2, Karen J Sherman2,3, Benjamin H Balderson2, Judith A Turner4,5, Daniel C Cherkin2,6,7. 1. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 5. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 6. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
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.
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.
Authors: Michael Drummond; Marco Barbieri; John Cook; Henry A Glick; Joanna Lis; Farzana Malik; Shelby D Reed; Frans Rutten; Mark Sculpher; Johan Severens Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-01-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Natalia E Morone; Carol M Greco; Charity G Moore; Bruce L Rollman; Bridget Lane; Lisa A Morrow; Nancy W Glynn; Debra K Weiner Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Nicholas Henschke; Raymond Wjg Ostelo; Maurits W van Tulder; Johan Ws Vlaeyen; Stephen Morley; Willem Jj Assendelft; Chris J Main Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-07-07
Authors: Sarah E Lamb; Zara Hansen; Ranjit Lall; Emanuela Castelnuovo; Emma J Withers; Vivien Nichols; Rachel Potter; Martin R Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel C Cherkin; Karen J Sherman; Benjamin H Balderson; Andrea J Cook; Melissa L Anderson; Rene J Hawkes; Kelly E Hansen; Judith A Turner Journal: JAMA Date: 2016 Mar 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter M Wayne; Julie E Buring; David M Eisenberg; Kamila Osypiuk; Brian J Gow; Roger B Davis; Claudia M Witt; Thomas Reinhold Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Leeanne Nicklas; Mairi Albiston; Martin Dunbar; Alan Gillies; Jennifer Hislop; Helen Moffat; Judy Thomson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Adrienne L Adler-Neal; Christian E Waugh; Eric L Garland; Hossam A Shaltout; Debra I Diz; Fadel Zeidan Journal: J Pain Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Jessica S Merlin; Andrew O Westfall; Mallory O Johnson; Robert D Kerns; Matthew J Bair; Stefan Kertesz; Janet M Turan; Olivio J Clay; Joanna L Starrels; Meredith Kilgore Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Mark P Jensen; Maria Elena Mendoza; Dawn M Ehde; David R Patterson; Ivan R Molton; Tiara M Dillworth; Kevin J Gertz; Joy Chan; Shahin Hakimian; Samuel L Battalio; Marcia A Ciol Journal: Pain Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 7.926