Cost-effectiveness of Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain in Veterans

Evaluation of intervention components to maximize yoga practice among people with chronic pain taking opioid agonist therapy: A factorial experiment using the multiphase optimization strategy framework

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain affects up to half of individuals taking opioid agonist therapy (OAT; i.e., methadone and buprenorphine) for opioid use disorder (OUD), and yoga-based interventions may be useful for decreasing pain-related disability. Whereas more yoga practice (i.e., higher "dosage") may improve pain-related outcomes, it can be challenging for people with chronic pain taking OAT to attend class regularly and sustain a regular personal yoga practice. Therefore, we plan to optimize a yoga-based intervention (YBI) package in order to support class attendance and personal practice, thus maximizing the yoga dose received.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) framework, we will conduct a factorial experiment to examine four intervention components that may be added to a weekly yoga class as part of a YBI. Components include: 1) personal practice videos featuring study yoga teachers, 2) two private sessions with a yoga teacher, 3) daily text messages to inspire personal practice, and 4) monetary incentives for class attendance. The primary outcome will be minutes per week engaged in yoga (including class attendance and personal practice). We plan to enroll 192 adults with chronic pain who are taking OAT for OUD in this 2x2x2x2 factorial experiment.

CONCLUSION

Results of the study will guide development of an optimized yoga-based intervention package that maximizes dosage of yoga received. The final treatment package can be tested in a multisite efficacy trial of yoga to reduce pain interference in daily functioning in people with chronic pain who are taking OAT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pre-registration of the study was completed on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04641221).

[Yoga as an intervention for chronic pain]

The use of yoga, especially as an intervention for chronic pain, is increasing worldwide. Available data on chronic low back pain, within limits also for chronic neck pain and certain types of headache, show statistically significant positive effects related to pain intensity and pain-related impairments. The data provide evidence that yoga is at least equal in efficacy and safety to other exercise interventions as well as individualized physical therapy. The dose of the intervention seems to be of secondary importance, but the establishment of a long-term independent practice after initial supervision seems to be essential; however, for other pain disorders there is still a need for research.

Cost effectiveness of a technology-enhanced physical activity intervention for Latinas

Latinas report low levels of physical activity (PA) and disproportionate risk of lifestyle-related diseases. Enhancements to evidence-based PA interventions may increase efficacy; however, uptake of interventions will likely depend on costs. To describe costs and examine the cost-effectiveness of two interventions for helping Latinas reach national aerobic PA guidelines. Adult Latinas (N = 199) were randomly assigned to an Original theory-based mail-delivered intervention or an Enhanced version with texting and additional calls and materials. Meeting PA guidelines was measured by the 7-Day PA Recall interview at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Intervention costs were estimated from a payer perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the additional cost per participant meeting guidelines in the Enhanced versus Original intervention. At baseline, no participants met guidelines. After 6 months, 57% and 44% in the Enhanced and Original arms met guidelines, respectively; at 12 months, rates fell to 46% and 36%. Cost per person of the Enhanced and Original interventions were $184 and $173 at 6 months, respectively, and $234 and $203 at 12 months. The primary additional expense in the Enhanced arm was staff time. ICERs were $87 per additional person meeting guidelines at 6 months (per sensitivity analysis, $26 if delivered by volunteers and $114 by medical assistants), and $317 at 12 months (sensitivity analysis: $57 and $434). Incremental costs per person meeting guidelines in the Enhanced arm were modest and could be warranted given the potential health benefits of meeting PA guidelines.

Yoga and pain: A mind-body complex system

Introduction

The human body's response to pain is indicative of a complex adaptive system. Therapeutic yoga potentially represents a similar complex adaptive system that could interact with the pain response system with unique benefits.

Objectives

To determine the viability of yoga as a therapy for pain and whether pain responses and/or yoga practice should be considered complex adaptive systems.

Methods

Examination through 3 different approaches, including a narrative overview of the evidence on pain responses, yoga, and complex system, followed by a network analysis of associated keywords, followed by a mapping of the functional components of complex systems, pain response, and yoga.

Results

The narrative overview provided extensive evidence of the unique efficacy of yoga as a pain therapy, as well as articulating the relevance of applying complex systems perspectives to pain and yoga interventions. The network analysis demonstrated patterns connecting pain and yoga, while complex systems topics were the most extensively connected to the studies as a whole.

Conclusion

All three approaches support considering yoga a complex adaptive system that exhibits unique benefits as a pain management system. These findings have implications for treating chronic, pervasive pain with behavioral medicine as a systemic intervention. Approaching yoga as complex system suggests the need for research of mind-body topics that focuses on long-term systemic changes rather than short-term isolated effects.

Yoga for chronic non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines recommend exercise therapy. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham yoga, no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, focusing on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 August 2021 without language or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of yoga compared to sham yoga, no intervention, any other intervention and yoga added to other therapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. back-specific function, 2. pain, 3. clinical improvement, 4. mental and physical quality of life, 5. depression, and 6.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Our minor outcome was 1. work disability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for the major outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (2223 participants) from the USA, India, the UK, Croatia, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. Participants were recruited from both clinical and community settings. Most were women in their 40s or 50s. Most trials used iyengar, hatha, or viniyoga yoga. Trials compared yoga to a non-exercise control including waiting list, usual care, or education (10 trials); back-focused exercise such as physical therapy (five trials); both exercise and non-exercise controls (four trials); both non-exercise and another mind-body exercise (qigong) (one trial); and yoga plus exercise to exercise alone (one trial). One trial comparing yoga to exercise was an intensive residential one-week program, and we analyzed this trial separately. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment, and outcomes were self-assessed. We found no trials comparing yoga to sham yoga. Low-certainty evidence from 11 trials showed that there may be a small clinically unimportant improvement in back-specific function with yoga (mean difference [MD] -1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.73 to -0.65 on the 0- to 24-point Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ], lower = better, minimal clinically important difference [MCID] 5 points; 1155 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence from nine trials showed a clinically unimportant improvement in pain (MD -4.53, 95% CI -6.61 to -2.46 on a 0 to 100 scale, 0 no pain, MCID 15 points; 946 participants) compared to no exercise at three months. Low-certainty evidence from four trials showed that there may be a clinical improvement with yoga (risk ratio [RR] 2.33, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.71; assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved; 353 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence from six trials showed that there is probably a small improvement in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.33 on the 36-item Short Form [SF-36] physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 2.38, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 686 participants). Low-certainty evidence from three trials showed little to no improvement in depression (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.90 to 0.46 on the Beck Depression Inventory, lower = better; 241 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from eight trials that yoga increased the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, at six to 12 months (RR 4.76, 95% CI 2.08 to 10.89; 43/1000 with yoga and 9/1000 with no exercise; 1037 participants). For yoga compared to back-focused exercise controls (8 trials, 912 participants) at three months, we found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials for little or no difference in back-specific function (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.33 to 0.62 on the RMDQ, lower = better; 575 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from two trials for little or no difference in pain (MD 2.68, 95% CI -2.01 to 7.36 on a 0 to 100 scale, lower = better; 326 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence from three trials for no difference in clinical improvement assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31; 433 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from one trial for little or no difference in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.30, 95% CI -0.95 to 3.55 on the SF-36 physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.17 to 4.97 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 237 participants). No studies reported depression. Low-certainty evidence from five trials showed that there was little or no difference between yoga and exercise in the risk of adverse events at six to 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.53; 84/1000 with yoga and 91/1000 with non-yoga exercise; 640 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to no exercise results in small and clinically unimportant improvements in back-related function and pain. There is probably little or no difference between yoga and other back-related exercise for back-related function at three months, although it remains uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for pain and quality of life. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than no exercise, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other exercise. In light of these results, decisions to use yoga instead of no exercise or another exercise may depend on availability, cost, and participant or provider preference. Since all studies were unblinded and at high risk of performance and detection bias, it is unlikely that blinded comparisons would find a clinically important benefit.

From patient outcomes to system change: Evaluating the impact of VHA's implementation of the Whole Health System of Care

OBJECTIVE

To describe how a partnered evaluation of the Whole Health (WH) system of care-comprised of the WH pathway, clinical care, and well-being programs-produced patient outcomes findings, which informed Veterans Health Administration (VA) policy and system change.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic health records (EHR)-based cohort of 1,368,413 patients and a longitudinal survey of Veterans receiving care at 18 WH pilot medical centers.

STUDY DESIGN

In partnership with VA operations, we focused the evaluation on the impact of WH services utilization on Veterans' (1) use of opioids and (2) care experiences, care engagement, and well-being. Outcomes were compared between Veterans who did and did not use WH services identified from the EHR.

DATA COLLECTION

Pharmacy records and WH service data were obtained from the VA EHR, including WH coaching, peer-led groups, personal health planning, and complementary, integrative health therapies. We surveyed veterans at baseline and 6 months to measure patient-reported outcomes.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Opioid use decreased 23% (31.5-6.5) to 38% (60.3-14.4) among WH users depending on level of WH use compared to a secular 11% (12.0-9.9) decrease among Veterans using Conventional Care. Compared to Conventional Care users, WH users reported greater improvements in perceptions of care (SMD = 0.138), engagement in health care (SMD = 0.118) and self-care (SMD = 0.1), life meaning and purpose (SMD = 0.152), pain (SMD = 0.025), and perceived stress (SMD = 0.191).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence developed through this partnership yielded key VA policy changes to increase Veteran access to WH services. Findings formed the foundation of a congressionally mandated report in response to the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, highlighting the value of WH and complementary, integrative health and well-being programs for Veterans with pain. Findings subsequently informed issuance of an Executive Decision Memo mandating the integration of WH into mental health and primary care across VA, now one lane of modernization for VA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a chronic back pain multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) compared to standard care for privately insured in Germany

Background

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) is highly recommended for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) treatment, but its economic benefit remains to be clearly demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of a 12-month MBR programme of behavioural change coaching and device-supported exercise on direct medical costs, sick leave and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 24 months.

Methods

An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Germany from a private health insurance perspective using data from a multi-centre, two-arm randomised controlled trial with parallel-group Zelen's randomisation and 24-month follow-up. After removing dissimilarities in characteristics between MBR and usual care (control) via propensity score matching, treatment effects were calculated using a difference-in-difference approach.

Results

Base-case analysis of the MBR (n=112) and usual care group (n=111) showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8,296 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Compared to the controls, MBR reduced economically unaccounted sick leave due to back pain in the last six months by 17.5 days (p = 0.001) and had a positive effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (0.046, p=0.026). Subgroup analysis of participants with major impairment demonstrated that a dominant intervention was possible, as reflected by an ICER of - €7,302 per QALY. Savings were driven by a - €1,824 reduction in back pain-specific costs. Moreover, sick leave was 27 days (p = 0.006) less in the MBR group.

Conclusions

This first cost-effectiveness study with combined data from a private health insurer and a controlled trial in Germany demonstrated that long term MBR for the treatment of CLBP is cost-effective. Subgroups with major impairment from back pain benefitted more from the intervention than those with minor impairment. MBR significantly reduced sick leave in all participants. Hence, it is a profitable intervention from a societal point of view.

Trial registration

The trial of the evaluation study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under trial number DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).

The Relationships Between Self-reported Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Quality of Life Among Injured U.S. Service Members With and Without Low Back Pain

Low back pain is a prevalent military and veteran health problem and individuals injured on deployment may be at particularly high risk of pain conditions. Given that increasing numbers of active duty and veteran military personnel are seeking care in community settings, it is critical that health care providers are aware of military health issues. The current study examined the prevalence of low back pain among individuals with deployment-related injuries, compared their self-reported pain intensity and interference ratings, and assessed the relationship between low back pain, self-reported pain ratings, and quality of life. Almost half of participants had low back pain diagnoses, and individuals with low back pain reported significantly higher intensity and interference due to their pain than individuals without low back pain. Finally, the relationship between low back pain and quality of life was explained by self-reported pain indices, underscoring the importance of patient-centered metrics in pain treatment.