Real-world Impact of Fremanezumab on Migraine-Related Health Care Resource Utilization in Patients with Comorbidities, Acute Medication Overuse, and/or Unsatisfactory Prior Migraine Preventive Response.

INTRODUCTION: Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, is indicated for preventive treatment of migraine in adults. Real-world evidence assessing the effect of fremanezumab on migraine-related medication use, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patient populations with comorbidities, acute medication overuse (AMO), and/or unsatisfactory prior migraine preventive response (UPMPR) is needed. METHODS: Data for this US, retrospective claims analysis were obtained from the Merative® MarketScan® Commercial and supplemental databases. Eligible adults with migraine initiated fremanezumab between 1 September 2018 and 30 June 2019 (date of earliest fremanezumab claim is the index date), had ≥ 12 months of continuous enrollment prior to initiation (preindex period) and ≥ 6 months of data following initiation (postindex period; variable follow-up after 6 months), and had certain preindex migraine comorbidities (depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease), potential AMO, or UPMPR. Changes in migraine-related concomitant acute and preventive medication use, HCRU, and costs were assessed pre- versus postindex. RESULTS: In total, 3193 patients met the eligibility criteria. From pre- to postindex, mean (SD) per patient per month (PPPM) number of migraine-related acute medication and preventive medication claims (excluding fremanezumab), respectively, decreased from 0.97 (0.90) to 0.86 (0.87) (P < 0.001) and 0.94 (0.74) to 0.81 (0.75) (P < 0.001). Migraine-related outpatient and neurologist office visits, emergency department visits, and other outpatient services PPPM decreased pre- versus postindex (P < 0.001 for all), resulting in a reduction in mean (SD) total health care costs PPPM from US$541 (US$858) to US$490 (US$974) (P = 0.003). Patients showed high adherence and persistence rates, with mean (SD) proportion of days covered of 0.71 (0.29), medication possession ratio of 0.74 (0.31), and persistence duration of 160.3 (33.2) days 6 months postindex. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with certain migraine comorbidities, potential AMO, and/or UPMPR in a real-world setting had reduced migraine-related medication use, HCRU, and costs following initiation of fremanezumab. Graphical abstract available for this article.

Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb; IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world effectiveness data are needed to complement clinical trial data. This study assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab across different subgroups of adult patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), or difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based online chart review used electronic case report forms. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of EM or CM; age ≥ 18 years at the time of first fremanezumab initiation; ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment; ≥ 1 follow-up visit since first initiation; and ≥ 2 measurements of monthly migraine days (MMD; with 1 within a month before or at first initiation and ≥ 1 after first initiation). Changes in MMD and monthly headache days were assessed during the follow-up period. These endpoints were evaluated in subgroups of patients by migraine type (EM/CM) and in subgroups with DTT migraine (diagnosis of medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or prior exposure to a different CGRP pathway-targeted mAb [CGRP mAb]). RESULTS: Data were collected from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD at Month 6 were - 7.7 (77.0%) in EM patients, - 10.1 (68.7%) in CM patients, - 10.8 (80.6%) in the MO subgroup, - 9.9 (68.3%) in the MDD subgroup, - 9.5 (66.4%) in the GAD subgroup, and - 9.0 (68.7%) in the prior CGRP mAb exposure subgroup. Improvements in MDD or GAD severity were reported by 45.5% and 45.8% of patients with comorbid MDD or GAD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, fremanezumab demonstrated effectiveness for migraine regardless of migraine type or the presence of factors contributing to DTT migraine (MO, GAD, MDD, or prior exposure to a different CGRP mAb).

A real-world study of acute and preventive medication use, adherence, and persistence in patients prescribed fremanezumab in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Following approval of fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine in adults, health care decision makers are interested in understanding real-world clinical characteristics and treatment patterns among patients initiating fremanezumab therapy. METHODS: Data were obtained for this retrospective (pre-post) study from the Veradigm Health Insights database. The study period was January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019. Patients were included if they were aged ≥ 18 years; had ≥ 1 migraine diagnosis during the study period; and had a medication record for fremanezumab on or after diagnosis during the identification period (September 1, 2018-December 31, 2018). Treatment patterns, including adherence, persistence, and utilization of acute and preventive migraine medication prescriptions, were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 987 patients initiating fremanezumab during the study period, 738 (74.8%) were adherent to fremanezumab by proportion of days covered (PDC; ≥ 80%) and 780 (79.0%) were adherent by medication possession ratio (MPR; ≥ 80%). A total of 746 (75.6%) patients were persistent for ≥ 6 months. Quarterly fremanezumab (n = 186) was associated with higher rates of adherence versus monthly fremanezumab (n = 801) by PDC (quarterly, 91.3%; monthly, 84.9%; P < 0.001) and MPR (quarterly, 92.2%; monthly, 87.9%; P = 0.006) and higher persistence at ≥ 6 months (quarterly, 82.8%; monthly, 73.9%; P = 0.011). After fremanezumab initiation, patients who were persistent for ≥ 6 months experienced significant reductions from baseline in the mean monthly number of acute and preventive migraine medication prescriptions (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses in patients with comorbid depression and anxiety showed meaningful real-world benefits based on significant reductions in the number of patients who were prescribed antidepressants (baseline, 68.6%; follow-up, 56.4%; P = 0.0025) and anxiolytic medications (baseline, 55.0%; follow-up, 47.2%; P = 0.037), respectively. In a subgroup of patients with comorbid hypertension at baseline, fremanezumab treatment resulted in nonsignificant reductions in blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adherence and persistence to fremanezumab in this real-world study was high in patients with migraine, with higher rates observed for quarterly fremanezumab. Patients who were persistent for ≥ 6 months experienced significant reductions in acute and preventive migraine medication use, while a subgroup of migraine patients with comorbid depression and anxiety at baseline showed significant reductions in antidepressant and anxiolytic medication use.

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in migraine patients initiating treatment in the United States: results from a retrospective chart study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults, have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world data can further support those clinical trial data and demonstrate the full clinical benefits of fremanezumab. This chart review assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab for improving clinical outcomes in adult patients with migraine treated according to real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based, online physician chart review study used electronic case report forms with US physicians. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of migraine, fremanezumab treatment initiation at ≥ 18 years of age after US Food and Drug Administration approval, ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment, and ≥ 2 assessments of monthly migraine days (MMD; 1 within 30 days before treatment initiation and ≥ 1 after initiation). Changes from baseline in MMD, monthly headache days (MHD), and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores were assessed over 6 months. These endpoints were evaluated in the overall population and subgroups divided by dosing schedule and number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures. RESULTS: This study included data from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean age at fremanezumab initiation was 39.7 years, and most patients were female (75.8%). In the overall population, mean baseline MMD and MHD were 12.7 and 14.0, respectively. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD and MHD, respectively, were - 4.6 (36.2%) and - 4.7 (33.6%) at Month 1, - 6.7 (52.8%) and - 6.8 (48.6%) at Month 3, and - 9.2 (72.4%) and - 9.8 (70.0%) at Month 6. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MIDAS and HIT-6 scores also increased over the 6-month study period, from - 6.2 (21.6%) and - 8.4 (14.0%) at Month 1 to - 18.1 (63.1%) and - 16.2 (27.0%) at Month 6, respectively. Improvements in these outcomes over 6 months were observed across all evaluated subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study demonstrated effectiveness of fremanezumab treatment for up to 6 months, irrespective of dosing regimen or number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures, reflecting ongoing, clinically meaningful improvements in patient outcomes.

Real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns and costs in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients treated with glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide in Germany.

Aim: To evaluate adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for glatiramer acetate (GA; injectable), dimethyl fumarate (oral) and teriflunomide (oral) in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Patients & methods: Retrospective analyses of a claims database. Results: Teriflunomide patients were older with more co-morbidities and fewer relapses versus GA and dimethyl fumarate. GA patients were mostly disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)-treatment naive. Treatment adherence was 61-70%. All DMTs reduced HRU versus pre-index. Costs were comparable across cohorts. High adherence reduced hospitalizations and several costs versus low adherers. Conclusion: Adherence rates were high and comparable with all DMTs. Similar (and high) reductions in HRU and costs occurred with all DMTs. High adherence improved economic outcomes versus low adherence. Thus, investing in adherence improvement is beneficial to improve outcomes in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Drugs used for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) include, among others, glatiramer acetate (injection), dimethyl fumarate (tablet) and teriflunomide (tablet). We compared treatment adherence (based on drug claims), healthcare use and costs for these drugs. Treatment adherence and healthcare use was similar for these three drugs. The need to be in hospital was lower with these drugs compared with not using them. No differences in treatment costs were seen between these drugs. Adherence reduced the need for hospital stays and lowered some costs compared with patients who were classified as adherent. RMS patients should be encouraged to take their RMS medication as prescribed. Improving treatment adherence will have a positive effect on RMS, and a good impact on healthcare use and costs.

Comment on: Gao B, Lu Q, Wan R, Wang Z, Yang Y, Chen Z, Wang Z. "Monthly versus quarterly fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine: a systemic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials". Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2021 Apr;394(4):819-828. Epublished November 2020.

Recently, Gao et al. published an article titled "Monthly versus quarterly fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine: a systemic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials" which concluded that monthly administration of fremanezumab led to significant reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) when compared to quarterly fremanezumab. We have noted a critical flaw in Gao et al. meta-analysis wherein the authors have mistakenly utilized standard error values in place of standard deviation values in performing their pooled analyses. This error directly impacts the study results and conclusions. In this brief communication, we present revised analysis using correct methods. Using the correct SD values, our pooled analysis showed no significant difference in mean change from baseline in MMD between the two fremanezumab dosing regimens (P = 0.17). Furthermore, in the corrected subgroup analyses by type of migraine, there were no significant differences in mean change from baseline in MMD between monthly fremanezumab and quarterly fremanezumab (chronic migraine, P = 0.50; episodic migraine, P = 0.69). Overall, results from our corrected meta-analyses show that there is no significant difference in migraine prevention efficacy between monthly and quarterly fremanezumab dosing.

Assessment of rituximab-abbs, a biosimilar, and rituximab outcomes in patients with CLL or NHL: A real-world UK study.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) treatment is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Rituximab-abbs (first biosimilar approved in 2017) is expected to significantly reduce healthcare economic burden due to lower acquisition costs. This non-interventional, non-comparative study assessed real-world effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab-abbs and rituximab in treatment-naive patients with CLL or NHL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Via an online physician survey, 46 UK-registered hematologists and oncologists retrospectively reported on randomly selected patients aged ≥18 years with CLL or NHL with rituximab-abbs or rituximab as first-line immunotherapy. Overall, 201 patient charts were examined across 4 cohorts: rituximab-abbs in CLL, rituximab-abbs in NHL, rituximab in CLL, rituximab in NHL. RESULTS: Demographic profiles across cohorts were similar. Most patients (94 %-100 %) received combination therapy (rituximab-abbs or rituximab mainly with chemotherapy). For both treatments, overall response rate (94 %-98 %) and 1-year overall survival (98 %-100 %) were very high for patients with CLL or NHL. Most common serious adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia and infusion reactions. The majority of patients (54 %-66 %) did not experience a grade ≥3 adverse event. Healthcare resource utilization was similarly high across cohorts, driven by diagnostic testing, oncologist office visits, and day-case hospital admissions; many patients required supportive medical therapies. Mean annual savings of ∼£1000/patient driven by acquisition costs occurred with rituximab-abbs versus rituximab, administration costs were similar. CONCLUSION: Rituximab-abbs and rituximab demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability in treating CLL and NHL in routine UK clinical practice and demonstrate the utility of the biosimilar as a cost-saving alternative treatment.

Clinical Outcomes and Health-Care Resource Use Associated With Reslizumab Treatment in Adults With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in Real-World Practice.

BACKGROUND: Reslizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody, is indicated as add-on maintenance treatment for adults with severe eosinophilic asthma. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the real-world outcomes associated with reslizumab use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in a US clinical practice? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, patient-level data from adults treated with reslizumab were obtained from center- and panel-based medical chart reviews. Eligible patients had available medical records and treatment history for ≥ 6 months before initiation of reslizumab treatment (index date) to ≥ 7 months after reslizumab initiation. The primary outcome was response to reslizumab treatment, based on clinical expert predefined definitions of response. Other outcomes included clinical asthma exacerbations (CAEs), use of maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS), FEV1 percent predicted, Asthma Control Test (ACT) score, and health-care resource use (HRU). RESULTS: Medical charts were obtained for 215 patients. Most patients (58.6%) showed an excellent response, 16.3% showed a clinically meaningful response, 21.9% showed a partial response, and 3.3% were nonresponders or treatment failures. A significant reduction was observed in the proportion of patients experiencing a CAE in a 6-month period (from 86.0% to 40.5%; P < .001) and in the mean number of CAEs per patient (2.84 [SD, 2.41] vs 0.94 [SD, 1.86]) after reslizumab initiation. Improvements were observed in FEV1 percent predicted (65.1% [SD, 20.5%] vs 73.1% [SD, 23.1%]; P < .001) and in ACT scores (13.8 [SD, 4.2] vs 18.6 [SD, 4.0]; P < .001) before to after reslizumab initiation. Among patients using maintenance OCS at baseline, more than half discontinued use of these by approximately 10 months after reslizumab initiation. Significant reductions in asthma-related HRU were observed after reslizumab initiation. INTERPRETATION: In clinical practice, reslizumab may have been initiated in response to heavy symptom burden and CAEs. Reslizumab was associated with improved clinical and patient-reported outcomes and significant reductions in asthma-related HRU.

Long-term cost and utility consequences of short-term clinically important deterioration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the TORCH study.

Purpose: Clinically important deterioration (CID) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a novel composite endpoint that assesses disease stability. The association between short-term CID and future economic and quality of life (QoL) outcomes has not been previously assessed. This analysis considers 3-year data from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study, to examine this question. Patients and methods: This post hoc analysis of TORCH (NCT00268216) compared costs and utilities at 3 years among patients without CID (CID-) and with CID (CID+) at 24 weeks. A positive CID status was defined as either: a deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of ≥100 mL from baseline; or a ≥4-unit increase from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; or the incidence of a moderate/severe exacerbation. Patients from all treatment arms were included. Utility change was based on the EQ-5D utility index. Costs were based on healthcare resource utilization from 24 weeks to end of follow-up combined with unit costs for the UK (2016 GBP), and reported as per patient per year (PPPY). Adjusted estimates were generated controlling for baseline characteristics, treatment assignment, and number of CID criteria met. Results: Overall, 3,769 patients completed the study and were included in the analysis (stable CID- patients, n=1,832; unstable CID+ patients, n=1,937). At the end of follow-up, CID- patients had higher mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) utility scores than CID+ patients (0.752 [0.738, 0.765] vs 0.697 [0.685, 0.71]; difference +0.054; P<0.001), and lower costs PPPY (£538 vs £916; difference: £378 [95% CI: £244, £521]; P<0.001). The cost differential was primarily driven by the difference in general hospital ward days (P=0.003). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that achieving early stability in COPD by preventing short-term CID is associated with better preservation of future QoL alongside reduced healthcare service costs.

Systematic review of association between critical errors in inhalation and health outcomes in asthma and COPD.

Inhaled medications are the cornerstone of treatment and management of asthma and COPD. However, inhaler device errors are common among patients and have been linked with reduced symptom control, an increased risk of exacerbations, and increased healthcare utilisation. These observations have prompted GINA (Global INitiative for Asthma) and GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) to recommend regular assessment of inhaler technique in a bid to improve therapeutic outcomes. To better define the relationship between device errors and health outcomes (clinical outcomes, quality of life, and healthcare utilisation) in asthma and COPD, we conducted a systematic review of the literature, with a particular focus on the methods used to assess the relationship between device errors and outcomes. Sixteen studies were identified (12 in patients with asthma, one in patients with COPD, and three in both asthma and COPD) with varying study designs, endpoints, and patient populations. Most of the studies reported that inhalation errors were associated with worse disease outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD. Patients who had a reduction in errors over time had improved outcomes. These findings suggest that time invested by healthcare professionals is vital to improving inhalation technique in asthma and COPD patients to improve health outcomes.

Rates of prostate surgery and acute urinary retention for benign prostatic hyperplasia in men treated with dutasteride or finasteride.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested a greater benefit for various outcomes in men diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who are treated with dutasteride than for men treated with finasteride. This study investigates whether the rates of BPH-related prostate surgery and acute urinary retention (AUR) differ between dutasteride and finasteride users in the Netherlands. METHODS: From the PHARMO Database Network, men aged ≥50 years with a dispensing of dutasteride or finasteride with or without concomitant alpha-blocker treatment between March 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011 were selected. The incidence of BPH-related prostate surgery and AUR was determined during dutasteride or finasteride treatment and stratified by type of initial BPH-treatment (5-ARI monotherapy or combination with alpha-blocker) and prescriber (general practitioner (GP) or urologist). Comparison of the incidence of BPH-related prostate surgery and AUR between the treatment groups was done by Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: 11,822 dutasteride users and 5,781 finasteride users were identified. Most users started treatment in combination with an alpha-blocker. Overall, dutasteride users had a lower risk of BPH-related prostate surgery was lower among dutasteride users than finasteride users (HR: 0.75; 95 % CI: 0.56-0.99). This lower risk among dutasteride users was also seen when stratifying by monotherapy or combination therapy (HR: 0.73; 95 % CI: 0.54-0.98 for monotherapy and HR: 0.85; 95 % CI: 0.74-0.97 for combination therapy). However, the association was only present among men treated by urologists. For AUR the rates were low and no statistical significant difference was observed between dutasteride and finasteride users. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of undergoing BPH-related prostate surgery was lower among men using dutasteride compared to men using finasteride. The association was observed for monotherapy as well as combination therapy, however, only among men who received their prescription from a urologist.

Economic evaluation of ropinirole prolonged release for treatment of Parkinson's disease in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: By using the findings obtained from the PREPARED study, we aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of ropinirole prolonged release (PR) [Requip-Modutab(®)] in Parkinson's disease (PD) versus ropinirole immediate release (IR). In the PREPARED study, ropinirole PR provided a significantly greater improvement in time spent 'off' than ropinirole IR when used as an add-on to levodopa. METHODS: A health state transition model was developed-based on Hoehn and Yahr (HY) stages in PD-to compare the two treatment strategies. The Markov model included the following treatment-related aspects: (i) rate of disease progression; (ii) rates of dyskinesia; and (iii) medication adherence. RESULTS: In our approach, the base-case analysis showed a favourable pharmacoeconomic profile of ropinirole PR versus ropinirole IR. In particular, general cost savings were estimated combined with modest gains in quality of life, due to reduced disease progression and lower dyskinesia rates. Sensitivity analyses showed that this result was rather robust for varying parameters deterministically, although cost savings were lost in some instances. In particular, the treatment benefits of lower dyskinesia rates and improved adherence influenced the cost-effectiveness outcome. Nonetheless, the cost effectiveness remained acceptable within the limits that were investigated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of accepting PR over IR exceeded 95 % for all relevant 'willingness-to-pay' thresholds. CONCLUSION: The results of our study indicate a high likelihood of ropinirole PR being cost saving or at least being considered cost effective for use in the Netherlands. However, claims included in our model regarding dyskinesia and improved medication adherence should be further supported by data from daily practice.

Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: Various conservative interventions have been used for the treatment of non-specific neck pain. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Clinical and economic electronic databases, reference lists and authors' databases were searched up to 13 January 2011. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction. RESULTS: A total of five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials and included a cost-utility analysis, and four studies also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Most often, the economic evaluation was conducted from a societal or a health-care perspective. One study found that manual therapy was dominant over physiotherapy and general practitioner care, whilst behavioural graded activity was not cost-effective compared to manual therapy. The combination of advice and exercise with manual therapy was not cost-effective compared to advice and exercise only. One study found that acupuncture was cost-effective compared to a delayed acupuncture intervention, and another study found no differences on cost-effectiveness between a brief physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy. Pooling of the data was not possible as heterogeneity existed between the studies on participants, interventions, controls, outcomes, follow-up duration and context related socio-political differences. CONCLUSION: At present, the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity between studies warrant no definite conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain.

The effectiveness of participatory ergonomics to prevent low-back and neck pain--results of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate the effectiveness of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics (PE) program to prevent low-back and neck pain. METHODS: A total of 37 departments were randomly allocated to either the intervention (PE) or control group (no PE). During a six-hour meeting, working groups followed the PE steps and composed and prioritized ergonomic measures aimed at preventing low-back and neck pain. Subsequently, working groups were requested to implement the ergonomic measures in the departments. The primary outcomes were low-back and neck pain prevalence and secondary outcomes were pain intensity and duration. Data were collected by questionnaires at baseline, and after 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months follow-up. Additionally, the course of low-back and neck pain (transitions from no symptoms to symptoms and from symptoms to no symptoms) was modeled. RESULTS: The randomization procedure resulted in 19 intervention departments (N=1472 workers) and 18 control departments (N=1575 workers). After 12 months, the intervention was not more effective than the control group in reducing the prevalence of low-back and neck pain or reducing pain intensity and duration. PE did not increase the probability of preventing low-back pain [odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.97-1.57) or neck pain (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.40). However, PE increased the probability of recovering from low-back pain (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96), but not from neck pain (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.26). CONCLUSION: PE neither reduced low-back and neck pain prevalence nor pain intensity and duration nor was it effective in the prevention of low-back and neck pain or the recovery from neck pain. However, PE was more effective in the recovery from low-back pain.

Participatory ergonomics to reduce exposure to psychosocial and physical risk factors for low back pain and neck pain: results of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effectiveness of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme to reduce workers' exposure to psychosocial and physical risk factors. METHODS: 37 departments (n=3047 workers) from four Dutch companies participated in this cluster randomised controlled trial; 19 (n=1472 workers) were randomised to an intervention group (participatory ergonomics) and 18 (n=1575 workers) to a control group (no participatory ergonomics). During a 6 h meeting guided by an ergonomist, working groups devised ergonomic measures to reduce psychosocial and physical workload and implemented them within 3months in their departments. Data on psychosocial and physical risk factors for low back pain and neck pain were collected at baseline and after 6 months. Psychosocial risk factors were measured using the Job Content Questionnaire and physical risk factors using the Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Intervention effects were studied using multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Intervention group workers significantly increased on decision latitude (0.29 points; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.52) and decision authority (0.16 points; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.28) compared to control workers. However, exposure to awkward trunk working postures significantly increased in the intervention group (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.01) compared to the control group. No significant differences between the intervention and control group were found for the remaining risk factors. After 6months, loss to follow-up was 35% in the intervention group and 29% in the control group. CONCLUSION: Participatory ergonomics was not effective in reducing exposure to psychosocial and physical risk factors for low back pain and neck pain among a large group of workers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27472278.

What are possible barriers and facilitators to implementation of a Participatory Ergonomics programme?

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common among workers. Participatory Ergonomics (PE) is used as an implementation strategy to prevent these symptoms. By following the steps of PE, working groups composed and prioritised ergonomic measures, and developed an implementation plan. Working group members were responsible to implement the ergonomic measures in their departments. Little is known about factors that hamper (barriers) or enhance (facilitators) the implementation of ergonomic measures. This study aimed to identify and understand the possible barriers and facilitators that were perceived during implementation. METHODS: This study is embedded in a cluster randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP among workers. For the purpose of the current study, questionnaires were sent to 81 working group members. Their answers were used to make a first inventory of possible barriers and facilitators to implementation. Based on the questionnaire information, 15 semi-structured interviews were held to explore the barriers and facilitators in more detail. All interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim, and analysed according to a systematic approach. RESULTS: All possible barriers and facilitators were obtained from questionnaire data, indicating that the semi-structured interviews did not yield information about new factors. Various barriers and facilitators were experienced. The presence of implementation plans for ergonomic measures that were already approved by the management facilitated implementation before the working group meeting. In these cases, PE served as a strategy to improve the implementation of the approved measures. Furthermore, the findings showed that the composition of a working group (i.e., including decision makers and a worker who led the implementation process) was important. Moreover, stakeholder involvement and collaboration were reported to considerably improve implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the working group as well as stakeholder involvement and collaboration were important facilitating factors. Moreover, PE was used as a strategy to improve the implementation of existing ergonomic measures. The results can be used to improve PE programmes, and thereby may contribute to the prevention of LBP and NP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27472278.

Process evaluation of a participatory ergonomics programme to prevent low back pain and neck pain among workers.

BACKGROUND: Both low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are major occupational health problems. In the workplace, participatory ergonomics (PE) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders. However, evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is scarce. This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme, including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures. METHODS: This cluster-RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies (a railway transportation company, an airline company, a steel company, and a university including its university medical hospital). Directly after the randomisation outcome, intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting. Guided by an ergonomist, working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP, and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures. Within three months after the meeting, working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department. Data on various process components (recruitment, reach, fidelity, satisfaction, and implementation components, i.e., dose delivered and dose received) were collected and analysed on two levels: department (i.e., working group members from intervention departments) and participant (i.e., workers from intervention departments). RESULTS: A total of 19 intervention departments (n = 10 with mental workloads, n = 1 with a light physical workload, n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads, and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads) were recruited for participation, and the reach among working group members who participated was high (87%). Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good (7.3 or higher). The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training (7.5 or higher). In total, 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups. Altogether, 34% of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented (dose delivered), while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26% as implemented (dose received). CONCLUSIONS: PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP. Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27472278.

The effectiveness of physical and organisational ergonomic interventions on low back pain and neck pain: a systematic review.

Ergonomic interventions (physical and organisational) are used to prevent or reduce low back pain (LBP) and neck pain among workers. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of ergonomic interventions. A total of 10 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. There was low to moderate quality evidence that physical and organisational ergonomic interventions were not more effective than no ergonomic intervention on short and long term LBP and neck pain incidence/prevalence, and short and long term LBP intensity. There was low quality evidence that a physical ergonomic intervention was significantly more effective for reducing neck pain intensity in the short term (ie, curved or flat seat pan chair) and the long term (ie, arm board) than no ergonomic intervention. The limited number of RCTs included make it difficult to answer our broad research question and the results should be interpreted with care. This review, however, provides a solid overview of the high quality epidemiological evidence on the (usually lack of) effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on LBP and neck pain.

Workplace interventions for preventing work disability.

BACKGROUND: Work disability has serious consequences for all stakeholders and society. Workplace interventions are considered appropriate to facilitate return to work by reducing barriers to return to work, involving the collaboration of key stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions compared to usual care or clinical interventions on work-related outcomes and health outcomes; and to evaluate whether the effects differ when applied to musculoskeletal disorders, mental health problems, or other health conditions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Occupational Health Field Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE (EMBASE.com), and PsycINFO databases (to November 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of workplace interventions aimed at return to work for workers where absence from work because of sickness was reported as a continuous outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the studies. Meta-analysis and qualitative analysis (using GRADE levels of evidence) were performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomized controlled trials (749 workers): three on low back pain, one on upper-extremity disorders, one on musculoskeletal disorders, and one on adjustment disorders. Five studies were rated as having low risk of bias for the sickness absence outcome. The results of this review show that there is moderate-quality evidence to support the use of workplace interventions to reduce sickness absence among workers with musculoskeletal disorders when compared to usual care. However, workplace interventions were not effective to improve health outcomes among workers with musculoskeletal disorders. The lack of studies made it impossible to investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions among workers with mental health problems and other health conditions. A comparison of a workplace intervention with a clinical intervention, in one study only, yielded similar results for sickness absence and symptoms for workers with mental health problems. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the few available studies, no convincing conclusions can be formulated about the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work-related outcomes and health outcomes regardless of the type of work disability. The pooled data for the musculoskeletal disorders subgroup indicated that workplace interventions are effective in the reduction of sickness absence, but they are not effective in improving health outcomes. The evidence from the subgroup analysis on musculoskeletal disorders was rated as moderate-quality evidence. Unfortunately, conclusions cannot be drawn on the effectiveness of these interventions for mental health problems and other health conditions due to a lack of studies.