Update to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: MYRIAD (My Resilience in Adolescence) is a superiority, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme, compared with normal social and emotional learning (SEL) school provision to enhance mental health, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being in adolescence. The original trial protocol was published in Trials (accessible at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4 ). This included recruitment in two cohorts, enabling the learning from the smaller first cohort to be incorporated in the second cohort. Here we describe final amendments to the study protocol and discuss their underlying rationale. METHODS: Four major changes were introduced into the study protocol: (1) there were changes in eligibility criteria, including a clearer operational definition to assess the degree of SEL implementation in schools, and also new criteria to avoid experimental contamination; (2) the number of schools and pupils that had to be recruited was increased based on what we learned in the first cohort; (3) some changes were made to the secondary outcome measures to improve their validity and ability to measure constructs of interest and to reduce the burden on school staff; and (4) the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) pandemic both influences and makes it difficult to interpret the 2-year follow-up primary endpoint results, so we changed our primary endpoint to 1-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: These changes to the study protocol were approved by the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committees and improved the enrolment of participants and quality of measures. Furthermore, the change in the primary endpoint will give a more reliable answer to our primary question because it was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in both cohort 1 and cohort 2. Nevertheless, the longer 2-year follow-up data will still be acquired, although this time-point will be now framed as a second major investigation to answer some new important questions presented by the combination of the pandemic and our study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials ISRCTN86619085 . Registered on 3 June 2016.

Low-Intensity Guided Help Through Mindfulness (LIGHTMIND): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy self-help to supported cognitive behavioural therapy self-help for adults experiencing depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression has serious personal, family and economic consequences. It is estimated that it will cost £12.15 billion to the economy each year in England by 2026. Improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) is the National Health Service talking therapies service in England for adults experiencing anxiety or depression. Over 1 million people are referred to IAPT every year, over half experiencing depression. Where symptoms of depression are mild to moderate, people are typically offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help (CBT-SH) supported by a psychological well-being practitioner. The problem is that over half of people who complete treatment for depression in IAPT remain depressed despite receiving National Institute of Health and Care Excellent recommended treatment. Furthermore, less than half of IAPT service users complete treatment. This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of an alternative to CBT-SH. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) differs from CBT in focus, approach and practice, and may be more effective with a higher number of treatment completions. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing supported MBCT self-help (MBCT-SH) with CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression being treated in IAPT services. We will recruit 410 participants experiencing mild to moderate depression from IAPT services and randomise these to receive either an MBCT-based self-help workbook or a CBT-based self-help workbook. Participants will be asked to complete their workbook within 16 weeks, with six support sessions with a psychological well-being practitioner. The primary outcome is depression symptom severity on treatment completion. Secondary outcomes are treatment completion rates and measures of generalized anxiety, well-being, functioning and mindfulness. An exploratory non-inferiority analysis will be conducted in the event the primary hypothesis is not supported. A semi-structured interview with participants will guide understanding of change processes. DISCUSSION: If the findings from this randomised controlled trial demonstrate that MBCT-SH is more effective than CBT-SH for adults experiencing depression, this will provide evidence for policy makers and lead to changes to clinical practice in IAPT services, leading to greater choice of self-help treatment options and better outcomes for service users. If the exploratory non-inferiority analysis is conducted and this indicates non-inferiority of MBCT-SH in comparison to CBT-SH this will also be of interest to policy makers when seeking to increase service user choice of self-help treatment options for depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN 13495752. Registered on 31 August 2017 (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13495752).

Cost-Utility Analysis of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Versus Antidepressant Pharmacotherapy for Prevention of Depressive Relapse in a Canadian Context: Analyse coût-utilité de la thérapie cognitive basée sur la pleine conscience contre la pharmacothérapie antidépressive pour prévenir la rechute de la dépression en contexte canadien.

OBJECTIVE: Patients suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD) experience impaired functioning and reduced quality of life, including an elevated risk of episode return. MDD is associated with high societal burden due to increased healthcare utilization, productivity losses, and suicide-related costs, making the long-term management of this illness a priority. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), a first-line preventative psychological treatment, compared to maintenance antidepressant medication (ADM), the current standard of care. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 24-month time horizon to model differences between MBCT and ADM in cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The analysis was conducted using a decision tree analytic model. Intervention efficacy, utility, and costing data estimates were derived from published sources and expert consultation. RESULTS: MBCT was found to be cost-effective compared to maintenance ADM over a 24-month time horizon. Antidepressant pharmacotherapy resulted in 1.10 QALY and $17,255.37 per patient on average, whereas MBCT resulted in 1.18 QALY and $15,030.70 per patient on average. This resulted in a cost difference of $2,224.67 and a QALY difference of 0.08, in favor of MBCT. Multiple sensitivity analyses supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS: From both a societal and health system perspective, utilizing MBCT as a first-line relapse prevention treatment is potentially cost-effective in a Canadian setting. Future economic evaluations should consider combined treatment (e.g., ADM and psychotherapy) as a comparator and longer time horizons as the literature advances.

Economic evaluation of mindfulness group therapy for patients with depression, anxiety, stress and adjustment disorders compared with treatment as usual.

BACKGROUND: A randomised controlled trial found that a structured mindfulness group therapy (MGT) programme was as effective as treatment as usual (mostly cognitive-behavioural therapy) for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01476371). AIMS: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of MGT compared with treatment as usual from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for the trial duration (8 weeks). METHOD: The costs from a healthcare perspective included treatment as usual, medication and costs for providing MGT. The societal perspective included costs from the healthcare perspective plus savings from productivity gains for the trial duration. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and the UK value set. Uncertainty surrounding the incremental costs and effects were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications and presented with 95% confidence intervals and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The MGT group had significantly lower healthcare and societal costs (mean differences -€115 (95% CI -193 to -36) and -€112 (95% CI -207 to -17), respectively) compared with the control group. In terms of effectiveness, there was no significant difference in QALY gain (mean difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.0076 to 0.0012) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: MGT is a cost-saving alternative to treatment as usual over the trial duration from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden.

Cost-utility of individual internet-based and face-to-face Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy compared with treatment as usual in reducing psychological distress in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: It was previously determined that group-based face-to-face Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and individual internet-based MBCT (eMBCT) are equally efficacious compared with treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing psychological distress. In this study, the incremental cost-utility of both interventions compared with TAU was assessed. METHODS: This cost-utility study included 245 self-referred heterogeneous cancer patients with psychological distress who were randomized to MBCT, eMBCT or TAU. Healthcare costs and (informal) work-related productivity losses were assessed by interview. Outcomes were expressed in EuroQol-5D-3L utility scores and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). An economic evaluation with a time-horizon of 3 months was conducted from the societal perspective in the intention-to-treat sample. In addition, secondary explorative analyses of costs and quality of life during the 9-month follow-up were conducted based on linear extrapolation of TAU. RESULTS: Paid work-related productivity losses and societal costs were lower in both intervention conditions compared with TAU during the 3-month intervention period. Moreover, quality of life (utility scores) improved in eMBCT versus TAU (Cohen's d: .54) and MBCT versus TAU (.53). At a willingness to pay of €20000 per QALY, the mean incremental net monetary benefit was €1916 (SD=€783) in eMBCT and €2365 (SD=€796) in MBCT versus TAU. Exploration of costs demonstrated an equal pattern of eMBCT and MBCT being superior to TAU. Quality of life at 9-month follow-up remained improved in both interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that eMBCT and MBCT are cost-saving treatments whilst simultaneously improving quality of life for distressed cancer patients.

Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain.

Despite improved knowledge about the benefits and harms of treatments for chronic back pain in the past several decades, there is a large and consequential mismatch between treatments found safe and effective and those routinely covered by health insurance. As a result, care for back pain has, if anything, deteriorated in recent decades-expenses are higher, harms are greater, and use of ineffective treatments is more common. Deficiencies in health care delivery processes and payment models are centrally involved in the failure to improve care for back pain. A key step for accelerating progress is changing insurance coverage policies to facilitate use of the safest and most helpful approaches while discouraging riskier and less effective treatments. Relatively simple changes in reimbursement policies may minimize harm and improve quality of life for many patients with chronic back and similar pain syndromes. Such changes might also reduce health care expenditures because the costs of treatments currently covered by insurance and their associated harms may well outweigh the costs of the relatively safe and effective treatments recommended by current guidelines but poorly covered by insurance. There is no justification for continuing the status quo-patients and clinicians deserve better.

Forgetting ourselves: epistemic costs and ethical concerns in mindfulness exercises.

Mindfulness exercises are presented as being compatible with almost any spiritual, religious or philosophical beliefs. In this paper, we argue that they in fact involve imagining and conceptualising rather striking and controversial claims about the self, and the self's relationship to thoughts and feelings. For this reason, practising mindfulness exercises is likely to be in tension with many people's core beliefs and values, a tension that should be treated as a downside of therapeutic interventions involving mindfulness exercises, not unlike a side effect. Clients ought to be informed of these metaphysical aspects of the exercises, and mental health providers ought to take them into account in assessing which course of treatment to recommend. Given these concerns, the casual way in which mindfulness exercises are presently distributed by mental health providers to the general public is inappropriate.

Cost of opioid-treated chronic low back pain: Findings from a pilot randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation-based intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid-treated chronic low back pain (CLBP) is debilitating, costly, and often refractory to existing treatments. This secondary analysis aims to pilot-test the hypothesis that mindfulness meditation (MM) can reduce economic burden related to opioid-treated CLBP. DESIGN: Twenty-six-week unblinded pilot randomized controlled trial, comparing MM, adjunctive to usual-care, to usual care alone. SETTING: Outpatient. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five adults with opioid-treated CLBP (≥30 morphine-equivalent mg/day) for 3 + months enrolled; none withdrew. INTERVENTION: Eight weekly therapist-led MM sessions and at-home practice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs related to self-reported healthcare utilization, medication use (direct costs), lost productivity (indirect costs), and total costs (direct + indirect costs) were calculated for 6-month pre-enrollment and postenrollment periods and compared within and between the groups. RESULTS: Participants (21 MM; 14 control) were 20 percent men, age 51.8 ± 9.7 years, with severe disability, opioid dose of 148.3 ± 129.2 morphine-equivalent mg/d, and individual annual income of $18,291 ± $19,345. At baseline, total costs were estimated at $15,497 ± 13,677 (direct: $10,635 ± 9,897; indirect: $4,862 ± 7,298) per participant. Although MM group participants, compared to controls, reduced their pain severity ratings and pain sensitivity to heat stimuli (p < 0.05), no statistically significant within-group changes or between-group differences in direct and indirect costs were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with opioid-treated CLBP experience a high burden of disability despite the high costs of treatment. Although this pilot study did not show a statistically significant impact of MM on costs related to opioid-treated CLBP, MM can improve clinical outcomes and should be assessed in a larger trial with long-term follow-up.

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

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.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is cost-effective compared to a wait-list control for persistent pain in women treated for primary breast cancer-Results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) compared to a wait-list control group for pain in women treated for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 129 women were randomly allocated to MBCT or a wait-list control group. The primary outcome was the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on pain intensity (≥2 point reduction on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale). Analyses were conducted from the health care system perspective and included data on health care utilization and pain medication retrieved from national registries for the period from baseline (T1) to 6 months postintervention (T4). Bootstrap simulations were used to estimate confidence intervals for the incremental cost and effect measures, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. In sensitivity analyses, we replaced dropouts with last-observation-carried-forward and tested consequences of higher costs of the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention cost was 240€ per participant. The average total cost from T1 to T4 in the MBCT group was 1706€ compared with 2436€ in the control group (mean difference: 729€, P = .07). More women in the MBCT group (N:19/36; 52.8%) than in the control group (N:14/48; 29.2%) achieved an MCID in pain intensity (OR=2.71, P = .03). The MBCT was cost-effective with a probability of 85% with a value of an additional women achieving MCID set to zero remained cost-effective with a probability of 70% to 82% when smaller effect and higher MBCT costs were assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that MBCT is a cost-effective pain intervention for women treated for breast cancer. Future studies could include utility measures, indirect costs, and active control groups to increase the generalizability and pragmatic value of the results.

A healthcare utilization cost comparison between employees receiving a worksite mindfulness or a diet/exercise lifestyle intervention to matched controls 5 years post intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs and utilization among participants in a study of two active lifestyle interventions implemented in the workplace and designed to foster awareness of and attention to health with a propensity score matched control group. DESIGN AND SETTING: We retrospectively compared changes in healthcare (HC) utilization among participants in the mindfulness intervention (n=84) and the diet/exercise intervention (n=86) to a retrospectively matched control group (n=258) drawn for this study. The control group was matched from the non-participant population on age, gender, relative risk score, and HC expenditures in the 9 month preceding the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures included number of primary care visits, number and cost of pharmacy prescriptions, number of hospital admissions, and overall healthcare costs tracked for 5 years after the intervention. RESULTS: Significantly fewer primary care visits (p<.001) for both intervention groups as compared to controls, with a non-significant trend towards lower overall HC utilization (4,300.00 actual dollar differences) and hospital admissions for the intervention groups after five years. Pharmacy costs and number of prescriptions were significantly higher for the two intervention groups compared to controls over the five years (p<0.05), yet still resulted in less HC utilization costs, potentially indicating greater self-management of care. CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable information as to the cost savings and value of providing workplace lifestyle interventions that focus on awareness of one's body and health. Health economic studies validate the scale of personal and organization health cost savings that such programs can generate.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for recurrent major depression: A 'best buy' for health care?

OBJECTIVE: While mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is effective in reducing depressive relapse/recurrence, relatively little is known about its health economic properties. We describe the health economic properties of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in relation to its impact on depressive relapse/recurrence over 2 years of follow-up. METHOD: Non-depressed adults with a history of three or more major depressive episodes were randomised to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy + depressive relapse active monitoring (n = 101) or control (depressive relapse active monitoring alone) (n = 102) and followed up for 2 years. Structured self-report instruments for service use and absenteeism provided cost data items for health economic analyses. Treatment utility, expressed as disability-adjusted life years, was calculated by adjusting the number of days an individual was depressed by the relevant International Classification of Diseases 12-month severity of depression disability weight from the Global Burden of Disease 2010. Intention-to-treat analysis assessed the incremental cost-utility ratios of the interventions across mental health care, all of health-care and whole-of-society perspectives. Per protocol and site of usual care subgroup analyses were also conducted. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis was completed using cost-utility acceptability curves. RESULTS: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy participants had significantly less major depressive episode days compared to controls, as supported by the differential distributions of major depressive episode days (modelled as Poisson, p < 0.001). Average major depressive episode days were consistently less in the mindfulness-based cognitive therapy group compared to controls, e.g., 31 and 55 days, respectively. From a whole-of-society perspective, analyses of patients receiving usual care from all sectors of the health-care system demonstrated dominance (reduced costs, demonstrable health gains). From a mental health-care perspective, the incremental gain per disability-adjusted life year for mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was AUD83,744 net benefit, with an overall annual cost saving of AUD143,511 for people in specialist care. CONCLUSION: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy demonstrated very good health economic properties lending weight to the consideration of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy provision as a good buy within health-care delivery.

The implementation of mindfulness in healthcare systems: a theoretical analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence regarding the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) is increasing exponentially; however, there are still challenges to their integration in healthcare systems. Our goal is to provide a conceptual framework that addresses these challenges in order to bring about scholarly dialog and support health managers and practitioners with the implementation of MBIs in healthcare. METHOD: This is an opinative narrative review based on theoretical and empirical data that address key issues in the implementation of mindfulness in healthcare systems, such as the training of professionals, funding and costs of interventions, cost effectiveness and innovative delivery models. RESULTS: We show that even in the United Kingdom, where mindfulness has a high level of implementation, there is a high variability in the access to MBIs. In addition, we discuss innovative approaches based on "complex interventions," "stepped-care" and "low intensity-high volume" concepts that may prove fruitful in the development and implementation of MBIs in national healthcare systems, particularly in Primary Care. CONCLUSION: In order to better understand barriers and opportunities for mindfulness implementation in healthcare systems, it is necessary to be aware that MBIs are "complex interventions," which require innovative approaches and delivery models to implement these interventions in a cost-effective and accessible way.

Comparison of complementary and alternative medicine with conventional mind-body therapies for chronic back pain: protocol for the Mind-body Approaches to Pain (MAP) randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The self-reported health and functional status of persons with back pain in the United States have declined in recent years, despite greatly increased medical expenditures due to this problem. Although patient psychosocial factors such as pain-related beliefs, thoughts and coping behaviors have been demonstrated to affect how well patients respond to treatments for back pain, few patients receive treatments that address these factors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which addresses psychosocial factors, has been found to be effective for back pain, but access to qualified therapists is limited. Another treatment option with potential for addressing psychosocial issues, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), is increasingly available. MBSR has been found to be helpful for various mental and physical conditions, but it has not been well-studied for application with chronic back pain patients. In this trial, we will seek to determine whether MBSR is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for persons with chronic back pain, compare its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with CBT and explore the psychosocial variables that may mediate the effects of MBSR and CBT on patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: In this trial, we will randomize 397 adults with nonspecific chronic back pain to CBT, MBSR or usual care arms (99 per group). Both interventions will consist of eight weekly 2-hour group sessions supplemented by home practice. The MBSR protocol also includes an optional 6-hour retreat. Interviewers masked to treatment assignments will assess outcomes 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postrandomization. The primary outcomes will be pain-related functional limitations (based on the Roland Disability Questionnaire) and symptom bothersomeness (rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale) at 26 weeks. DISCUSSION: If MBSR is found to be an effective and cost-effective treatment option for patients with chronic back pain, it will become a valuable addition to the limited treatment options available to patients with significant psychosocial contributors to their pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial comparing Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction with treatment as usual in reducing psychological distress in patients with lung cancer and their partners: the MILON study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and characterized by a poor prognosis. It has a major impact on the psychological wellbeing of patients and their partners. Recently, it has been shown that Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is effective in reducing anxiety and depressive symptoms in cancer patients. The generalization of these results is limited since most participants were female patients with breast cancer. Moreover, only one study examined the effectiveness of MBSR in partners of cancer patients. Therefore, in the present trial we study the effectiveness of MBSR versus treatment as usual (TAU) in patients with lung cancer and their partners. METHODS/DESIGN: A parallel group, randomized controlled trial is conducted to compare MBSR with TAU. Lung cancer patients who have received or are still under treatment, and their partners are recruited. Assessments will take place at baseline, post intervention and at three-month follow-up. The primary outcome is psychological distress (i.e. anxiety and depressive symptoms). Secondary outcomes are quality of life (only for patients), caregiver appraisal (only for partners), relationship quality and spirituality. In addition, cost-effectiveness ratio (only in patients) and several process variables are assessed. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide information about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MBSR compared to TAU in patients with lung cancer and their partners.

Value associated with mindfulness meditation and moderate exercise intervention in acute respiratory infection: the MEPARI Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is among the most common, debilitating and expensive human illnesses. The purpose of this study was to assess ARI-related costs and determine if mindfulness meditation or exercise can add value. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-four adults ≥50 years from Madison, WI for the 2009-10 cold/flu season were randomized to (i) wait-list control (ii) meditation or (iii) moderate intensity exercise. ARI-related costs were assessed through self-reported medication use, number of missed work days and medical visits. Costs per subject were based on cost of generic medications, missed work days ($126.20) and clinic visits ($78.70). Monte Carlo bootstrap methods evaluated reduced costs of ARI episodes. RESULTS: The total cost per subject for the control group was $214 (95% CI: $105-$358), exercise $136 (95% CI: $64-$232) and meditation $65 (95% CI: $34-$104). The majority of cost savings was through a reduction in missed days of work. Exercise had the highest medication costs at $16.60 compared with $5.90 for meditation (P = 0.004) and $7.20 for control (P = 0.046). Combining these cost benefits with the improved outcomes in incidence, duration and severity seen with the Meditation or Exercise for Preventing Acute Respiratory Infection study, meditation and exercise add value for ARI. Compared with control, meditation had the greatest cost benefit. This savings is offset by the cost of the intervention ($450/subject) that would negate the short-term but perhaps not long-term savings. CONCLUSIONS: Meditation and exercise add value to ARI-associated health-related costs with improved outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm results and inform policies on adding value to medical spending.