A pragmatic multicentered randomized controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: economic evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicentered randomized controlled trial with quality of life and resource use data collected. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of yoga intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone for chronic or recurrent low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Yoga has been shown as an effective intervention for treating chronic or recurrent low back pain. However, there is little evidence on its cost-effectiveness. The data are extracted from a pragmatic, multicentered, randomized controlled trial that has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-week progressive program of yoga plus usual care in patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain. METHODS: With this trial data, a cost-effectiveness analysis during the time period of 12 months from both perspectives of the UK National Health Service and the societal is presented. Main outcome measure is an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: From the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service, yoga intervention yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,606 per QALY. Given a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000, the probability of yoga intervention being cost-effective is 72%. From the perspective of the society, yoga intervention is a dominant treatment compared with usual care alone. This result is surrounded by fewer uncertainties-the probability of yoga being cost-effective reaches 95% at a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000. Sensitive analyses suggest the same results that yoga intervention is likely to be cost-effective in both perspectives. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this trial, 12 weekly group classes of specialized yoga are likely to be a cost-effective intervention for treating patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain.

Yoga for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that yoga may be an effective treatment for chronic or recurrent low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of yoga and usual care for chronic or recurrent low back pain. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial using computer-generated randomization conducted from April 2007 to March 2010. Outcomes were assessed by postal questionnaire. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN 81079604) SETTING: 13 non-National Health Service premises in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: 313 adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain. INTERVENTION: Yoga (n = 156) or usual care (n = 157). All participants received a back pain education booklet. The intervention group was offered a 12-class, gradually progressing yoga program delivered by 12 teachers over 3 months. MEASUREMENTS: Scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 3 (primary outcome), 6, and 12 (secondary outcomes) months; pain, pain self-efficacy, and general health measures at 3, 6, and 12 months (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: 93 (60%) patients offered yoga attended at least 3 of the first 6 sessions and at least 3 other sessions. The yoga group had better back function at 3, 6, and 12 months than the usual care group. The adjusted mean RMDQ score was 2.17 points (95% CI, 1.03 to 3.31 points) lower in the yoga group at 3 months, 1.48 points (CI, 0.33 to 2.62 points) lower at 6 months, and 1.57 points (CI, 0.42 to 2.71 points) lower at 12 months. The yoga and usual care groups had similar back pain and general health scores at 3, 6, and 12 months, and the yoga group had higher pain self-efficacy scores at 3 and 6 months but not at 12 months. Two of the 157 usual care participants and 12 of the 156 yoga participants reported adverse events, mostly increased pain. LIMITATION: There were missing data for the primary outcome (yoga group, n = 21; usual care group, n = 18) and differential missing data (more in the yoga group) for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Offering a 12-week yoga program to adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain led to greater improvements in back function than did usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Arthritis Research UK.

Electronic reminders did not improve postal questionnaire response rates or response times: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic reminders (ERs) to improve the response rates and time to response of postal questionnaires in a health research setting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) was nested within a multicenter RCT of yoga for lower back pain. Participants who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile phone number were randomized to receive an ER or no reminder (controls) on the day they were due to receive a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five participants (32 males and 93 females) mean age 46 (standard deviation: 11, range: 20-65) were randomized to ER (n=62) or controls (n=63). Overall 85.6% of participants returned postal questionnaires (87.1% ER group and 84.1% from controls). No significant differences were found between the two groups for response rate (difference between groups=3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-10, 16; P=0.64) or time to response after adjusting for age, gender, and treatment allocation (χ(2) ([3df])=7.10; P=0.07). CONCLUSION: In the present RCT, we found little evidence for the effectiveness of ERs to increase response rates or time to respond for the return of questionnaires in this study population group.

Dietary protein and bone health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been a resurgence of interest in the controversial relation between dietary protein and bone health. OBJECTIVE: This article reports on the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the relation between protein and bone health in healthy human adults. DESIGN: The MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2007) and EMBASE (1974 to July 2008) databases were electronically searched for all relevant studies of healthy adults; studies of calcium excretion or calcium balance were excluded. RESULTS: In cross-sectional surveys, all pooled r values for the relation between protein intake and bone mineral density (BMD) or bone mineral content at the main clinically relevant sites were significant and positive; protein intake explained 1-2% of BMD. A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials indicated a significant positive influence of all protein supplementation on lumbar spine BMD but showed no association with relative risk of hip fractures. No significant effects were identified for soy protein or milk basic protein on lumbar spine BMD. CONCLUSIONS: A small positive effect of protein supplementation on lumbar spine BMD in randomized placebo-controlled trials supports the positive association between protein intake and bone health found in cross-sectional surveys. However, these results were not supported by cohort study findings for hip fracture risk. Any effects found were small and had 95% CIs that were close to zero. Therefore, there is a small benefit of protein on bone health, but the benefit may not necessarily translate into reduced fracture risk in the long term.