Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Economic evaluation: a randomized pragmatic trial of a primary care-based cognitive behavioral intervention for adults receiving long-term opioids for chronic pain
Smith DH, O'Keeffe-Rosetti M, Leo MC, Mayhew M, Benes L, Bonifay A, Deyo RA, Elder CR, Keefe FJ, McMullen C, Owen-Smith A, Trinacty CM, Vollmer WM, DeBar L
Medical Care 2022 Jun;60(6):423-431
clinical trial
3/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: No; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is prevalent and costly; cost-effective nonpharmacological approaches that reduce pain and improve patient functioning are needed. OBJECTIVE: Report the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), compared with usual care, of cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at improving functioning and pain among patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. SUBJECTS: Adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment (n = 814). INTERVENTION: A cognitive behavioral therapy intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorists, nurses) with additional support from physical therapists, and pharmacists. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and cost per additional responder (>= 30% improvement on standard scale assessment of Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity, and Sleep). Costs were estimated as-delivered, and replication. RESULTS: Per patient intervention replication costs were $2,145 ($2,574 as-delivered). Those costs were completely offset by lower medical care costs; inclusive of the intervention, total medical care over follow-up was $1,841 lower for intervention patients. Intervention group patients also had greater QALY and responder gains than did controls. Supplemental analyses using pain-related medical care costs revealed ICERs of $35,000, and $53,000 per QALY (for replication, and as-delivered intervention costs, respectively); the ICER when excluding patients with outlier follow-up costs was $106,000. LIMITATIONS: Limited to 1-year follow-up; identification of pain-related utilization potentially incomplete. CONCLUSION: The intervention was the optimal choice at commonly accepted levels of willingness-to-pay for QALY gains; this finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help