Cognitive and Mind-Body Therapies for Chronic Low Back and Neck Pain: Effectiveness and Value
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cognitive and Mind-Body Therapies for Chronic Low Back and Neck Pain: Effectiveness and Value Final Evidence Report November 6, 2017 Prepared for ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 AUTHORS: Jeffrey A. Tice, MD Professor of Medicine University of California, San Francisco Varun Kumar, MBBS, MPH, MSc Health Economist, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Ifeoma Otuonye, MPH Research Associate, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Margaret Webb, BA Research Assistant, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Matt Seidner, BS Program Manager, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review David Rind, MD, MSc Chief Medical Officer, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Rick Chapman, PhD, MS Director of Health Economics, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Daniel A. Ollendorf, PhD Chief Scientific Officer, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review DATE OF PUBLICATION: November 6, 2017 We would also like to thank Patty Synnott, Geri Cramer, Foluso Agboola, Molly Morgan, and Aqsa Mugal for their contributions to this report. ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 Page i Chronic Low Back and Neck Pain – Final Evidence Report About ICER The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research organization that evaluates medical evidence and convenes public deliberative bodies to help stakeholders interpret and apply evidence to improve patient outcomes and control costs. ICER receives funding from government grants, non-profit foundations, health plans, provider groups, and health industry manufacturers. For a complete list of funders, visit http://www.icer- review.org/about/support/. Through all its work, ICER seeks to help create a future in which collaborative efforts to move evidence into action provide the foundation for a more effective, efficient, and just health care system. More information about ICER is available at http://www.icer- review.org About CTAF The California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) – a core program of ICER – provides a public venue in which the evidence on the effectiveness and value of health care services can be discussed with the input of all stakeholders. CTAF seeks to help patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers interpret and use evidence to improve the quality and value of health care. The CTAF Panel is an independent committee of medical evidence experts from across California, with a mix of practicing clinicians, methodologists, and leaders in patient engagement and advocacy. All Panel members meet strict conflict of interest guidelines and are convened to discuss the evidence summarized in ICER reports and vote on the comparative clinical effectiveness and value of medical interventions. More information about CTAF is available at https://icer- review.org/programs/ctaf/ The findings contained within this report are current as of the date of publication. Readers should be aware that new evidence may emerge following the publication of this report that could potentially influence the results. ICER may revisit its analyses in a formal update to this report in the future. ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 Page ii Chronic Low Back and Neck Pain – Final Evidence Report In the development of this report, ICER’s researchers consulted with several clinical experts, patients, and other stakeholders. The following clinical experts provided input that helped guide the ICER team as we shaped our scope and report. None of these individuals are responsible for the final contents of this report or should be assumed to support any part of this report, which is solely the work of the ICER team and its affiliated researchers. For a complete list of stakeholders from whom we requested input, please visit: https://icer-review.org/material/back-and-neck-pain-stakeholders/ Expert Reviewers Steven Atlas, MD, MPH Director, Primary Care Research and Quality Improvement Network Massachusetts General Hospital No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose, defined as more than $10,000 in healthcare company stock or more than $5,000 in honoraria or consultancies during the previous year from health care manufacturers or insurers. Ravi Prasad, PhD Clinical Associate Professor, Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine Director, Stanford Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Pain Program Stanford University School of Medicine No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose, defined as more than $10,000 in healthcare company stock or more than $5,000 in honoraria or consultancies during the previous year from health care manufacturers or insurers. ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 Page iii Chronic Low Back and Neck Pain – Final Evidence Report Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ ES1 1. Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. The Topic in Context .......................................................................................................................... 4 3. Summary of Coverage Policies and Clinical Guidelines ................................................................... 10 3.1 Coverage Policies ....................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Clinical Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 13 4. Comparative Clinical Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 16 4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 19 5. Economic Analyses ........................................................................................................................... 43 5.1 Long-Term Cost Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Value-Based Benchmark Prices .................................................................................................. 57 5.3 Potential Budget Impact ............................................................................................................ 57 5.4 Summary and Comment: Long-Term Cost Effectiveness and Potential Budget Impact ........... 60 6. Other Benefits and Contextual Considerations ............................................................................... 62 7. Summary of the Votes and Considerations for Policy ..................................................................... 64 7.1 About the CTAF Process ............................................................................................................. 64 7.2 Voting Results ............................................................................................................................ 66 7.3 Roundtable Discussion and Key Policy Implications .................................................................. 69 References ........................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix A. Search Strategies and Results .......................................................................................... 84 Appendix B. Health Technology Assessments ..................................................................................... 90 Appendix C. Ongoing Studies ............................................................................................................... 92 Appendix D. Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Supplemental Information ...................................... 97 Appendix E. Comparative Value Supplemental Information ............................................................. 128 Appendix F. Public Comments ........................................................................................................... 141 Appendix G. Conflict of Interest Disclosures ..................................................................................... 142 ©Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 2017 Page iv Chronic Low Back and Neck Pain – Final Evidence Report List of Acronyms Used in this Report AAPM American Academy of Pain Medicine AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ACP American College of Physicians AMSTAR A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews APS American Pain Society CBT Cognitive Behavioral Therapy CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services CPGS Chronic Pain Grade Scale FFbHR Functional questionnaire Hannover for everyday diagnosis of functional impairment by back pain GAD-2 Generalized anxiety disorder scale HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ICSI Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement MBSR