Helen Tilbrook

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.

A randomised controlled trial of yoga for the treatment of chronic low back pain: results of a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE To conduct a pilot trial of yoga for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) to inform the feasibility and practicality of conducting a full-scale trial in the UK; and to assess the efficacy of yoga for the treatment of chronic low back pain. DESIGN A pragmatic randomised controlled trial was undertaken comparing yoga to usual care. PARTICIPANTS Twenty participants who had presented to their GP with chronic low back pain in the previous 18 months were recruited via GP records from one practice in York, UK. INTERVENTIONS Twenty patients were randomised to either 12 weekly 75-min sessions of specialised yoga plus written advice, or usual care plus written advice. Allocation was 50/50. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Recruitment rate, levels of intervention attendance, and loss to follow-up were the main non-clinical outcomes. Change as measured by the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire was the primary clinical outcome. Changes in the Aberdeen back pain scale, SF-12, EQ-5D, and pain self-efficacy were secondary clinical outcomes. Data were collected via postal questionnaire at baseline, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks follow-up. RESULTS Of the 286 patients identified from the GP database, 52 (18%) consented and returned the eligibility questionnaire, out of these 20 (6.9%) were eligible and randomised. The total percentage of patients randomised from the GP practice population was 0.28%. Ten patients were randomised to yoga, receiving an average of 1.7 sessions (range 0-5), and 10 were randomised to usual care. At 12 weeks follow-up data was received from 60% of patients in the yoga group and 90% of patients in the usual care group (75% overall). No significant differences were seen between groups in clinical outcomes apart from on the Aberdeen back pain scale at four weeks follow-up where the yoga group reported significantly less pain. CONCLUSION This pilot study provided useful data and information to inform the design and development of a full-scale trial of yoga for CLBP in the UK. A key finding is the calculation of GP practice total list size required for patient recruitment in a full-scale trial, and the need to implement methods to increase class attendance.

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 UK 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.

Acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome: primary care based pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundAcupuncture is used by patients as a treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) but the evidence on effectiveness is limited. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care when provided as an adjunct to usual care.MethodsDesign: A two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Setting: Primary care in the United Kingdom.Patients: 233 patients had irritable bowel syndrome with average duration of 13 years and score of at least 100 on the IBS Symptom Severity Score (SSS).Interventions: 116 patients were offered 10 weekly individualised acupuncture sessions plus usual care, 117 patients continued with usual care alone.Measurements: Primary outcome was the IBS SSS at three months, with outcome data collected every three months to 12 months.ResultsThere was a statistically significant difference between groups at three months favouring acupuncture with a reduction in IBS Symptom Severity Score of −27.43 (95% CI: –48.66 to −6.21, p = 0.012). The number needed to treat for successful treatment (≥50 point reduction in the IBS SSS) was six (95% CI: 3 to 17), based on 49% success in the acupuncture group vs. 31% in the control group, a difference between groups of 18% (95% CI: 6% to 31%). This benefit largely persisted at 6, 9 and 12 months.ConclusionsAcupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome provided an additional benefit over usual care alone. The magnitude of the effect was sustained over the longer term. Acupuncture should be considered as a treatment option to be offered in primary care alongside other evidenced based treatments.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN08827905

A pragmatic multi-centred randomised controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: Trial protocol

A systematic review revealed three small randomised controlled trials of yoga for low back pain, all of which showed effects on back pain that favoured the yoga group. To build on these studies a larger trial, with longer term follow-up, and a number of different yoga teachers delivering the intervention is required. This study protocol describes the details of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Yoga for chronic Low Back Pain, which is funded by Arthritis Research Campaign (arc) and is being conducted by the University of York. 262 patients will be recruited from GP practices in 5 centres in England. Patients will be randomised to receive usual care or 12 weekly classes of yoga. A yoga programme will be devised that can be delivered by yoga teachers of the two main national yoga organisations in the UK (British Wheel of Yoga and Iyengar Yoga Association (UK)). Trial registration: Current controlled trials registry ISRCTN81079604 (date registered 30/03/2007).

Alexander Technique Lessons, Acupuncture Sessions or usual care for patients with chronic neck pain (ATLAS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundChronic neck pain is a common condition in the adult population. More research is needed to evaluate interventions aiming to facilitate beneficial long-term change. We propose to evaluate the effect of Alexander Technique lessons and acupuncture in a rigorously conducted pragmatic trial with an embedded qualitative study.Methods/DesignWe will recruit 500 patients who have been diagnosed with neck pain in primary care, who have continued to experience neck pain for at least three months with 28% minimum cut-off score on the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). We will exclude patients with serious underlying pathology, prior cervical spine surgery, history of psychosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, osteoporosis, haemophilia, cancer, HIV or hepatitis, or with alcohol or drug dependency currently or in the last 12 months, or actively pursuing compensation or with pending litigation.The York Trials Unit will randomly allocate participants using a secure computer-based system. We will use block randomisation with allocation to each intervention arm being unambiguously concealed from anyone who might subvert the randomisation process.Participants will be randomised in equal proportions to Alexander Technique lessons, acupuncture or usual care alone. Twenty 30-minute Alexander Technique lessons will be provided by teachers registered with the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique and twelve 50-minute sessions of acupuncture will be provided by acupuncturists registered with the British Acupuncture Council. All participants will continue to receive usual GP care.The primary outcome will be the NPQ at 12 months, with the secondary time point at 6 months, and an area-under-curve analysis will include 3, 6 and 12 month time-points. Adverse events will be documented. Potential intervention effect modifiers and mediators to be explored include: self-efficacy, stress management, and the incorporation of practitioner advice about self-care and lifestyle. Qualitative material will be used to address issues of safety, acceptability and factors that impact on longer term outcomes.DiscussionThis study will provide robust evidence on whether there are significant clinical benefits to patients, economic benefits demonstrating value for money, and sufficient levels of acceptability and safety.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN15186354

Cost-effectiveness of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome: findings from an economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care

BackgroundThere is insufficient evidence to determine whether acupuncture is a cost-effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture as an adjunct to usual care versus usual care alone for the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).MethodsCost-utility analysis conducted alongside a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. 233 patients with irritable bowel syndrome were randomly allocated to either acupuncture plus usual care, or usual care alone. Cost-effectiveness outcomes are expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) at one year after randomisation. Costs were estimated from the UK National Health Service perspective for a time horizon of one year. Cost-utility ratios were estimated based on complete case analysis for the base case analysis, where only patients with available EQ-5D and cost data were included. Sensitivity analyses comprised a multiple imputation approach for missing data and a subgroup analysis for the more severe cases of IBS.ResultsThe base case analysis showed acupuncture to be marginally more effective than usual care (gain of 0.0035 QALYs, 95% CI: -0.00395 to 0.0465) and more expensive (incremental cost of £218 per patient (95% CI: 55.87 to 492.87) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £62,500. Sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation for missing data resulted in acupuncture appearing less effective and more costly than usual care, so usual care is dominant. Subgroup analysis selecting the most severe cases of IBS (Symptom Severity Score of over 300) suggested that acupuncture may be a cost-effective treatment option for this group, with a cost-per-QALY of £6,500.ConclusionsAcupuncture as an adjunct to usual care is not a cost-effective option for the whole IBS population; however it may be cost-effective for those with more severe irritable bowel syndrome.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN08827905

Compliance effects in a randomised controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: a methodological study

Study design Methodological study nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of yoga plus usual general practitioner (GP) care vs usual GP care for chronic low back pain. Objective To explore the treatment effects of non-compliance using three approaches in an RCT evaluating yoga for low back pain. Summary of background data A large multicentre RCT using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis found that participants with chronic low back pain who were offered a 12-week progressive programme of yoga plus usual GP care had better back function than those offered usual GP care alone. However, ITT analysis can underestimate the effect of treatment in those who comply with treatment. As such, the data were analysed using other approaches to assess the problem of non-compliance. The main outcome measure was the self-reported Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Methods Complier average causal effect (CACE) analysis, per-protocol analysis and on-treatment analysis were conducted on the data of participants who were fully compliant, predefined as attendance of at least three of the first six sessions and at least three other sessions. The analysis was repeated for participants who had attended at least one yoga session (i.e. any compliance), which included participants who were fully compliant. Each approach was described, including strengths and weaknesses, and the results of the different approaches were compared with those of the ITT analysis. Results For the participants who were fully compliant (n = 93, 60%), a larger beneficial treatment effect was seen using CACE analysis compared with per-protocol, on-treatment and ITT analyses at 3 and 12 months. The difference in mean change in RMDQ score between randomised groups was −3.30 [95% confidence interval (CI) −4.90 to −1.70, P < 0.001] at 3 months and −2.23 (95% CI −3.93 to −0.53, P = 0.010) at 12 months for CACE analysis, −3.12 (95% CI −4.26 to −1.98, P < 0.001) at 3 months and −2.11 (95% CI −3.33 to −0.89, P = 0.001) at 12 months for per-protocol analysis, and −2.91 (95% CI −4.06 to −1.76, P < 0.001) at 3 months and −2.10 (95% CI −3.31 to −0.89, P = 0.001) at 12 months for on-treatment analysis. For the participants who demonstrated any compliance (n = 133, 85%), the results were generally consistent with the fully compliant group at 3 months, but the treatment effect was smaller. The difference in mean change in RMDQ score between randomised groups was −2.45 (95% CI −3.67 to −1.24) for CACE analysis, −2.30 (95% CI −3.43 to 1.17) for per-protocol analysis and −2.15 (95% CI −3.25 to −1.06) for on-treatment analysis, which was slightly less than that for ITT analysis. In contrast, at 12 months, per-protocol and on-treatment analyses showed a larger treatment effect compared with CACE and ITT analyses: per protocol analysis −1.86 (95% CI −3.02 to −0.71), on-treatment analysis −1.99 (95% CI −3.13 to −0.86) and CACE analysis −1.67 (95% CI −2.95 to −0.40). Conclusion ITT analysis estimated a slightly smaller treatment effect in participants who complied with treatment. When examining compliance, CACE analysis is more rigorous than per-protocol and on-treatment analyses. Using CACE analysis, the treatment effect was larger in participants who complied with treatment compared with participants who were allocated to treatment, and the difference between ITT and CACE analyses for the fully compliant group at 3 months was small but clinically important. Per-protocol and on-treatment analyses may produce unreliable estimates when the effect of treatment is small. International Standard Randomised Trial Number Register ISRCTN 81079604.

Acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome: 2-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

Background A recent randomised controlled trial (RCT) of acupuncture as a treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) demonstrated sustained benefits over a period of 12 months post-randomisation. Aim To extend the trial follow-up to evaluate the effects of acupuncture at 24 months post-randomisation. Methods Patients in primary care with ongoing IBS were recruited to a two-arm pragmatic RCT of acupuncture for IBS. Participants were randomised to the offer of up to 10 weekly sessions of acupuncture plus usual care (n=116 patients) or to continue with usual care alone (n=117). The primary outcome was the self-reported IBS symptom severity score (IBS SSS) measured at 24 months post-randomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using an unstructured multivariate linear model incorporating all repeated measures. Results The overall response rate was 61%. The adjusted difference in mean IBS SSS at 24 months was −18.28 (95% CI −40.95 to 4.40) in favour of the acupuncture arm. Differences at earlier time points estimated from the multivariate model were: −27.27 (−47.69 to −6.86) at 3 months; −23.69 (−45.17 to −2.21) at 6 months; −24.09 (−45.59 to −2.59) at 9 months; and −23.06 (−44.52 to −1.59) at 12 months. Conclusions There were no statistically significant differences between the acupuncture and usual care groups in IBS SSS at 24 months post-randomisation, and the point estimate for the mean difference was approximately 80% of the size of the statistically significant results seen at 6, 9 and 12 months. Trial registration number ISRCTN08827905.

Aspirin for Venous Ulcers: Randomised Trial (AVURT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundVenous leg ulcers (VLUs) are the commonest cause of leg ulceration, affecting 1 in 100 adults. There is a significant health burden associated with VLUs – it is estimated that the cost of treatment for 1 ulcer is up to £1300 per year in the NHS. The mainstay of treatment is with graduated compression bandaging; however, treatment is often prolonged and up to one quarter of venous leg ulcers do not heal despite standard care. Two previous trials have suggested that low-dose aspirin, as an adjunct to standard care, may hasten healing, but these trials were small and of poor quality. Aspirin is an inexpensive, widely used medication but its safety and efficacy in the treatment of VLUs remains to be established.Methods/DesignAVURT is a phase II randomised double blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled efficacy trial. The primary objective is to examine whether aspirin, in addition to standard care, is effective in patients with chronic VLUs (i.e. over 6 weeks in duration or a history of VLU). Secondary objectives include feasibility and safety of aspirin in this population. A target of 100 participants, identified from community leg ulcer clinics and hospital clinics, will be randomised to receive either 300 mg of aspirin once daily or placebo. All participants will receive standard care with compression therapy. The primary outcome will be time to healing of the reference ulcer. Follow-up will occur for a maximum of 27 weeks. The primary analysis will use a Cox proportional hazards model to compare time to healing using the principles of intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes will include ulcer size, pain evaluation, compliance and adverse events.DiscussionThe AVURT trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of aspirin as a treatment for VLU and will inform on the feasibility of proceeding to a larger phase III study. This study will address the paucity of information currently available regarding aspirin therapy to treat VLU.Trial registrationThe study is registered on a public database with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02333123; registered on 5 November 2014).