Background: Although high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has been used for the management of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), studies examining the effectiveness of HILT have been limited. We investigated the effectiveness of HILT in MSD using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the ovid MEDLINE, ovid Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL library, and Web of Science until January, 2018. Relevant studies concerning the effectiveness of HILT in patients with MSD were included. Both placebo and active controls were considered as comparators and only randomized controlled trial (RCT) design studies were included. Risk of bias (ROB) was used for the quality assessment of the RCT. For continuous variables, a meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance random effects model. The mean difference (MD) for visual analog scale pain and standardized mean difference (SMD) for disability were applied. Results: Twelve studies were selected for this systematic review. In 11 studies, comprising 736 patients, pain was significantly improved by HILT compared with a control group (MD: −1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.28 to −0.74). From the analysis of 688 patients from 10 studies, the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of HILT showed a significant improvement in disability scores compared with those in the control group (SMD, −1.09; 95% CI −1.77, −0.41). In subgroup analysis by treatment regions, the mean difference (MD) in neck pain was the highest at −1.02 (95% CI: −1.45, −0.58) than in controls, followed by back pain (MD, −0.91; 95% CI: −1.24, −0.59). Conclusions: The results of this study show that HILT treatment for back and neck pain significantly improved pain and disability scores compared with controls. The ROB of the included studies was moderate; however, significant heterogeneity existed. Thus, additional well-designed studies involving larger samples with long-term follow-up are needed to further assess each laser application, treatment region, and comparator.

Background: Little is known about economic and productivity loss by severity of asthma. We investigate health-care utilization, direct medical costs, and indirect costs due to productivity loss from asthma by severity. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey database (2010– 2017) of patients with asthma aged ≥ 12 years and categorized them into mild, moderate, and severe asthma groups based on symptom control medications. Study outcomes included health-care utilization, direct medical costs, and indirect costs of asthma-related absenteeism. We used zero-inflated Poisson regression models to estimate incremental health-care utilization and generalized linear models to estimate incremental annual direct medical costs compared to patients without asthma. Results: An estimated 139 million persons had an asthma diagnosis. Of patients with asthma, 77.1%, 22.2%, and 0.7% had mild, moderate, and severe asthma, respectively. Compared to patients without asthma, patients with asthma had incremental mean differences of 4.16 outpatient visits, 0.18 emergency department visits, and 0.07 hospitalizations per year. Annual direct medical costs were significantly associated with asthma severity ($3305 in mild, $7250 in moderate, and $9175 in severe asthma) (P < 0.05). Patients with mild, moderate, and severe asthma reported 0.76, 2.31, and 7.19 missed work or school days, resulting in $106, $321, and $1000 indirect costs per person per year, respectively. Conclusion: Asthma-related direct and indirect costs are significantly associated with asthma severity, with severe asthma medical costs being about three times higher than mild. Controlling asthma symptoms is important to reduce the economic and social burden of asthma.

Background: Little information is known about the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and the patient’s preference values by the severity of asthma. We evaluated the HRQOL and health utility impairment associated with asthma severity using the SF-12 and SF-6D. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2010– 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey database of asthma patients aged ≥ 18 years and categorized them into mild, moderate, and severe asthma. Study outcomes included the SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) for measuring HRQOL and SF-6D for health utility. Survey regression models were used to estimate HRQOL and utilities for mild, moderate, and severe asthma. Results: Of 10,222 patients with asthma, 75.4%, 23.9%, and 0.8% had mild, moderate and severe asthma. We observed that the greater the severity, the lower the SF-6D scores: 0.731 in mild, 0.723 in moderate, and 0.659 in severe asthma (P < 0.001). Patients with severe asthma had a significantly lower PCS compared to those with mild asthma (− 5.3; P < 0.001) but there was no significant difference in MCS (− 1.9; P = 0.309) controlling for socioeconomic and clinical variables. Asthma severity, women, older age, and having a lower level education and public insurance were significantly associated with lower PCS (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Asthma patients had worse physical HRQOL than mental health, especially patients with severe asthma. These data suggest that the management of physical health of female, older aged, and low education patients with asthma should be focused on improving HRQOL.