dorsaVi sensors increase productivity, reduce costs, and provide clinical efficacy
Key points: 
  • Together with the randomised clinical trial, this new health economic evaluation concludes that treating back pain patients with ViMove and guideline-based care is both more clinically effective and economically efficient, than guideline-based care treatment alone.
  • Productivity improvements were the greatest contributor to the relative economic efficiency of ViMove treatment.
  • The overall cost saving across a 12-month period (improved productivity and reduced non-trial costs after accounting for increased trial costs) was $4,781 per patient.
  • Over 60% of patients treated with ViMove experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in pain and reported feeling very much or much better compared with only 20% of patients treated with guideline-based care alone.
Melbourne, Australia – 18 January 2017: dorsaVi Ltd (ASX: DVL) today shares the details of a new publication investigating the economic impact of using wearable technology and biofeedback to provide treatment for low back pain. This health economic evaluation was conducted concurrently with the randomised clinical trial which was published in 2015.i Together, the studies demonstrate that monitoring and treating low back pain patients with wearable motion-sensor biofeedback devices (ViMove) from dorsaVi, was more clinically effective and economically efficient than standard care.
The clinical evaluation of the study previously reported that patients treated for low back pain with ViMove showed significant improvement in pain and activity limitation at 10 weeks. These gains were sustained or improved after 12 months. Those treated with ViMove were three times more likely to have a clinically relevant reduction in pain (68% of patients treated with ViMove compared with 21% of patients treated with guideline-based care alone after 12 months) and 2.5 times more likely to increase activity levels as compared with patients treated using guideline-based care only. The second paper to be generated from this study, the health economic evaluation, was published online in the leading medical journal BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. The paper was authored by Professor Terry Haines and Dr Kelly-Ann Bowles of Monash University and Monash Health and is available at
The health economic analysis specifically evaluated the cost of delivering the ViMove intervention, the cost of other health care utilised, and patient productivity. Productivity was measured during 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up assessments using industry classifications and participant self-reporting of their ability to do their normal work with their present level of pain. The results showed that while the cost of providing the ViMove intervention was greater than providing the guideline-based intervention, the ViMove group used fewer non-trial medical and therapy resources. In terms of productivity, the ViMove intervention patients became significantly more productive over the 12-month follow-up period. In summary, there was a net saving of $4,781 over 12 months per patient treated with ViMove sensor technology, instead of guideline-based care alone.
"This evaluation has identified that motion-sensor biofeedback intervention using the ViMove system was both more effective and less costly overall than the control from the societal perspective. The lower overall societal cost was driven by improved productivity in the intervention group, which is important because productivity losses are a key cost driver in low back pain. Rarely are health care interventions found to be both more effective and less costly overall," said Professor Haines.
Low Back Pain has an enormous monetary impact on developed nations globally. In the United States alone, total costs related to low back pain exceed US$100 billion per annum.ii  The condition can have a profound financial impact on individuals but also has an impact on society, including a reduction in paid occupational activity and an increased usage of health services. Insurers and other payers are looking for effective treatments which can reduce this significant economic burden and improve patient wellbeing.
These two publications provide evidence that the addition of the ViMove motion-sensor biofeedback treatment approach to standard care is a dominant intervention, delivering a more clinically effective and economically efficient solution to chronic low back pain. This approach appears to be a viable means of management of sub-acute and chronic low back pain.
The randomised controlled trial together with the health economics assessment are core components of dorsaVi’s reimbursement strategy.

- END -

Key points:

  • The registry will recruit over 1,500 US-based low back pain patients in the first 18 months.
  • The registry steering committee is headed by Washington DC-based Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Physician, Dr Mehul Desai.
  • This longitudinal study will utilise dorsaVi’s ViMove medical grade sensors to monitor patients’ responses to various treatments including medications, injection therapies and surgery.
  • It is anticipated that the registry will generate a series of medical publications highlighting the importance of ViMove data in the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of low back pain patients.
  • This registry forms part of dorsaVi’s reimbursement strategy for the US market.

Melbourne, Australia – 27 October 2016: dorsaVi Ltd (ASX: DVL) is pleased to report the first patient has been recruited into its US-based Back Pain and Movement Registry. The registry will recruit 1,500 low back pain patients in the first 18 months with the objective of establishing a better understanding of the relationship between body movement, muscle activity, physical function and a range of other factors which are associated with low back pain.

In the United States alone, total costs related to low back pain exceed US$100 billion per annum1. Insurers and other payers are looking for effective treatments which can reduce this significant economic burden and improve patient wellbeing. The registry is an important component in dorsaVi’s reimbursement strategy in the US market.

The registry steering committee is headed by Washington DC-based Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Physician (PM&R), Dr Mehul Desai. Dr Desai’s practice, International Spine, Pain and Performance Center, and Synergy Manual Physical Therapy LLC, are the first two registry sites. Other sites across the US are currently being recruited. Ethics approval has been provided by The George Washington University Institutional Review Board (IRB).

“The registry findings will provide an increased understanding of low back pain, creating an opportunity to deliver more targeted and earlier interventions that are more likely to be successful. In the changing US healthcare environment, there is a unique opportunity to demonstrate value using dorsaVi technology from a health economic perspective,” said Dr Desai.

“dorsaVi is delighted that a PM&R Physician of Dr Desai’s calibre is leading the registry and we look forward to the addition of other high profile sites in the future” said Dr Andrew Ronchi, CEO dorsaVi.

- END -

Request more information about dorsaVi


Randomised Controlled Trial with dorsaVi technology finds back pain patients monitored and treated using dorsaVi's sensors had significant, sustained improvements in pain and function.

Recent news: What's happening at dorsaVi 

ViPerform and the NFL: How Loren Landow uses objective data to assess risk of injury

iThe effect of changing movement and posture using motion-sensor biofeedback, versus guidelines-based care, on clinical outcomes of people with sub-acute or chronic low back pain – a  ulticentre, cluster-randomised placebo-controlled, pilot trial, Peter Kent, Robert Laird and Terry Haines. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 29 May 2015 16:131

iiEstimating Cost of Care for Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Review of Patient Records, William Thomas Crow, DO; David R. Willis, DO, MBA. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, April 2009, Vol. 109, 229-233.

Results published in peer-reviewed journal BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Fix the following errors: