ECONOMIC EVIDENCE FOR LOW-LEVEL LIGHT THERAPY ACROSS CLINICAL CONDITIONS
Author(s)
Jihye Kim, PhD1, Lin Ang, PhD2, Sunmi CHOI, Ph.D.1.
1Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea, Republic of, 2Gachon University, Seongnam-si, Korea, Republic of.
1Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea, Republic of, 2Gachon University, Seongnam-si, Korea, Republic of.
OBJECTIVES: Low-level light therapy (LLLT) has been increasingly utilized across multiple clinical conditions. While clinical effectiveness has been widely investigated, the extent and quality of economic evidence supporting LLLT remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the available economic evidence for LLLT across clinical applications.
METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2026 to identify studies reporting economic outcomes related to LLLT. Extracted outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), intervention costs, avoided healthcare costs, resource utilization, and economic perspectives. Narrative synthesis was performed due to heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures.
RESULTS: Formal economic evidence for LLLT was identified primarily in oral mucositis prevention among head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation. A randomized controlled trial conducted from the Brazilian public healthcare perspective reported that LLLT generated additional intervention costs of US$1880.57 but partially offset costs through reduced opioid use, gastrostomy feeding, and hospitalization. The incremental cost was US$1689.00 per patient, with an ICER of US$4961.37 per grade 3-4 oral mucositis case prevented, considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$5000. A systematic review and meta-analysis similarly demonstrated a 64% reduction in severe oral mucositis risk (RR=0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.44) and reported favorable cost-effectiveness findings. In contrast, no formal economic evaluations were identified for musculoskeletal pain applications despite the substantial estimated economic burden of US$635 billion annually in the United States. Existing evidence in musculoskeletal conditions remained conceptual without quantitative ICER or utility-based analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Current economic evidence supporting LLLT is highly condition-specific and remains concentrated in oral mucositis prevention. Robust cost-effectiveness evidence for musculoskeletal and other commonly utilized indications remains limited. Future studies incorporating standardized economic endpoints, healthcare utilization, and utility-based outcomes are needed to support reimbursement and HTA decision-making for broader LLLT applications.
METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2026 to identify studies reporting economic outcomes related to LLLT. Extracted outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), intervention costs, avoided healthcare costs, resource utilization, and economic perspectives. Narrative synthesis was performed due to heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures.
RESULTS: Formal economic evidence for LLLT was identified primarily in oral mucositis prevention among head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiation. A randomized controlled trial conducted from the Brazilian public healthcare perspective reported that LLLT generated additional intervention costs of US$1880.57 but partially offset costs through reduced opioid use, gastrostomy feeding, and hospitalization. The incremental cost was US$1689.00 per patient, with an ICER of US$4961.37 per grade 3-4 oral mucositis case prevented, considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$5000. A systematic review and meta-analysis similarly demonstrated a 64% reduction in severe oral mucositis risk (RR=0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.44) and reported favorable cost-effectiveness findings. In contrast, no formal economic evaluations were identified for musculoskeletal pain applications despite the substantial estimated economic burden of US$635 billion annually in the United States. Existing evidence in musculoskeletal conditions remained conceptual without quantitative ICER or utility-based analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Current economic evidence supporting LLLT is highly condition-specific and remains concentrated in oral mucositis prevention. Robust cost-effectiveness evidence for musculoskeletal and other commonly utilized indications remains limited. Future studies incorporating standardized economic endpoints, healthcare utilization, and utility-based outcomes are needed to support reimbursement and HTA decision-making for broader LLLT applications.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE454
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Thresholds & Opportunity Cost
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas