Associations Between Early Chiropractic Care and Physical Therapy on Subsequent Opioid Use Among Persons With Low Back Pain in Arkansas

The Movement System and Diagnosis: Are We There Yet?

In the 29th Maley lecture, Phil McClure PT, PhD, FAPTA, shares a Perspective regarding the movement system and diagnosis. Despite declarations from the House of Delegates >10 years ago, the concept of a movement system has not been widely embraced in either education or practice. In this perspective, he offers critical analysis and 3 proposals that could potentially make the concept of a movement system more relevant and meaningful. The first is to operationally define the movement system, arguing that the current definition is too vague and not operational, and therefore not meaningful. The second is to intentionally separate the movement system from any specific diagnostic classification scheme which would allow the focus to remain on movement and movement analysis. He argues that diagnostic classification schemes require a biopsychosocial framework and that movement, while important, cannot be the only consideration. The third proposal is that diagnostic schemes must be developed by clinical scientists through appropriate research guided by sound theory, not by administrative or political process. He further argues that a greater focus on determining which patients are likely to be helped by physical therapists is necessary and offered the example of developing "appropriateness criteria" as a tool toward promoting value-based care. Achieving broad consensus around these proposals could unify our professional focus and assist toward the vision of optimizing movement to enhance the human experience.

Forecasting the use of chiropractic services within the Veterans Health Administration

OBJECTIVE

To model future use of chiropractic services and predict clinical resource needs within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) over the next 5 years.

METHODS

A serial cross-sectional analysis of chiropractic use data from VA's Corporate Data Warehouse for fiscal years (FY) 2017 through 2022 (10/1/2016-9/30/2022). We calculated the proportion of VA chiropractic users-via care provided on-station and/or purchased from Community Care Network (CCN) providers-compared to overall VA healthcare users for each FY. We calculated the historical year-over-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which was used to predict use in FY2023 through 2027 (10/1/2022-9/30/2027).

RESULTS

VA's chiropractic use rate increased from 1.4% in FY2017 to 3.5% in FY2022, at which point 2.0% of VA users received only CCN chiropractic care, 1.3% only on-station, and 0.2% both. During the 6-year observation period, the CAGRs were overall 17.9%, CCN only 23.8%, on-station only 12.4%, and both 27.7%. Using those rates to extrapolate, by the end of FY2027 overall use will be 8.9%, with 5.9% only CCN, 2.3% only on-station, and 0.6% both.

CONCLUSION

Overall use of VA chiropractic services is projected to more than double from FY 2022 to FY2027. These findings underscore the need for proactive resource planning to address the expected increased use of both CCN and on-station care.

Medication recommendations for treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain guideline-recommended pharmaceutical approaches to lumbosacral radicular symptoms, assess the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and qualitatively synthesize the guideline recommendations.

LITERATURE SURVEY

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We included guidelines published between January 1, 2017, and January 9, 2022, written in the English language, related to radiculopathy, sciatica, and/or low back pain with leg pain, and that provided recommendations on oral medication.

METHODOLOGY

The review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the protocol was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Eligibility screening, full-text review, extraction of information pertaining to pharmacological management, and synthesis of results were performed independently by two authors and a third investigator was recruited to arbitrate any disagreements. The AGREE II tool was administered by four authors to appraise CPG quality.

SYNTHESIS

After screening 413 citations and assessing 37 full-text articles, 11 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. They represented seven countries (Belgium, Canada, England, France, Japan, Korea, and United States) and three continents (Asia, Europe, and North America), as well as the Global Spine Care Initiative aimed at a worldwide presence. The mean overall AGREE II score was 87.1% (standard deviation [SD] 12.6%), generally reflecting high-quality CPGs. The highest domain mean score was for Clarity of Presentation (96.7%, SD 4.4%), and the lowest was Applicability (75.6%, SD 22.8%). Five classes of medications were recommended by at least one CPG: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, oral corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common medication class recommended by the CPGs for lumbar radiculopathy was antidepressants. No CPGs recommended prescribing acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or antibiotics. There was very little agreement between the CPGs, and all the medication classes had at least one CPG recommended against its use. Three guidelines reviewed did not recommend any medications due to lack of supporting literature, and instead recommended nonpharmacologic therapy.

The impact of chiropractic care on prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent studies, receipt of chiropractic care has been associated with lower odds of receiving prescription opioids and, among those already prescribed, reduced doses of opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain. These findings suggest that access to chiropractic services may reduce reliance on opioids for musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of chiropractic care on initiation, or continued use, of prescription opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain.

METHODS

We will search for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from database inception to June 2024. Article screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted independently by pairs of reviewers. We will conduct separate analyses for RCTs and observational studies and pool binary outcomes (e.g. prescribed opioid receipt, long-term opioid use, and higher versus lower opioid dose) as odds ratios (ORs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When studies provide hazard ratios (HRs) or relative risks (RRs) for time-to-event data (e.g. time-to-first opioid prescription) or incidence rates (number of opioid prescriptions over time), we will first convert them to an OR before pooling. Continuous outcomes such as pain intensity, sleep quality, or morphine equivalent dose will be pooled as weighted mean differences with associated 95% CIs. We will conduct meta-analyses using random-effects models and explore sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. We will evaluate the certainty of evidence of all outcomes using the GRADE approach and the credibility of all subgroup effects with ICEMAN criteria. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA statement and MOOSE guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Our review will establish the current evidence informing the impact of chiropractic care on new or continued prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain. We will disseminate our results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. The findings of our review will be of interest to patients, health care providers, and policy-makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023432277.

Integrated clinical opportunities for training offered through US doctor of chiropractic programs

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to assess, summarize, and compare the current integrated clinical learning opportunities offered for students who matriculated in US doctor of chiropractic programs (DCPs).

METHODS

Two authors independently searched all accredited DCP handbooks and websites for clinical training opportunities within integrated settings. The 2 data sets were compared with any discrepancies resolved through discussion. We extracted data for preceptorships, clerkships, and/or rotations within the Department of Defense, Federally Qualified Health Centers, multi-/inter-/transdisciplinary clinics, private/public hospitals, and the Veterans Health Administration. Following data extraction, officials from each DCP were contacted with a request to verify the collected data.

RESULTS

Of the 17 DCPs reviewed, all but 3 offered at least 1 integrated clinical experience, while 41 integrated clinical opportunities were the most offered by a single DCP. There was an average of 9.8 (median 4.0) opportunities per school and an average of 2.5 (median 2.0) clinical setting types. Over half (56%) of all integrated clinical opportunities were within the Veterans Health Administration, followed by multidisciplinary clinic sites (25%).

CONCLUSION

This work presents preliminary descriptive information of the integrated clinical training opportunities available through DCPs.

A descriptive analysis of the contents of Care Response, an international data set of patient-reported outcomes for chiropractic patients

BACKGROUND

Databases have become an important tool in understanding trends and correlations in health care by collecting demographic and clinical information. Analysis of data collected from large cohorts of patients can have the potential to generate insights into factors identifying treatments and the characteristics of subgroups of patients who respond to certain types of care. The Care Response (CR) database was designed to capture patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for chiropractic patients internationally. Although several papers have been published analysing some of the data, its contents have not yet been comprehensively documented. The primary aim of this study was to describe the information in the CR database. The secondary aim was to determine whether there was suitable information available to better understand subgroups of chiropractic patients and responsiveness to care. This would be achieved by enabling correlations among patient demographics, diagnoses, and therapeutic interventions with machine learning approaches.

METHODS

Data in all available fields were requested with no date restriction. Data were collected on 12 April 2022. The output was manually scanned for scope and completeness. Tables were created with categories of information. Descriptive statistics were applied.

RESULTS

The CR database collects information from patients at the first clinical visit, 14, 30, and 90 days subsequently. There were 32,468 patient responses; 3210 patients completed all fields through the 90 day follow up period. 45% of respondents were male; 54% were female; the average age was 49. There was little demographic information, and no information on diagnoses or therapeutic interventions. We received StartBack, numerical pain scale, patient global impression of change, and Bournemouth questionnaire data, but no other PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

The CR database is a large set of PROMs for chiropractic patients internationally. We found it unsuitable for machine learning analysis for our purposes; its utility is limited by a lack of demographic information, diagnoses, and therapeutic interventions. However, it can offer information about chiropractic care in general and patient satisfaction. It could form the basis for a useful clinical tool in the future, if reformed to be more accessible to researchers and expanded with more information collected.

Association between early nonpharmacological management and follow-up for low back pain in the veterans health administration

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a common reason individuals seek healthcare. Nonpharmacologic management (NPM) is often recommended as a primary intervention, and earlier use of NPM for LBP shows positive clinical outcomes. Our purpose was to evaluate how timing of engagement in NPM for LBP affects downstream LBP visits during the first year.

Methods

This study was a secondary analysis of an observational cohort study of national electronic health record data. Patients entering the Musculoskeletal Diagnosis/Complementary and Integrative Health Cohort with LBP from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017 were included. Exclusive patient groups were defined by engagement in NPM within 30 days of entry ("very early NPM"), between 31 and 90 days ("early NPM"), or not within the first 90 days ("no NPM"). The outcome was time, in days, to the final LBP follow-up after 90 days and within the first year. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model time to final follow up, controlling for additional demographic and clinical covariables.

Results

The study population included 44,175 patients, with 16.7% engaging in very early NPM and 13.1% in early NPM. Patients with very early NPM (5.2 visits, SD=4.5) or early NPM (5.7 visits, SD=4.6) had a higher mean number of LBP visits within the first year than those not receiving NPM in the first 90 days (3.2 visits, SD = 2.5). The very early NPM (HR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.46-1.54; median=48 days, IQR=97) and early NPM (HR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.23-1.30; median=88 days, IQR=92) had a significantly shorter time to final follow-up than the no NPM group (median=109 days, IQR=150).

Conclusions

Veterans Health Administration patients receiving NPM for LBP within the first 90 days after initially seeking care demonstrate a significantly faster time to final follow-up visit within the first year compared to those who do not.

Examining Clinical Opinion and Experience Regarding Utilization of Plain Radiography of the Spine: Evidence from Surveying the Chiropractic Profession

Plain Radiography of the spine (PROTS) is utilized in many forms of healthcare including the chiropractic profession; however, the literature reflects conflicting opinions regarding utilization and value. Despite being an essential part of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), few studies assess Doctors of Chiropractic (DCs) clinical opinions and experience regarding the utilization of (PROTS) in practice. In this study, DCs were surveyed regarding utilization of PROTS in practice. The survey was administered to an estimated 50,000 licensed DCs by email. A total of 4301 surveys were completed, of which 3641 were United States (US) DCs. The Clinician Opinion and Experience on Chiropractic Radiography (COECR) scale was designed to analyze survey responses. This valid and reliable scale demonstrated good internal consistency using confirmatory factor analysis and the Rasch model. Survey responses show that 73.3% of respondents utilize PROTS in practice and 26.7% refer patients out for PROTS. Survey responses show that, among US DCs, 91.9% indicate PROTS has value beyond identification of pathology, 86.7% indicate that PROTS is important regarding biomechanical analysis of the spine, 82.9% indicate that PROTS is vital to practice, 67.4% indicate that PROTS aids in measuring outcomes, 98.6% indicate the opinion that PROTS presents very low to no risk to patients, and 93.0% indicate that sharing clinical findings from PROTS studies with patients is beneficial to clinical outcomes. The results of the study indicated that based on clinical experience, the majority of DCs find PROTS to be vital to practice and valuable beyond the identification of red flags.

The association between chiropractic integration in an Ontario community health centre and continued prescription opioid use for chronic non-cancer spinal pain: a sequential explanatory mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence suggests that access to chiropractic care may reduce the likelihood of initiating an opioid prescription for spinal pain; however, the impact of chiropractic care for patients already prescribed opioids is uncertain. We undertook a sequential explanatory mixed methods study to evaluate the association between initiating chiropractic care and continued opioid use among adult patients attending an Ontario community health centre (CHC) and receiving opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer spinal pain.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 210 patient records between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020. We used generalized estimating equations, adjusted for patient demographics, co-morbidities, visit frequency, and calendar year, to evaluate the association between receipt versus non-receipt of chiropractic services and continued opioid use (e.g., unique opioid fills, number of refills, and dosages) up to one year following the index chiropractic visit. We also completed follow-up interviews with 14 patients and nine general practitioners from the CHC and integrated these data with our quantitative findings.

RESULTS

Over 12-month follow-up, there were lower rates of opioid fills (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.83) and refills (IRR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.42) among chiropractic recipients (n = 49) versus non-recipients (n = 161). Although patients who did and did not receive chiropractic care began the study with the same dose of opioids, recipients were less likely to be prescribed higher-dose opioids (i.e., ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents daily) compared to non-recipients at three months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.47), six months (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.40), nine months (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57), and 12 months (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.62). Interviews suggested that patient self-efficacy, limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain, stigma regarding use of opioids, and access to chiropractic treatment were important influencing factors.

CONCLUSION

We found that continued prescription opioid use among patients with chronic non-cancer spinal pain who received chiropractic care was lower than in patients who did not receive chiropractic care. Four themes emerged in our qualitative interviews to help provide a richer understanding of this association. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the effect of chiropractic care on opioid use for chronic spinal pain.