Adverse events among seniors receiving spinal manipulation and exercise in a randomized clinical trial

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.

Using Postmarket Surveillance to Assess Safety-Related Events in a Digital Rehabilitation App (Kaia App): Observational Study

Background

Low back pain (LBP) affects nearly 4 out of 5 individuals during their lifetime and is the leading cause of disability globally. Digital therapeutics are emerging as effective treatment options for individuals experiencing LBP. Despite the growth of evidence demonstrating the benefits of these therapeutics in reducing LBP and improving functional outcomes, little data has been systematically collected on their safety profiles.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the safety profile of a multidisciplinary digital therapeutic for LBP, the Kaia App, by performing a comprehensive assessment of reported adverse events (AEs) by users as captured by a standardized process for postmarket surveillance.

Methods

All users of a multidisciplinary digital app that includes physiotherapy, mindfulness techniques, and education for LBP (Kaia App) from 2018 to 2019 were included. Relevant messages sent by users via the app were collected according to a standard operating procedure regulating postmarket surveillance of the device. These messages were then analyzed to determine if they described an adverse event (AE). Messages describing an AE were then categorized based on the type of AE, its seriousness, and its relatedness to the app, and they were described by numerical counts. User demographics, including age and gender, and data on app use were collected and evaluated to determine if they were risk factors for increased AE reporting.

Results

Of the 138,337 active users of the Kaia App, 125 (0.09%) reported at least one AE. Users reported 0.00014 AEs per active day on the app. The most common nonserious AE reported was increased pain. Other nonserious AEs reported included muscle issues, unpleasant sensations, headache, dizziness, and sleep disturbances. One serious AE, a surgery, was reported. Details of the event and its connection to the intervention were not obtainable, as the user did not provide more information when asked to do so; therefore, it was considered to be possibly related to the intervention. There was no relationship between gender and AE reporting (P>.99). Users aged 25 to 34 years had reduced odds (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% CI 0.08-0.95; P=.03) of reporting AEs, while users aged 55 to 65 years (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.36-4.84, P=.002) and ≥75 years (OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.07-13.26; P=.02) had increased odds. AEs were most frequently reported by users who had 0 to 99 active days on the app, and less frequently reported by users with more active days on the app.

Conclusions

This study on the Kaia App provides the first comprehensive assessment of reported AEs associated with real-world use of digital therapeutics for lower back pain. The overall rate of reported AEs was very low, but significant reporting bias is likely to be present. The AEs reported were generally consistent with those described for in-person therapies for LBP.

Characterization of thoracic spinal manipulation and mobilization forces in older adults

BACKGROUND

Spinal mobilization and spinal manipulation are common interventions used by manual therapists to treat musculoskeletal conditions in older adults. Their force-time characteristics applied to older adults' thoracic spine are important considerations for effectiveness and safety but remain unknown. This study aimed to describe the force-time characteristics of posterior-to-anterior spinal mobilization and manipulation delivered to older adults' thoracic spine.

METHODS

Twenty-one older adults (≥65 years) with no thoracic pain received posterior-to-anterior thoracic spinal mobilization and/or manipulation with the force characteristics a chiropractor deemed appropriate. Six-degree-of-freedom load cells and an instrumented treatment table recorded the force characteristics of both interventions at the clinician-participant and participant-table interfaces, respectively. Preload force, total peak force, time to peak and loading rate were analyzed descriptively.

FINDINGS

Based on data from 18 adults (56% female; average: 70 years old), mean resultant spinal mobilization forces at the clinician-participant interface were: 220 ± 51 N during preload, 323 ± 67 N total peak force, and 312 ± 38 ms time to peak. At the participant-table interface, mobilization forces were 201 ± 50 N during preload, 296 ± 63 N total peak force, and 308 ± 44 ms time to peak. Mean resultant spinal manipulation forces at the clinician-participant interface were: 260 ± 41 N during preload, 470 ± 46 N total peak force, and 165 ± 28 ms time to peak. At the participant table interface, spinal manipulation forces were 236 ± 47 N during preload, 463 ± 57 N total peak force, and 169 ± 28 ms time to peak.

INTERPRETATION

Results suggest older adults experience unique, but comparable force-time characteristics during spinal mobilization and manipulation delivered to their thoracic spine compared to the ones delivered to younger adults described in the literature.

Symptoms patients receiving manual therapy experienced and perceived as adverse: a secondary analysis of a survey of patients' perceptions of what constitutes an adverse response

Background: Previous qualitative studies demonstrated that the process by which patients determined whether a response to manual therapy is adverse is very complex. However, it remains unknown which responses to manual therapy patients perceived as adverse. Objective: To describe symptoms patients experienced and perceived as adverse following manual therapy and to explore predictors of adverse responses (AR) for the body region with the greatest number of AR. We hypothesized that patients receiving manual therapy for neck conditions would present with more symptoms perceived as AR. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a previous cross-sectional survey of 324 patients receiving manual therapy from Canadian physiotherapists. It included questions regarding symptoms patients experienced after a treatment including manual therapy and perceived as adverse. Poisson and negative binomial regression were used to determine factors associated with the number of symptoms that patients experienced and perceived as adverse. Results: Symptoms that affected patient's functionality were most often perceived as AR. The neck region was the body part with the greatest number of perceived AR (n = 83). Patients with neck pain who agreed that education may change their experience with AR had a lower incidence rate of AR. Conclusion: Findings indicate that communication regarding post-treatment symptoms between clinicians and patients is important and can potentially influence patients' perception of post-treatment symptoms.

Safety Events and Privilege Utilization Rates in Advanced Practice Physical Therapy Compared to Traditional Primary Care: An Observational Study

Introduction

The general practitioner shortage in the United States coupled with a growing number of Americans living with disability has fueled speculation of non-physician providers assuming a greater role in musculoskeletal healthcare. Previous physician shortages have been similarly addressed, and expanding physical therapy (PT) scope of practice may best serve to fill this need. Resistance to expanding PT practice focuses on patient safety as PTs assume the roles traditionally performed by primary care providers. While studies have shown advanced practice PT to be safe, none have compared safety events in advanced practice PT compared to primary care to determine if there are increased patient risks. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to examine the rate of safety events and utilization of services in an advanced practice PT clinic compared to a primary care clinic. A secondary aim of our study was to report safety events associated with spinal manipulation and dry needling procedures.

Materials and Methods

Productivity and safety data were retrospectively collected from Malcolm Grow Medical Center from 2015 to 2017 for the Family Health Clinic (FHC) and an advanced practice Physical Therapy Clinic (PTC). Chi-square tests for independence, risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%) were used to compare the relationship between the frequency of (1) patient encounters and clinical procedures and (2) clinical procedures and safety events.

Results

Seventy-five percent (12/16) of safety events reported in the PTC were defined as near misses compared to 50% (28/56) within the FHC (RR 1.5; 95% CIs: 1.0 to 2.2). Safety events were more likely to reach patients in the FHC compared to the PTC (RR 1.9; 95% CIs: 0.8 to 4.7). Safety events associated with minor harm to patients was n = 4 and n = 3 in the FHC and PTC respectively. No sentinel events, intentional harm events, nor actual events with more than minor harm were reported in either clinic. Significant relationships indicated that prescriptions, laboratory studies, imaging studies and referrals, were all more likely to be ordered in the FHC than the PTC (p < 0.01). The PTC ordered one diagnostic imaging study for every 37 encounters compared to one in every 5 encounters in the FHC. The PTC similarly referred one patient to another healthcare provider for every 52 encounters, fewer than the one per every 3 encounters in the FHC. There was a significant relationship between encounters and diagnoses, indicating a higher number of diagnoses per encounter in the FHC, though the difference of 0.31 diagnoses per encounter may not be clinically meaningful (p < 0.01). A total of 1,818 thrust manipulations and 2,910 dry needling procedures were completed without any reported safety events.

Conclusion

These results suggest advanced practice PT has a similar safety profile to primary care. The authority to order musculoskeletal imaging and refer to other clinicians were among the most commonly utilized privileges and may be of primary importance when establishing an advanced practice PT clinic. These results support research showing advanced practice PT may lead to reductions in specialty referrals, diagnostic imaging, and pharmaceutical interventions.

A risk-benefit assessment strategy to exclude cervical artery dissection in spinal manual-therapy: a comprehensive review

Cervical artery dissection refers to a tear in the internal carotid or the vertebral artery that results in an intramural haematoma and/or an aneurysmal dilatation. Although cervical artery dissection is thought to occur spontaneously, physical trauma to the neck, especially hyperextension and rotation, has been reported as a trigger. Headache and/or neck pain is the most common initial symptom of cervical artery dissection. Other symptoms include Horner's syndrome and lower cranial nerve palsy. Both headache and/or neck pain are common symptoms and leading causes of disability, while cervical artery dissection is rare. Patients often consult their general practitioner for headache and/or neck pain, and because manual-therapy interventions can alleviate headache and/or neck pain, many patients seek manual therapists, such as chiropractors and physiotherapists. Cervical mobilization and manipulation are two interventions that manual therapists use. Both interventions have been suspected of being able to trigger cervical artery dissection as an adverse event. The aim of this review is to provide an updated step-by-step risk-benefit assessment strategy regarding manual therapy and to provide tools for clinicians to exclude cervical artery dissection. Key messages Cervical mobilization and/or manipulation have been suspected to be able to trigger cervical artery dissection (CAD). However, these assumptions are based on case studies which are unable to established direct causality. The concern relates to the chicken and the egg discussion, i.e. whether the CAD symptoms lead the patient to seek cervical manual-therapy or whether the cervical manual-therapy provoked CAD along with the non-CAD presenting complaint. Thus, instead of proving a nearly impossible causality hypothesis, this study provide clinicians with an updated step-by-step risk-benefit assessment strategy tool to (a) facilitate clinicians understanding of CAD, (b) appraise the risk and applicability of cervical manual-therapy, and (c) provide clinicians with adequate tools to better detect and exclude CAD in clinical settings.

What are the risks of manual treatment of the spine? A scoping review for clinicians

Background

Communicating to patients the risks of manual treatment to the spine is an important, but challenging element of informed consent. This scoping review aimed to characterise and summarise the available literature on risks and to describe implications for clinical practice and research.

Method

A methodological framework for scoping reviews was followed. Systematic searches were conducted during June 2017. The quantity, nature and sources of literature were described. Findings of included studies were narratively summarised, highlighting key clinical points.

Results

Two hundred and fifty articles were included. Cases of serious adverse events were reported. Observational studies, randomised studies and systematic reviews were also identified, reporting both benign and serious adverse events.Benign adverse events were reported to occur commonly in adults and children. Predictive factors for risk are unclear, but for neck pain patients might include higher levels of neck disability or cervical manipulation. In neck pain patients benign adverse events may result in poorer short term, but not long term outcomes.Serious adverse event incidence estimates ranged from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 13 per 10,000 patients. Cases are reported in adults and children, including spinal or neurological problems as well as cervical arterial strokes. Case-control studies indicate some association, in the under 45 years age group, between manual interventions and cervical arterial stroke, however it is unclear whether this is causal. Elderly patients have no greater risk of traumatic injury compared with visiting a medical practitioner for neuro-musculoskeletal problems, however some underlying conditions may increase risk.

Conclusion

Existing literature indicates that benign adverse events following manual treatments to the spine are common, while serious adverse events are rare. The incidence and causal relationships with serious adverse events are challenging to establish, with gaps in the literature and inherent methodological limitations of studies. Clinicians should ensure that patients are informed of risks during the consent process. Since serious adverse events could result from pre-existing pathologies, assessment for signs or symptoms of these is important. Clinicians may also contribute to furthering understanding by utilising patient safety incident reporting and learning systems where adverse events have occurred.

Patient-centered professional practice models for managing low back pain in older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a debilitating condition for older adults, who may seek healthcare from multiple providers. Few studies have evaluated impacts of different healthcare delivery models on back pain outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of older adults receiving back pain treatment under 3 professional practice models that included primary medical care with or without chiropractic care.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with 131 community-dwelling, ambulatory older adults with subacute or chronic low back pain. Participants were randomly allocated to 12 weeks of individualized primary medical care (Medical Care), concurrent medical and chiropractic care (Dual Care), or medical and chiropractic care with enhanced interprofessional collaboration (Shared Care). Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity rated on the numerical rating scale and back-related disability measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included mixed-effects regression models and general estimating equations.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, participants in all three treatment groups reported improvements in mean average low back pain intensity [Shared Care: 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 2.6; Dual Care: 3.0; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.8; Medical Care: 2.3; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.2)] and back-related disability (Shared Care: 2.8; 95% CI 1.6 to 4.0; Dual Care: 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 3.7; Medical Care: 1.5; 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8). No statistically significant differences were noted between the three groups on the primary measures. Participants in both models that included chiropractic reported significantly better perceived low back pain improvement, overall health and quality of life, and greater satisfaction with healthcare services than patients who received medical care alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Professional practice models that included primary care and chiropractic care led to modest improvements in low back pain intensity and disability for older adults, with chiropractic-inclusive models resulting in better perceived improvement and patient satisfaction over the primary care model alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01312233 , 4 March 2011.

Manual therapy, exercise therapy or combined treatment in the management of adult neck pain - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a common and often disabling musculoskeletal condition. Two therapies frequently prescribed for its management are manual therapy (MT) and exercise therapy (ET), and combining these treatment approaches are common.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not combined treatment consisting of MT and ET is more effective than either therapy alone in relieving pain and improving function in adult patients with grade I-II neck pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search on EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, CENTRAL and PEDro were performed until June 2017. Randomized controlled trials with adult grade I-II neck pain patients were included if they investigated the combined effect of MT and ET to the same ET or MT alone, and reported pain intensity or disability on numerical scales. Quality of life was assessed as a secondary outcome. Quality of the included trials was assessed with the PEDro scale, and the quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE.

RESULTS

1169 articles were screened, and 7 studies were included, all of which investigated the addition of ET to MT. Only very small and non-significant between group differences was found on pain intensity at rest, neck disability, and quality of life at immediate post-treatment, 6 months, and 12 months follow-up. The quality of evidence was moderate for pain-at-rest outcomes and moderate too low for neck disability and quality of life outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment consisting of MT and ET does not seem to be more effective in reducing neck pain intensity at rest, neck disability or improving quality of life in adult patients with grade I-II neck pain, than ET alone.

Direct access to physical therapy for the patient with musculoskeletal disorders, a literature review

[Purpose] To present legislation comparing direct and referred access—or other measures—to physical therapy. The focus is on the management of the most burdensome musculoskeletal disorders in terms of regulations, costs, effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. [Methods] Main biomedical databases and gray literature were searched ranging from a global scenario to the analysis of targeted geographical areas and specifically Italy and the Region Piedmont. [Results] legislation on Direct Access highlights inconsistencies among the countries belonging to World Confederation for Physical Therapy. Direct Access could be an effective, safe and efficient organization model for the management of patients with musculoskeletal diseases and seems to be more effective safer and cost effective. [Conclusion] Direct Access is a virtuous model which can help improve the global quality of physical therapy services. Further studies are required to confirm this approach and determine whether the findings of the present overview can be replicated in different countries and healthcare systems.

Adverse events in a chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial for migraineurs

BACKGROUND

Unlike pharmacological randomized controlled trials (RCTs), manual-therapy RCTs do not always report adverse events (AEs). The few manual-therapy RCTs that provide information on AEs are frequently without details, such as the type and-, severity of the AE and reason for withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively report all AEs in a chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) RCT.

DESIGN

A prospective 3-armed, single-blinded, placebo, RCT.

METHODS

Seventy migraineurs were randomized to the CSMT or a placebo, with 12 intervention sessions over three months. The recommendations by CONSORT and the International Headache Society's Task Force on AEs in migraine RCTs were followed. A standardized reporting scheme designed for pharmacological RCTs was used, and the AEs were described as frequencies and percentages within each group. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentages (absolute risk) of AEs in each group were calculated when possible. Attributable risk (%) and relative risk were calculated with the corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

AEs were assessed in 703 sessions, with 355 in the CSMT group and 348 in the placebo group. Local tenderness was the most common AE, reported by 11.3% and 6.9% of the CSMT group and the placebo group, respectively, and tiredness on the intervention day was reported by 8.5% and 1.4% of CSMT group and the placebo group, respectively. The highest attributable risk was for tiredness on the treatment day, 7.0% (CI 3.9-10.2%) which presented a relative risk of 5.9 (CI 2.3-15.0).

CONCLUSIONS

AEs were mild and transient, and severe or serious AEs were not observed.

Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different conclusions about the effectiveness of SMT.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain.

DATA SOURCES

Search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1, 2011, through February 6, 2017, as well as identified systematic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT compared with sham or alternative treatments, and that measured pain or function outcomes for up to 6 weeks. Observational studies were included to assess harms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was done in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool. This tool has 11 items in the following domains: randomization, concealment, baseline differences, blinding (patient), blinding (care provider [care provider is a specific quality metric used by the CBN Risk of Bias tool]), blinding (outcome), co-interventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and intention to treat. Prior research has shown the CBN Risk of Bias tool identifies studies at an increased risk of bias using a threshold of 5 or 6 as a summary score. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (measured by the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index [range, 0-100]), or any harms measured within 6 weeks.

FINDINGS

Of 26 eligible RCTs identified, 15 RCTs (1711 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in pain (pooled mean improvement in the 100-mm visual analog pain scale, -9.95 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.3]). Twelve RCTs (1381 patients) produced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in function (pooled mean effect size, -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]). Heterogeneity was not explained by type of clinician performing SMT, type of manipulation, study quality, or whether SMT was given alone or as part of a package of therapies. No RCT reported any serious adverse event. Minor transient adverse events such as increased pain, muscle stiffness, and headache were reported 50% to 67% of the time in large case series of patients treated with SMT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.

Assignment of adverse event indexing terms in randomized clinical trials involving spinal manipulative therapy: an audit of records in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases

Background

Reporting of adverse events in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is encouraged by the authors of The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. With robust methodological design and adequate reporting, RCTs have the potential to provide useful evidence on the incidence of adverse events associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). During a previous investigation, it became apparent that comprehensive search strategies combining text words with indexing terms was not sufficiently sensitive for retrieving records that were known to contain reports on adverse events. The aim of this analysis was to compare the proportion of articles containing data on adverse events associated with SMT that were indexed in MEDLINE and/or EMBASE and the proportion of those that included adverse event-related words in their title or abstract.

Methods

A sample of 140 RCT articles previously identified as containing data on adverse events associated with SMT was used. Articles were checked to determine if: (1) they had been indexed with relevant terms describing adverse events in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases; and (2) they mentioned adverse events (or any related terms) in the title or abstract.

Results

Of the 140 papers, 91% were MEDLINE records, 85% were EMBASE records, 81% were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, and 4% were not in either database. Only 19% mentioned adverse event-related text words in the title or abstract. There was no significant difference between MEDLINE and EMBASE records in the proportion of available papers (p = 0.078). Of the 113 papers that were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, only 3% had adverse event-related indexing terms assigned to them in both databases, while 81% were not assigned an adverse event-related indexing term in either database.

Conclusions

While there was effective indexing of RCTs involving SMT in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, there was a failure of allocation of adverse event indexing terms in both databases. We recommend the development of standardized definitions and reporting tools for adverse events associated with SMT. Adequate reporting of adverse events associated with SMT will facilitate accurate indexing of these types of manuscripts in the databases.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy, supervised exercise, and home exercise for older adults with chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Chronic neck pain is a prevalent and disabling condition among older adults. Despite the large burden of neck pain, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of home exercise and advice (HEA), spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus HEA, and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) plus HEA.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 241 older adults (≥65 years) with chronic mechanical neck pain comprised the patient sample.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measures were direct and indirect costs, neck pain, neck disability, SF-6D-derived quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 1-year time horizon.

METHODS

This work was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (#F32AT007507), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (#P60AR062799), and Health Resources and Services Administration (#R18HP01425). The RCT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00269308). A societal perspective was adopted for the primary analysis. A healthcare perspective was adopted as a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectivenesswas a secondary aim of the RCT which was not powered for differences in costs or QALYs. Differences in costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates.

RESULTS

Total costs for SMT+HEA were 5% lower than HEA (mean difference: -$111; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$1,354 to $899) and 47% lower than SRE+HEA (mean difference: -$1,932; 95% CI -$2,796 to -$1,097). SMT+HEA also resulted in a greater reduction of neck pain over the year relative to HEA (0.57; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92) and SRE+HEA (0.41; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Differences in disability and QALYs favored SMT+HEA. The probability that adding SMT to HEA is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY gained ranges from 0.75 to 0.81. If adopting a health-care perspective, costs for SMT+HEA were 66% higher than HEA (mean difference: $515; 95% CI $225 to $1,094), resulting in an ICER of $55,975 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

On average, SMT+HEA resulted in better clinical outcomes and lower total societal costs relative to SRE+HEA and HEA alone, with a 0.75 to 0.81 probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine: a three-armed, single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial

Background and purpose

To investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for migraineurs.

Methods

This was a prospective three‐armed, single‐blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 17 months duration including 104 migraineurs with at least one migraine attack per month. The RCT was conducted at Akershus University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Active treatment consisted of CSMT, whereas placebo was a sham push manoeuvre of the lateral edge of the scapula and/or the gluteal region. The control group continued their usual pharmacological management. The RCT consisted of a 1‐month run‐in, 3 months intervention and outcome measures at the end of the intervention and at 3, 6 and 12 months follow‐up. The primary end‐point was the number of migraine days per month, whereas secondary end‐points were migraine duration, migraine intensity and headache index, and medicine consumption.

Results

Migraine days were significantly reduced within all three groups from baseline to post‐treatment (P < 0.001). The effect continued in the CSMT and placebo group at all follow‐up time points, whereas the control group returned to baseline. The reduction in migraine days was not significantly different between the groups (P > 0.025 for interaction). Migraine duration and headache index were reduced significantly more in the CSMT than the control group towards the end of follow‐up (P = 0.02 and P = 0.04 for interaction, respectively). Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was strongly sustained throughout the RCT.

Conclusions

It is possible to conduct a manual‐therapy RCT with concealed placebo. The effect of CSMT observed in our study is probably due to a placebo response.

The reporting of adverse events following spinal manipulation in randomized clinical trials-a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is commonly used to treat spinal disorders. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of SMT in the treatment of neck and back disorders, concerns exist about the nature and incidence of adverse events associated with the intervention. Comprehensive reporting of adverse events in clinical trials could allow for accurate incidence estimates through meta-analysis. However, it is not clear if randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that involve SMT are currently reporting adverse events adequately.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to describe the extent of adverse events reporting in published RCTs involving SMT, and to determine whether the quality of reporting has improved since publication of the 2010 Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a systematic literature review.

METHODS

The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for RCTs involving SMT. Domains of interest included classifications of adverse events, completeness of adverse events reporting, nomenclature used to describe the events, methodological quality of the study, and details of the publishing journal. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Frequencies and proportions of trials reporting on each of the specified domains above were calculated. Differences in proportions between pre- and post-CONSORT trials were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using standard methods, and statistical comparisons were analyzed using tests for equality of proportions with continuity correction. There was no funding obtained for this study. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

RESULTS

Of 7,398 records identified in the electronic searches, 368 articles were eligible for inclusion in this review. Adverse events were reported in 140 (38.0%) articles. There was a significant increase in the reporting of adverse events post-CONSORT (p=.001). There were two major adverse events reported (0.3%). Only 22 articles (15.7%) reported on adverse events in the abstract. There were no differences in reporting of adverse events post-CONSORT for any of the chosen parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been an increase in reporting adverse events since the introduction of the 2010 CONSORT guidelines, the current level should be seen as inadequate and unacceptable. We recommend that authors adhere to the CONSORT statement when reporting adverse events associated with RCTs that involve SMT.

Effect of aqua-cycling on pain and physical functioning compared with usual care in patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Over the last decade aquatic exercise has become more and more popular. One of the latest trends is aqua-cycling, where participants sit on a water-resistant stationary bike and, while immersed chest deep in the water, combine continuous cycling with upper body exercises that utilise water resistance. Since stationary cycling and aquatic exercises are frequently recommended to patients with knee osteoarthritis, combining both would seem an obvious step, and an aqua-cycling exercise programme for patients with knee osteoarthritis has indeed been developed. This study protocol gives a detailed description of the exercise programme and the methodology of a study to compare this programme with treatment involving usual care only.

Methods

The study is a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial of Maastricht University Medical Centre+, the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria: knee pain of four to seven on a 10-point pain rating scale; a Kellgren/Lawrence score between one to three; ability to cycle; good mental health; sufficient language skills; indication for physical therapy in conjunction with impairments due to OA. Exclusion criteria: any contra-indication for aquatic exercise; planned total knee replacement; corticosteroid injection <3 months and/or hyaluronic acid injection <6 months; severe joint complaints (other than knee joint); symptomatic and radiological apparent hip OA; inflammatory joint diseases; inability to safely enter and exit the pool; fear of water. Participants will receive two 45-min moderate intense aqua-cycling sessions weekly over a period of 12 weeks in addition to usual care or usual care only. Usual care consists of an individual intervention plan comprising lifestyle recommendations, medication routine and referral to a physical therapist. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and at 12 and 24 weeks after baseline. The primary outcome is self-reported knee pain and physical functioning. Secondary outcomes are lower limb muscle strength, functional capacity, self-reported disease severity, physical activity level, quality of life, self-efficacy and fear of movement. Daily diaries will collect information on knee pain, physical functioning, level of physical activity, pain medication routine and physical therapy (control group only) or exercise participation over two 30-day periods (during the intervention period).

Discussion

To our knowledge the present study is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of aqua-cycling in the pre-surgical stage of knee osteoarthritis. This trial will demonstrate if the newly designed aqua-cycling intervention, in supplement to usual care, can help to improve impairments due to knee osteoarthritis.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register NTR3766 (21-12-2012).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-0939-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Complementary and Integrative Healthcare in a Long-term Care Facility: A Pilot Project

INTRODUCTION

The world's population is aging quickly, leading to increased challenges of how to care for individuals who can no longer independently care for themselves. With global social and economic pressures leading to declines in family support, increased reliance is being placed on community- and government-based facilities to provide long-term care (LTC) for many of society's older citizens. Complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH) is commonly used by older adults and may offer an opportunity to enhance LTC residents' wellbeing. Little work has been done, however, rigorously examining the safety and effectiveness of CIH for LTC residents.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this work is to describe a pilot project to develop and evaluate one model of CIH in an LTC facility in the Midwestern United States.

METHODS

A prospective, mixed-methods pilot project was conducted in two main phases: (1) preparation and (2) implementation and evaluation. The preparation phase entailed assessment, CIH model design and development, and training. A CIH model including acupuncture, chiropractic, and massage therapy, guided by principles of collaborative integration, evidence informed practice, and sustainability, was applied in the implementation and evaluation phase. CIH services were provided for 16 months in the LTC facility. Quantitative data collection included pain, quality of life, and adverse events. Qualitative interviews of LTC residents, their family members, and LTC staff members queried perceptions of CIH services.

RESULTS

A total of 46 LTC residents received CIH care, most commonly for musculoskeletal pain (61%). Participants were predominantly female (85%) and over the age of 80 years (67%). The median number of CIH treatments was 13, with a range of 1 to 92. Residents who were able to provide self-report data demonstrated, on average, a 15% decline in pain and a 4% improvement in quality of life. No serious adverse events related to treatment were documented; the most common mild and expected side effect was increased pain (63 reports over 859 treatments). Qualitative interviews revealed most residents, family members and LTC staff members felt CIH services were worthwhile due to perceived benefits including pain relief and enhanced psychological and social wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

This project demonstrated that with extensive attention to preparation, one patient-centered model of CIH in LTC was feasible on several levels. Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that CIH can be safely implemented and might provide relief and enhanced wellbeing for residents. However, some aspects of model delivery and data collection were challenging, resulting in limitations, and should be addressed in future efforts.

Compensation claims for chiropractic in Denmark and Norway 2004-2012

Background

Adverse events are commonly observed in all parts of health care and have been reported extensively following manual therapy, including chiropractic. The majority of reported adverse events following chiropractic care are mild, transitory and self-limiting. However, little is known about patient filed compensation claims related to the chiropractic consultation process. The aim of this study was to describe claims reported to the Danish Patient Compensation Association and the Norwegian System of Compensation to Patients related to chiropractic from 2004 to 2012.

Methods

All finalized compensation claims involving chiropractors reported to one of the two associations between 2004 and 2012 were assessed for age, gender, type of complaint, decisions and appeals. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study population.

Results

338 claims were registered in Denmark and Norway between 2004 and 2012 of which 300 were included in the analysis. 41 (13.7%) were approved for financial compensation. The most frequent complaints were worsening of symptoms following treatment (n = 91, 30.3%), alleged disk herniations (n = 57, 19%) and cases with delayed referral (n = 46, 15.3%). A total financial payment of €2,305,757 (median payment €7,730) were distributed among the forty-one cases with complaints relating to a few cases of cervical artery dissection (n = 11, 5.7%) accounting for 88.7% of the total amount.

Conclusion

Chiropractors in Denmark and Norway received approximately one compensation claim per 100.000 consultations. The approval rate was low across the majority of complaint categories and lower than the approval rates for general practioners and physiotherapists. Many claims can probably be prevented if chiropractors would prioritize informing patients about the normal course of their complaint and normal benign reactions to treatment.