Preventing progression from chronic to widespread pain and its impact on health-related quality of life: a historical cohort study of osteopathic medical care

CONTEXT

It is generally acknowledged that osteopathic physicians take a holistic approach to patient care. This style may help prevent the progression of painful musculoskeletal conditions, particularly if combined with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT).

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to determine if osteopathic medical care lowers the risk of progression from localized chronic low back pain to widespread pain and lessens the impact of pain on health-related quality of life.

METHODS

A historical cohort study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry) using data acquired from April 2016 through March 2021. Registry participants aged 21-79 years with chronic low back pain at the baseline encounter were potentially eligible for inclusion if they had a treating physician, completed all four quarterly follow-up encounters, and did not report physician crossover at the final 12-month encounter. Eligible participants were classified according to the type of physician provider at baseline and thereby into osteopathic or allopathic medical care groups. Participants were also classified according to prior use of OMT at the final encounter. Widespread pain was measured at baseline and each quarterly encounter to determine the period prevalence rate of widespread pain and its severity over 12 months using the Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain recommended by the National Institutes of Health. Participants who reported "not being bothered at all" by widespread pain during each encounter were classified as not having widespread pain, whereas those who were bothered "a little" or "a lot" at any quarterly encounter were classified as having widespread pain. The severity of widespread pain was measured by summing participant responses at each encounter. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System was used at each encounter to measure health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) scores for physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, participation in social roles and activities, and pain interference with activities.

RESULTS

A total of 462 participants were studied, including 101 (21.9%) in the osteopathic medical care group and 73 (15.8%) who used OMT. The mean age of participants at baseline was 52.7 ± 13.2 years (range, 22-79 years) and 336 (72.7%) were female. A lower period prevalence rate of widespread pain was observed in the osteopathic medical care group (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; p=0.006) and in the OMT group (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; p=0.004), although the latter finding did not persist after adjustment for potential confounders. The osteopathic medical care and OMT groups both reported lower widespread pain severity. The osteopathic medical care group also reported better age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for each of the seven HRQOL dimensions throughout the study. The OMT group reported better outcomes in five of the HRQOL dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the view that osteopathic physicians practice a holistic approach to medical care that manifests itself through a lower risk of progression from chronic low back pain to widespread pain, lower widespread pain severity, and lesser deficits in HRQOL. Similar findings were generally associated with OMT use.

Two manual therapy techniques for management of lumbar radiculopathy: a randomized clinical trial

CONTEXT

Evidence has shown that spinal mobilization with leg movement (SMWLM) and progressive inhibition of neuromuscular structures (PINS) are individually effective in the management of lumbar radiculopathy. However, previous evidence reported data for only a short-term study period and did not investigate the effect of the combined manual therapy techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the combined effects of two manual therapy techniques (SMWLM and PINS) with the individual techniques alone (SMWLM or PINS) in the management of individuals with lumbar radiculopathy.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients diagnosed with unilateral lumbar radiculopathy secondary to disc herniation were randomly allocated into three groups: 20 participants each in the SMWLM, PINS, and combined SMWLM + PINS groups. Each group attended two treatments per week for 30 min each, for three months. Participants were assessed at baseline, immediately posttreatment, and then at three, six, and nine months follow-up using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI).

RESULTS

Between-groups analyses using a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated significant interactions between groups and follow-up times for all outcomes (p=0.001). Participants receiving combined SMWLM + PINS treatment experienced greater improvement in leg pain, back pain, disability, and sciatica at all timelines (immediately posttreatment, and three, six, and nine months follow-up) than the participants receiving SMWLM or PINS alone (p<0.05). However, participants receiving SMWLM alone showed better improvement than the participants receiving PINS alone at all timelines (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A combined SMWLM + PINS treatment protocol showed greater improvement than the individual techniques alone in the management of individuals with LR in this study.

Osteopathic Manipulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Chronic pain is a common condition that often interferes with work or other activities. Guidelines support the use of non-pharmacological treatments, such as spinal manipulation, in patients with chronic pain. Osteopathic physicians in the United States are uniquely positioned to manage chronic pain because their professional philosophy embraces the biopsychosocial model and they are trained in the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to complement conventional medical care. This narrative review provides current perspectives on the osteopathic approach to chronic pain management, including evidence for the efficacy of OMT based on systematic searches of the biomedical literature and the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Men, persons with low levels of education, and non-White and Hispanic patients are significantly less likely to have received OMT during their lifetime. Patients with low back and neck pain are most likely to be treated with OMT, and osteopathic manipulative medicine specialty physicians and family medicine physicians most often use OMT. However, many osteopathic physicians report using OMT infrequently. Although OMT is considered safe, based on millions of patient encounters over more than a century, there is limited evidence on its efficacy in treating chronic pain. The lone exception involves chronic low back pain, wherein there is evidence from systematic reviews, a large clinical trial, and observational studies. There is lesser evidence to support cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction associated with OMT for chronic pain. The only clinical practice guideline established by the American Osteopathic Association recommends that OMT should be used to treat chronic low back pain in patients with somatic dysfunction. Given the philosophy of osteopathic medicine, universal training of osteopathic physicians to use OMT, and national guidelines supporting non-pharmacological treatments for chronic pain, it is unclear why OMT use is reported to be remarkably low in physician surveys.

Osteopathic Medical Care With and Without Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pain Registry-Based Study

Context

The OSTEOPATHIC Trial demonstrated substantial improvement in pain intensity, decreased need for rescue medication for pain, and greater likelihood of recovery in patients with chronic low back pain who received 6 osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) sessions over 3 months.

Objective

To assess osteopathic medical care and the effectiveness of OMT for chronic low back pain in a real-world setting without the constraints of a rigid research protocol.

Methods

An observational study of 445 adults with chronic low back pain who had an established osteopathic physician (ie, DO) or allopathic physician (ie, MD) was conducted within the PRECISION Pain Research Registry from April 2016 through February 2019. Primary outcome measures included a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for back-related functioning, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids for low back pain.

Results

A total of 79, 48, and 318 patients, respectively, were treated by DOs who used OMT, DOs who did not use OMT, or MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT reported significantly lesser low back pain intensity (mean numerical rating score, 5.6; 95% CI, 5.1-6.1 vs 6.1; 95% CI, 5.9-6.3; P=.04) and back-related disability (mean Roland-Morris Disability score, 12.4; 95% CI, 11.1-13.8 vs 14.4; 95% CI, 13.7-15.0; P=.009) than patients treated by MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT also reported less frequent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (multivariate odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.70; P=.001) or opioids (multivariate odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.98; P=.04). There were no significant differences in primary outcomes between DOs who did not use OMT and MDs.

Conclusion

This study of community-based patients in a pain research registry supports the effectiveness of OMT as an integral component of osteopathic medical care for chronic low back pain. Patients treated by DOs who did not use OMT did not experience better results than patients treated by MDs in any primary outcome measure. Further research is needed to more specifically compare the effects of OMT with other treatment effects that may be attributed to patient-DO interactions during medical encounters.

Tolerance of Rib Raising Among Hospitalized Patients: A Pilot Study

Context

Rib raising is an osteopathic manipulative treatment modality that can help patients with various respiratory conditions to improve their work of breathing. However, the tolerance of this technique in hospitalized patients has not been assessed in a systematic manner. We hypothesized that rib raising would be a well-tolerated treatment modality for hospitalized patients admitted for asthma, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or congestive heart failure.

Objective

To determine hospitalized patients' tolerance of rib raising through a prospective pilot study.

Methods

The study included patients at University Hospitals-Richmond Medical Center and University Hospitals-Bedford Medical Center who were admitted for asthma, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or congestive heart failure between November 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017. Each patient was treated with rib raising, which was performed in a standardized fashion. Immediately after treatment, patients were asked to rate their tolerance of the procedure on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represented no discomfort and 10 represented maximum discomfort.

Results

The study population consisted of 87 hospitalized, non-intensive care unit patients. The mean tolerance score for rib raising was 1.18, and the median score was 0. The score was between 0 and 3 in 80 patients (92.0%), between 4 and 6 in 6 patients (6.9%), and between 7 and 10 in 1 patient (1.1%).

Conclusion

Rib raising was shown to be well tolerated by the majority of the patients in the study population.

Bridging the Gap: An Osteopathic Primary Care–Centered Approach to Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a deadly and incurable disease typically diagnosed in early childhood. Presently, the delay between a caregiver's initial concern and the primary care physician obtaining creatine kinase levels—the most important screening test—is more than a year. It is imperative to diagnose DMD as soon as possible because early treatment has the potential to double the patient's lifespan. In addition, because of geographic and economic disadvantages, multidisciplinary DMD treatment centers are not readily available to all patients. Therefore, the challenge of early diagnosis and treatment coordination rests with the primary care physician. The present review provides osteopathic primary care physicians with current and relevant information regarding DMD diagnosis and management.