Real-world practice patterns, health-care utilization, and costs in patients with low back pain: the long road to guideline-concordant care

The Effect of Preoperative Marijuana Use on Surgical Outcomes, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Opioid Consumption Following Lumbar Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) investigate the effect of marijuana use on surgical outcomes following lumbar fusion, (2) determine how marijuana use affects patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), and (3) determine if marijuana use impacts the quantity of opioids prescribed.

METHODS

Patients > 18 years of age who underwent primary one- or two-level lumbar fusion with preoperative marijuana use at our institution were identified. A 3:1 propensity match incorporating patient demographics and procedure type was conducted to compare preoperative marijuana users to non-marijuana users. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, surgical outcomes (90-day all-cause and 90-day surgical readmissions, reoperations, and revision surgeries), pre- and postoperative narcotic usage, and PROMs were compared between groups. Multivariate regression models were created to determine the effect of marijuana on surgical reoperations patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) 1-year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Of the 259 included patients, 65 used marijuana preoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that marijuana use (OR = 2.28, P = .041) significantly increased the likelihood of having a spine reoperation. No other surgical outcome was found to be significantly different between groups. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that marijuana use was not significantly associated with changes in 1-year postoperative PROMs (all, P > .05). The quantity of pre- and postoperative opioids prescriptions was not significantly different between groups (all, P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative marijuana use increased the likelihood of a spine reoperation for any indication following lumbar fusion, but it was not associated with 90-day all cause readmission, surgical readmission, the magnitude of improvement in PROMs, or differences in opioid consumption.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after first single-level lumbar microdiscectomy

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to identify risk factors that potentially prolong the hospital stay in patients after undergoing first single-level open lumbar microdiscectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre study was conducted. Demographic data, medical records, intraoperative course, and imaging studies were analysed. The outcome measure was defined by the number of days stayed after the operation. A prolonged length of stay (LOS) stay was defined as a minimum of one additional day beyond the median hospital stay in our patient collective. Bivariate analysis and multiple stepwise regression were used to identify independent factors related to the prolonged hospital stay.

RESULTS

Two hundred consecutive patients who underwent first lumbar microdiscectomy between 2018 and 2022 at our clinic were included in this study. Statistical analysis of factors potentially prolonging postoperative hospital stay was done for a total of 24 factors, seven of them were significantly related to prolonged LOS in bivariate analysis. Sex (p = 0.002, median 5 vs. 4 days for females vs. males) and age (rs = 0.35, p ≤ 0.001, N = 200) were identified among the examined demographic factors. Regarding preoperative physical status, preoperative immobility reached statistical significance (p ≤ 0.001, median 5 vs. 4 days). Diabetes mellitus (p = 0.043, median 5 vs. 4 days), anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet agents (p = 0.045, median 5 vs. 4 days), and postoperative narcotic consumption (p ≤ 0.001, median 5 vs. 4 days) as comorbidities were associated with a prolonged hospital stay. Performance of nucleotomy (p = 0.023, median 5 vs. 4 days) was a significant intraoperative factor. After linear stepwise multivariable regression, only preoperative immobility (p ≤ 0.001) was identified as independent risk factors for prolonged length of postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified preoperative immobility as a significant predictor of prolonged hospital stay, highlighting its value in preoperative assessments and as a tool to pinpoint at-risk patients. Prospective clinical trials with detailed assessment of mobility, including grading, need to be done to verify our results.

Perceptions in orthopedic surgery on the use of cannabis in treating pain: a survey of patients with spine pain (POSIT Spine)

BACKGROUND

Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite guidelines discouraging opioids as first-line treatment, opioids remain the most prescribed drugs for back pain. There is renewed interest in exploring the potential medical applications of cannabis, and with the recent changes in national legislation there is a unique opportunity to investigate the analgesic properties of cannabis.

METHODS

This was a multi-center survey-based study examining patient perceptions regarding cannabis for spine pain. We included patients presenting with back or neck pain to one of three Orthopedic clinics in Ontario. Our primary outcome was perceived effect of cannabis on back pain, while secondary outcomes were perceptions regarding potential applications and barriers to cannabis use.

RESULTS

259 patients participated in this study, 35.3% (90/255) stating they used cannabis medically. Average pain severity was 6.5/10 ± 0.3 (95% CI 6.2-6.8). Nearly three-quarters were prescribed opioids (73.6%, 148/201), with oxycodone/oxycontin (45.9% 68/148) being the most common, and almost half of (49.3%, 73/148) had used an opioid in the last week. Patients estimated cannabis could treat 54.3% ± 4.0 (95% CI 50.3-58.3%) of their spine pain and replace 46.2% ± 6. 6 (95% CI 39.6-52.8%) of their current analgesics. Age (β = - 0.3, CI - 0.6-0.0), higher pain severity (β = 0.4, CI 0.1-0.6) and previous cannabis use (β = 14.7, CI 5.1-24.4) were associated with a higher perceived effect of cannabis. Patients thought cannabis would be beneficial to treat pain (129/146, 88.4%), and reduce (116/146, 79.5%) or eliminate opioids (102/146, 69.9%). Not considering using cannabis for medical purposes (65/150, 43.3%) was the number one reported barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients estimated medical cannabis could treat more than half of their spine pain, with one in three patients already using medical cannabis. 79% of patients also believe cannabis could reduce opioid usage. This data will help support more research into cannabis for musculoskeletal pain.

Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically begins with conservative care and progresses to minimally invasive procedures, including interspinous spacer without decompression or fusion (ISD) or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). This study examined safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures among LSS patients receiving an ISD versus MILD as the first surgical intervention.

METHODS

100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files were used to identify patients with an ISD or MILD (first procedure=index date) from 2017 to 2021. ISD and MILD patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching based on demographics and clinical characteristics. Safety outcomes and subsequent spinal procedures were captured from index date until end of follow-up. Cox models were used to analyze rates of subsequent surgical interventions, LSS-related interventions, open decompression, fusion, ISD, and MILD. Cox models were used to assess postoperative complications during follow-up and logistic regression to analyze life-threatening complications within 30 days of index procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 3682 ISD and 5499 MILD patients were identified. After matching, 3614 from each group were included in the analysis (mean age=74 years, mean follow-up=20.0 months). The risk of undergoing any intervention, LSS-related intervention, open decompression, and MILD were 21%, 28%, 21%, and 81% lower among ISD compared with MILD patients. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in the risk of undergoing fusion or ISD, experiencing postoperative complications, or life-threatening complications (all p≥0.241) between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed ISD and MILD procedures have an equivalent safety profile. However, ISDs demonstrated lower rates of open decompression and MILD.

Barriers and factors associated with adherence to a home exercise program of adults with musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Home exercise programs (HEPs) are cost-effective and efficacious treatments for musculoskeletal pain conditions. Although HEPs are an important part of the continuum of care, non-adherence limits their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine adherence and specific barriers to clinician-prescribed HEPs in adults with musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with a total of 300 patients presenting to an outpatient pain clinic in an academic medical center. Participants' self-reported information, including HEP completion frequency and barriers, was collected through a survey.

RESULTS

The participants' mean age was 54.1 ± 15.8 years (females = 133 (65.5%)). Of 203 participants, 99 (48.8%) adhered to HEP, 56 (27.6%) partially adhered, and 48 (23.6%) did not adhere. One hundred eighty-seven (92.1%) participants reported receiving adequate instructions, and 175 (86.2%) reported receiving instructional materials. Age and "sufficient instructions" were found to be significant determinants of adherence (p< 0.05), while gender and handouts were not (p> 0.05). Pain in more than one body part was significantly (p< 0.05) associated with motivational barriers for non-adherence.

CONCLUSION

Age and participants' perception of sufficient instructions were significant factors for non-adherence. These results emphasize the importance of therapist-provided instructions to overcome barriers to adherence.

Post-Operative Complications Associated with Long-Term NSAID or Long-Term Opioid Use Prior to Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Lower back pain (LBP) has been implicated as a significant cause of chronic pain in the United States, often requiring analgesic use. In this study, we investigate the trends in long-term preoperative NSAID (LTN) and Opioid (LTO) use in patients with low back pain in the United States, and the resultant postoperative complications following lumbar fusion.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of patients with lumbar pathologies, multivariate population-based regression models were developed using the 2010-2017 National Readmission Database. Short-term complications (30-, 90-day) and long-term complications (180-, 300-day) were analyzed at readmission.

RESULTS

Of patients diagnosed with LBP (N = 1427,190) we found a rise in LTO users and a fall in LTN users following 2015. We identified 654,264 individuals who received a lumbar spine fusion, of which 22,975 were LTN users and 11,213 were LTO users. LTO users had significantly higher total inpatient charges (p-value<0.0001) and LOS (p-value<0.0001), while LTN users had lower rates of acute infection (OR: 0.993, 95% CI: 0.987-0.999, p = 0.017) and acute posthemorrhagic anemia (OR: 0.957, 95% CI: 0.935-0.979, p < 0.001) at primary admission. Readmission analysis showed that LTN use had significantly lower odds of readmission compared to LTO use at all time points (p < 0.01 for all). LTN use had significantly higher odds of hardware failure (OR: 1.134, 95% CI: 1.039-1.237, p = 0.005) within 300-days of receiving a lumbar fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

LTO users had significantly higher readmission rates compared to LTN. In addition, we found that LTN use was associated with significantly higher odds of hardware failure at long-term follow-up in patients receiving lumbar fusion surgery.

General practitioners' decision-making process to prescribe pain medicines for low back pain: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Pain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with in-depth interviews.

SETTING

Australian primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes.

DATA ANALYSIS

We summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making.

RESULTS

GPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

The prevalence of urolithiasis in subjects undergoing computer tomography in selected referral diagnostic centers in Mogadishu, Somalia

Introduction and objectives

Somalia was predicted to be in the global stone belt with high urolithiasis prevalence. We aimed to determine the prevalence of urolithiasis and their demographic and computer tomography (CT) characteristics among subjects under CT scans in Mogadishu, Somalia. Materials and Methods: From March 2014 to November 2022, a total of 7,276 patients who underwent an abdominopelvic non-contrast CT scan for various indications were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age was 45.6 years with a standard deviation of 21.1 (range, 0.2-110 years). Patients were subdivided into two categories: adults (≥18 years) and pediatric (≤17 years).

Results

Of the 7,276 patients, 1,075 (14.8%) were diagnosed with urolithiasis. Among those with urolithiasis, 702 (65.3%) were male patients, and 373 (34.7%) were female patients. Among them, adults accounted for 92.7%, while children were 7.3%. Renal stones (nephrolithiasis) were the most common, representing 57% followed by ureteric stones at 35.5%, making upper urinary stones 92.5%. Approximately 70 patients (6.5%) had bladder stones; of these, 26 of them (37%) were accompanied by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). There were 10 urethral stones (0.9%) recorded in the study, all were found in male patients, 8 localized in prostatic urethra, and 2 in the bulbar urethra. The overall mean stone size was 13.2 mm, and 60% of them ranged from 5 to 22 mm. Only 24% of the patients were asymptomatic. Single stones were almost 70%, while staghorn calculi were 8.2%. More than 60% of the patients with urolithiasis showed some degree of hydronephrosis ranging between mild to severe.

Conclusion

A CT scan-based urolithiasis prevalence indicates 14.8% in Mogadishu, Somalia, and these results are consistent with the probability calculation of the weights-of-evidence (WofE) methodology based on several risk factors including temperature, climate change, mineral deposit, drinking water quality, and distribution of carbonated rocks. Considering the high prevalence of the disease, Somalia needs to invest more in prevention and treatment facilities while also training urologists that are capable of utilizing minimally invasive techniques in the country.

How Does Anxiety and Depression Affect the Outcome after Periradicular Infiltration Therapy?-A Retrospective Analysis of Patients Undergoing CT-Guided Single-Level Nerve Root Infiltration Due to Chronic Monoradicular Pain

The aim of this study was to research the influence of psychological confounders on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after lumbar infiltration therapies of periradicular infiltrations (PRI). Patients who underwent PRI in a single center between June 2018 and December 2019 were included. PRI was performed in patients with predominantly unilateral lumbar radiculopathy which existed for at least 6 weeks based on single-level nerve root compression (caused by a herniated disc, stenosis of the lateral recess, or neuroforamen), confirmed by morphological imaging. The numeric pain rating scale (NRS) for back pain (BP) and leg pain (LP) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed preinterventionally, on the first day (only NRS) and at 6 weeks, and then 3, 6, and 12 months postinterventionally. The minimally clinically important difference (MCID) served as the threshold for the therapeutic effectiveness evaluation. The health-related quality of life (SF-36) was recorded preinterventionally and after 12 months. Based on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the patients were dichotomized into depressed or nondepressed and anxious or nonanxious. Categorical data were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, and continuous data were evaluated using Student's t test. Separate linear mixed models were built to estimate the effect of anxiety or depression on repeatedly measured PROs following PRI. Data were analyzed using SPSS software. The analysis included 102 patients. Most mean baseline PROs were significantly worse in anxious or depressed patients than in nonanxious or nondepressed patients: Anxiety NRS-BP (p = 0.007), ODI (p < 0.001); Depression NRS-BP (p = 0.026), NRS-LP (p < 0.001), ODI (p < 0.001). All patients showed a clinically meaningful reduction in pain and functional improvement over a 12-month follow-up. There was no significant difference in the estimated overall mean PRO between all patients (p > 0.05). In conclusion, anxiety and depression are associated with worse PROs before and after PRI. However, patients with underlying depression or anxiety can expect a similar gain in PRO compared to patients without depressive or anxious symptoms.

New Zealanders with low back pain seeking health care: a retrospective descriptive analysis of Accident Compensation Corporation-funded low back pain healthcare service usage

Introduction Most New Zealanders experience low back pain (LBP) at least once throughout their lifetime and many seek help from the large range of health providers in primary care. Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) funds a significant proportion of those claims, but which services are they funding and what are the costs? Method This was a retrospective audit and descriptive analysis of ACC-funded, non-public hospital healthcare service use by people with LBP in New Zealand (NZ). Outcome measures were the healthcare services accessed by people with ACC-funded LBP,the claims (all occurrences for a service that has generated a payment/year), single contact (with a service), and costs (NZ$) for services between 2009 and 2020. Results The number of claims for services were 129 000 for physiotherapy, 105 000 for general practitioner and 59 000 for radiology services. Per single contact, elective surgery and radiology services were the most expensive. During 2009-2020, there were 3.3 million ACC claims for LBP with a total cost of NZ$4 billion. Over this time, there was an increase in claims, costs and single contacts. Costs decreased slightly during 2010 due to changes in healthcare funding and in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion Consumers have considerable choice in where they access health care for ACC-funded LBP services. This study shows the services they use most frequently and the cost to NZ for those services. These data can inform service planning for ACC-funded LBP health care in NZ.

First Provider Seen for an Acute Episode of Low Back Pain Influences Subsequent Health Care Utilization

OBJECTIVE

Costs associated with low back pain (LBP) continue to rise. Despite numerous clinical practice guidelines, the evaluation and treatments for LBP are variable and largely depend on the individual provider. As yet, little attention has been given to the first choice of provider. Early research indicates that the choice of first provider and the timing of interventions for LBP appear to influence utilization. We sought to examine the association between the first provider seen and health care utilization.

METHODS

Using 2015-2018 data from a large insurer, this retrospective analysis focused on patients (29,806) seeking care for a new episode of LBP. The study identified the first provider chosen and examined the following year of medical utilization. Cox proportional hazards models were calculated using inverse probability weighting on propensity scores to evaluate the time to event and the relationship to the first choice of provider.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was the timing and use of health care resources. Total health care use was lowest in those who first sought care with chiropractic care or physical therapy. Highest health care use was seen in those patients who chose the emergency department.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there appears to be an association between the first choice of provider and future health care use. Chiropractic care and physical therapy provide nonpharmacologic and nonsurgical, guideline-based interventions. The use of physical therapists and chiropractors as entry points into the health system appears related to a decrease in immediate and long-term use of health resources. This study expands the existing body of literature and provides a compelling case for the influence of the first provider on an acute episode of LBP.

IMPACT

The first provider seen for an acute episode of LBP influences immediate treatment decisions, the trajectory of a specific patient episode, and future health care choices in the management of LBP.

Global and regional estimates of clinical and economic burden of low back pain in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem, and the leading cause of activity limitation and work absence among people of all ages and socioeconomic strata. This study aimed to analyse the clinical and economic burden of LBP in high income countries (HICs) via systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A literature search was carried out on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, and Scopus databases was from inception to March 15th, 2023. Studies that assessed the clinical and economic burden of LBP in HICs and published in English language were reviewed. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Two reviewers, using a predefined data extraction form, independently extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted for clinical and economic outcomes.

Results

The search identified 4,081 potentially relevant articles. Twenty-one studies that met the eligibility criteria were included and reviewed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The included studies were from the regions of America (n = 5); Europe (n = 12), and the Western Pacific (n = 4). The average annual direct and indirect costs estimate per population for LBP ranged from € 2.3 billion to € 2.6 billion; and € 0.24 billion to $8.15 billion, respectively. In the random effects meta-analysis, the pooled annual rate of hospitalization for LBP was 3.2% (95% confidence interval 0.6%-5.7%). The pooled direct costs and total costs of LBP per patients were USD 9,231 (95% confidence interval -7,126.71-25,588.9) and USD 10,143.1 (95% confidence interval 6,083.59-14,202.6), respectively.

Discussion

Low back pain led to high clinical and economic burden in HICs that varied significantly across the geographical contexts. The results of our analysis can be used by clinicians, and policymakers to better allocate resources for prevention and management strategies for LBP to improve health outcomes and reduce the substantial burden associated with the condition.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails?, PROSPERO [CRD42020196335].

A cross-sectional survey exploring clinician perceptions of a novel Medicaid back pain policy

OBJECTIVES

Oregon Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan, or OHP) implemented an innovative policy in 2016 that increased coverage of evidence-based non-pharmacologic therapies (NPT, including physical therapy, massage, chiropractic, and acupuncture) while restricting opioids, epidural steroid injections, and surgeries. The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of clinicians who see back pain patients and can prescribe pharmacologic therapies and/or refer to NPTs and clinicians who directly provide NPT therapies affected by the policy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was administered to Oregon prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians between December 2019 and February 2020. The survey was completed by 107 prescribing clinicians and 83 NPT clinicians.

RESULTS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had only moderate levels of familiarity with core elements of the policy. Prescribing clinicians had higher levels of frustration caring for OHP patients with back pain than NPT clinicians (83 vs. 34%, p<0.001) and were less confident in their ability to provide effective care (73 vs. 85%, p = .025). Eighty-six percent of prescribing clinicians and 83% of NPT clinicians thought active NPT treatments were effective; 74 and 70% thought passive NPT treatments were effective. Forty percent of prescribing clinicians and 25% of NPT clinicians (p<0.001) thought medically-light therapies were effective, while 29% of prescribing clinicians and 10% of NPT clinicians thought medically-intensive treatments were effective (p=0.001). Prescribing clinicians thought increased access to NPTs improved outcomes, while opinions were less consistent on the impact of restricting opioid prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had varying perspectives of a Medicaid coverage policy to increase evidence-based back pain care. Understanding these perspectives is important for contextualizing policy effectiveness.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis.

METHODS

We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment.

DISCUSSION

By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Effectiveness of Spinal Manipulation and Biopsychosocial Self-Management compared to Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Study Protocol

Background Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. Methods We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2x2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. Discussion By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Critical Appraisal of Current Acute LBP Management and the Role of a Multimodal Analgesia: A Narrative Review

Acute low back pain (LBP) stands as a leading cause of activity limitation and work absenteeism, and its associated healthcare expenditures are expected to become substantial when acute LBP develops into a chronic and even refractory condition. Therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent progression to chronic pain, for which the management is particularly challenging and the most effective pharmacological therapy is still controversial. Current guideline treatment recommendations vary and are mostly driven by expertise with opinion differing across different interventions. Thus, it is difficult to formulate evidence-based guidance when the relatively few randomized clinical trials have explored the diagnosis and management of LBP while employing different selection criteria, statistical analyses, and outcome measurements. This narrative review aims to provide a critical appraisal of current acute LBP management by discussing the unmet needs and areas of improvement from bench-to-bedside, and proposes multimodal analgesia as the way forward to attain an effective and prolonged pain relief and functional recovery in patients with acute LBP.

Associations between chronic pain, anxiety, and depression among adults in the United States

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine the associations of depression and anxiety with chronic pain among U.S. adults.

SETTING

Nationally representative cross-sectional survey analysis.

METHODS

The National Health Interview Survey for 2019 was analyzed with respect to the chronic pain module and embedded depression and anxiety scales (PHQ-8 and GAD-7). Univariate associations between the presence of chronic pain and depression and anxiety scores were determined. Similarly, associations between the presence of chronic pain and the adults' treating with medications for depression and anxiety were also determined. Odds ratios, adjusted for age and sex, were computed for these associations.

RESULTS

Among 244.6 million sampled U.S. adults, 50.2 million (95% confidence interval, 48.2-52.2 million) reported chronic pain (20.5%, [19.9%-21.2%] of the population). Adults with chronic pain had elevated severity of depressive symptoms (PHQ-8 categories: none/minimal: 57.6%, mild: 22.3%, moderate: 11.4%, and severe: 8.7%) versus those without chronic pain (87.6%, 8.8%, 2.3%, and 1.2%; p < 0.001). Adults with chronic pain had elevated severity of anxiety symptoms (GAD-7 categories: none/minimal: 66.4%, mild: 17.1%, moderate: 8.5%, severe: 8.0%) versus those without chronic pain (89.0%, 7.5%, 2.1%, and 1.4%; p < 0.001). 22.4% and 24.5% of chronic pain sufferers were taking medication for depression and anxiety versus 6.6% and 8.5% of those without chronic pain, respectively (both p < 0.001). Adjusted odds ratios for the association of chronic pain with increasing severity of depression or anxiety and taking a depression or anxiety medication were 6.32 (5.82-6.85), 5.63 (5.15-6.15), 3.98 (3.63-4.37), and 3.42 (3.12-3.75), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of chronic pain in adults associated with significantly higher severity scores for both anxiety and depression as measured by validated surveys in a nationally representative sample. The same is true for the association between chronic pain and an adult taking medication for depression and/or anxiety. These data highlight the impact of chronic pain has on psychological well-being within the general population.

Characterizing modifications to a comparative effectiveness research study: the OPTIMIZE trial-using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME)

BACKGROUND

The OPTIMIZE trial is a multi-site, comparative effectiveness research (CER) study that uses a Sequential Multiple Assessment Randomized Trial (SMART) designed to examine the effectiveness of complex health interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and mindfulness) for adults with chronic low back pain. Modifications are anticipated when implementing complex interventions in CER. Disruptions due to COVID have created unanticipated challenges also requiring modifications. Recent methodologic standards for CER studies emphasize that fully characterizing modifications made is necessary to interpret and implement trial results. The purpose of this paper is to outline the modifications made to the OPTIMIZE trial using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions (FRAME) to characterize modifications to the OPTIMIZE trial in response to the COVID pandemic and other challenges encountered.

METHODS

The FRAME outlines a strategy to identify and report modifications to evidence-based interventions or implementation strategies, whether planned or unplanned. We use the FRAME to characterize the process used to modify the aspects of the OPTIMIZE trial. Modifications were made to improve lower-than-anticipated rates of treatment initiation and COVID-related restrictions. Contextual modifications were made to permit telehealth delivery of treatments originally designed for in-person delivery. Training modifications were made with study personnel to provide more detailed information to potential participants, use motivational interviewing communication techniques to clarify potential participants' motivation and possible barriers to initiating treatment, and provide greater assistance with scheduling of assigned treatments.

RESULTS

Modifications were developed with input from the trial's patient and stakeholder advisory panels. The goals of the modifications were to improve trial feasibility without compromising the interventions' core functions. Modifications were approved by the study funder and the trial steering committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Full and transparent reporting of modifications to clinical trials, whether planned or unplanned, is critical for interpreting the trial's eventual results and considering future implementation efforts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859713. Registered on March 1, 2019.

Opioid Usage in Lumbar Disc Herniation Patients with Nonsurgical, Early Surgical, and Late Surgical Treatments

OBJECTIVE

To assess opioid usage in surgical and nonsurgical patients with lumbar disc herniation receiving different treatments and timing of treatments.

METHODS

Individuals with newly diagnosed lumbar intervertebral disc herniation without myelopathy were queried from a health claims database. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts: nonsurgical, early surgery, and late surgery. Early surgery cohort patients underwent surgery within 30 days postdiagnosis; late surgery cohort patients had surgery after 30 days but before 1 year postdiagnosis. The index date was defined as the diagnosis date for nonsurgical patients and the initial surgery date for surgical patients. The primary outcome was the average daily opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed. Additional outcomes included percentage of opioid-using patients and cumulative opioid burden.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 573,082 patients: 533,226 patients received nonsurgical treatments, 22,312 patients received early surgery, and 17,544 patients received late surgery. Both surgical cohorts experienced a postsurgical increase in opioid usage, which then sharply declined and gradually plateaued, with daily opioid MME consistently lower in the early versus late surgery cohort. The early surgery cohort also consistently had a lower prevalence of opioid-using patients than the late surgery cohort. Patients receiving nonsurgical treatment demonstrated the highest 1-year post index cumulative opioid burden, and the early surgery cohort consistently had lower cumulative opioid MME than the late surgery cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Early surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation is associated with lower long-term average daily MME, incidence of opioid use, and 1-year cumulative MME burden compared with nonsurgical and late surgery treatment approaches.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021).

Interventions

Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance.

Results

Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Evaluating Different Measures of Low Back Pain Among U.S. Manual Materials Handling Workers: Comparisons of Demographic, Psychosocial, and Job Physical Exposure

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in demographic, psychosocial, and job physical exposure risk factors between multiple low back pain (LBP) outcomes in a prospective cohort of industrial workers.

BACKGROUND

LBP remains a leading cause of lost industrial productivity. Different case definitions involving pain (general LBP), medication use (M-LBP), seeking healthcare (H-LBP), and lost time (L-LBP) are often used to study LBP outcomes. However, the relationship between these outcomes remains unclear.

METHOD

Demographic, health status, psychosocial, and job physical exposure risk factors were quantified for 635 incident-eligible industrial workers. Incident cases of LBP outcomes and pain symptoms were quantified and compared across the four outcomes.

RESULTS

Differences in age, gender, medical history, and LBP history were found between the four outcomes. Most incident-eligible workers (67%) suffered an LBP outcome during follow-up. Cases decreased from 420 for LBP (25.4 cases/100 person-years) to 303 for M-LBP (22.0 cases/100 person-years), to 151 for H-LBP (15.6 cases/100 person-years), and finally to 56 for L-LBP (8.7 cases/100 person-years). Conversely, pain intensity and duration increased from LBP to H-LBP. However, pain duration was relatively lower for L-LBP than for H-LBP.

CONCLUSION

Patterns of cases, pain intensity, and pain duration suggest the influence of the four outcomes. However, few differences in apparent risk factors were observed between the outcomes. Further research is needed to establish consistent case definitions.

APPLICATION

Knowledge of patterns between different LBP outcomes can improve interpretation of research and guide future research and intervention studies in industry.

DANTE Study: The First Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo and Active-Controlled, Parallel Arm Group Study Evaluating the Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of Dexketoprofen TrometAmol aNd Tramadol Hydrochloride Oral FixEd Dose Combination on Moderate to Severe Acute Pain in Patients with Acute Low Back Pain-Rationale and Design

INTRODUCTION

Despite a wide range of treatment approaches and the availability of treatment recommendations or guidelines, no consensus on the most effective pharmacological therapy of low back pain (LBP) has been reached yet. Therefore, additional clinical evidence, particularly if built upon a rigorous clinical trial design, an evidence-based medication choice, and broader inclusion criteria better acknowledging the heterogeneity and intrinsic variability of LBP is needed. The DANTE study has been designed to comprehensively assess the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of dexketoprofen/tramadol (DKP/TRAM) 75/25 mg in a large cohort of patients with moderate to severe acute LBP.

METHODS

The DANTE study is a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, placebo, and active controlled study. The DANTE study encompasses a single-dose phase (day 1, t0-t8h) and a multiple-dose phase (from t8h to 8 h after intake of last dose at day 5). The DANTE study population includes patients naïve to LBP or patients with previous history of LBP experiencing a new episode of moderate to severe intensity with or without radiculopathy. The clinical phase of the DANTE study started in September 2020 and the anticipated completion date is April 2022.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The primary endpoint is the time to first achieve a numeric rating scale-pain intensity (NRS-PI) score of < 4 or a pain intensity reduction ≥ 30% from drug intake up to 8 h after the first dose (t8h). Secondary objectives aim are: (1) to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg versus TRAM 100 mg after the first dose; (2) to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg versus TRAM 100 mg after the multiple doses (from t8h until day 5, multiple dose); and (3) to assess the safety and tolerability of the TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg fixed combination after single and multiple doses.

DANTE STUDY REGISTRATION

EudraCT number: 2019-003656-37.

Characteristics and health care costs in patients with a diagnostic imaging for low back pain in Switzerland

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide and a frequent cause for health care utilization with a high economic burden. A large proportion of diagnostic imaging in patients with LBP is inappropriate and can cause more harm than good, which in turn can lead to higher health care costs. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics and health care costs for patients with a diagnostic imaging for LBP in Switzerland. Groupe Mutuel, one of the biggest health care insurance companies in Switzerland and covering approximately 12% of the population, provided data for this analysis. Patients were identified by diagnostic imaging for the lumbar spine in 2016 or 2017. The study period was 2015-2019, that is one year before and two years after the year of imaging. Regression analysis models were used to identify patient variables associated with higher health care costs. A total of 75,296 patients (57% female, mean age: 54.5 years) were included into the study. Magnetic resonance imaging was the most commonly used diagnostic method (44.3%). Patients generated annual mean health care costs of 518,488,470 CHF (466,639,621 Euro) in the whole observation period; 640 million CHF (576 million Euro) in the index year. Overall, costs for LBP patients were 72% higher compared with the costs of no LBP patients. Our findings confirm the economic burden of LBP and highlight the importance of ongoing efforts to improve prevention, diagnostics and patient care in patients with LBP.

Efficacy and safety/tolerability of pridinol: a meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with muscle pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate analgesic efficacy and safety/tolerability of the nonbenzodiazepine antispasmodic pridinol (PRI) in patients with muscle-related pain.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) according to PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane recommendations. Data sources included Google Scholar, Embase, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Registry, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, and product manufacturer archives from inception to 31 January 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection were randomized, placebo-controlled trials with PRI in adults (≥18 years) with muscle-related pain. Data extraction, synthesis, and analysis carried out by two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Categorial global response rates (number of patients) based on clinical judgement of study physicians (as primary efficacy endpoint), and response on pain at rest, pain at movement, stiffness, tenderness, and movement restriction (as secondary efficacy endpoints), as well as the number of patients with drug-related adverse events (DRAEs) were meta-analytically evaluated using the Review Manager Software version 5.4.1.

RESULTS

In total, 38 records were identified, but only two placebo-controlled studies (with 342 patients with mild to moderate acute muscle pain [55.3% female, age 50.6 ± 16.6 years], of whom 173 received PRI and 169 placebo, each as monotherapy) proved to be suitable for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Treatment with PRI was (irrespective of its mode of administration as oral tablet or intramuscular injection) associated with a significantly higher global response rate compared to placebo (74.0 vs. 49.7%; OR 2.86, 95%-CI: 1.82-4.51; p < .00001; Cohen´s h: 0.506, NNT: 4.1; Chi² for heterogeneity 1.41 (p = .24], I²  = 29%), and significantly higher response rates were also found for all secondary efficacy endpoints. The safety of PRI was comparable to that of placebo: DRAEs were only seen in one of the two studies and reported for 13 vs. 10 patients (OR: 0.76 95%-CI: 0.32-18.1; p = .54, NNH: 62.6), and related discontinuations were reported for four vs. one patient (2.3 vs. 0.6%; p = .231).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this meta-analysis as based on two placebo-controlled studies in adult patients with mild to moderate acute muscle pain demonstrate that a 3-week monotherapy with PRI showed a comparable safety profile, but significantly better analgesic effects and improvements of related impairments such as stiffness, tenderness, and movement restrictions compared with placebo - irrespective of its mode of administration.

Medications for Treating Low Back Pain in Adults. Evidence for the Use of Paracetamol, Opioids, Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatories, Muscle Relaxants, Antibiotics, and Antidepressants: An Overview for Musculoskeletal Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Because pharmacological therapies may play an important role in managing musculoskeletal pain, the appropriate use of medicines for common conditions like low back pain (LBP) is critical. New evidence on the effects and safety of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants for LBP warrants an updated overview for musculoskeletal clinicians on this topic.

CLINICAL QUESTION

How effective and safe are paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants compared with placebo for treating LBP?

KEY RESULTS

For acute LBP (<12 weeks), muscle relaxants and NSAIDs may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but the effects of opioids, antibiotics, and antidepressants are unknown. Paracetamol provides no additional benefit for acute LBP. For chronic LBP (>12 weeks), NSAIDs, antidepressants, and opioids may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but opioids have an established profile of harms. Antibiotics may also reduce pain for people with chronic LBP with Modic type 1 changes, although the risks may outweigh their benefits. The effects of paracetamol and muscle relaxants for chronic LBP were unclear.

CLINICAL APPLICATION

NSAIDs may have a role in managing acute and chronic LBP, with cautious use in people who may be at greater risk of experiencing adverse events. Paracetamol, opioid analgesics, antibiotics, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants should only be prescribed following a discussion between the treating clinician and the patient, considering the risks and possible benefits, and after or in conjunction with recommended nonpharmacological strategies for improving LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):425-431. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10788.

Efficacy and tolerability of the antispasmodic, pridinol, in patients with muscle-pain - results of primepain, a retrospective analysis of open-label real-world data provided by the German pain E-registry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of the nonbenzodiazepine antispasmodic pridinol (PRI), as an add-on treatment in patients with muscle-related pain (MRP).

METHODS

Exploratory retrospective analysis of depersonalized routine data provided by the German Pain e-Registry (GPeR) focusing on pain intensity, pain-related disabilities in daily life, wellbeing, and drug-related adverse events (DRAEs).Primary endpoint based on a global response composite of (a) a clinically relevant analgesic response (relative improvement ≥50% and/or absolute improvement ≥ the minimal clinical important difference) for pain intensity and disability in combination with (b) an improvement in wellbeing (all at end of treatment vs. baseline), and (c) lack of any DRAEs.

RESULTS

Between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020, the GPeR collected information on 121,803 pain patients of whom 1133 (0.9%; 54.5% female, mean ± SD age: 53.9 ± 11.8 years) received add-on PRI for the treatment of (mostly acute) MRP originating predominantly in the (lower) back (43.2%), lower limb (26.4%), or should/neck (21.1%). Average daily dose was 7.8 ± 1.8 (median 9, range 1.5-13.5) mg, duration of treatment 12.0 ± 10.2 (median 7, range 3-63) days. In total, 666 patients (58.8%) reported a complete, 395 (34.9%) a partial, and 72 (6.4%) patients no response - either because of lack of efficacy (n = 2, 0.2%) or DRAEs (n = 70, 6.2%). In response to PRI, 41.7% of patients documented a reduction of at least one other pain medication and 30.8% even the complete cessation of any other pharmacological pain treatments.

CONCLUSION

Based on this real-world data of the German Pain e-Registry, add-on treatment with PRI in patients with acute MRP under real-world conditions in daily life was well tolerated and associated with an improvement of pain intensity, pain-related disabilities, and overall wellbeing.

Three Patterns of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Back Pain and Their Association With Imaging Studies, Injection Procedures, and Surgery: A Cohort Study of Insurance Claims

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care.

RESULTS

There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group.

CONCLUSION

For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.

Does preoperative opioid therapy in patients with a single lumbar disc herniation positively influence the postoperative outcome detected by quantitative sensory testing?

The importance of the type of pain medication in spinal disease is an ongoing matter of debate. Recent guidelines recommend acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line medication for lumbar disc herniation. However, opioid pain medication is commonly used in patients with chronic pain, and therefore also in patients with sciatica. The aim of this study is to evaluate if opioids have an impact on the outcome in patients suffering from lumbar disc herniation. To assess this objectively quantitative sensory testing (QST) was applied. In total, 52 patients with a single lumbar disc herniation confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and treated by lumbar sequesterectomy were included in the trial. Patients were analysed according to their preoperative opioid intake: 35 patients who did not receive opioids (group NO) and 17 patients, who received opioids preoperatively (group O). Further evaluation included detailed medical history, physical examination, various questionnaires, and QST. No pre- and postoperative differences were detected in thermal or mechanical thresholds (p > 0.05). Wind-up ratio (WUR) differed significantly between groups 1 week postoperatively (p = 0.025). The NRS for low back pain was rated significantly higher in the non-opioid group (NO) after 1-week follow-up (p = 0.026). Radicular pain tended to be higher in the NO group after 12 months of follow-up (p = 0.023). Opioids seem to be a positive predictor for the postoperative pain outcome in early follow-up in patients undergoing lumbar sequesterectomy. Furthermore, patients presented with less radicular pain 1 year after surgery.

Improving Access and Decreasing Healthcare Utilization for Patients With Acute Spine Pain: Five-Year Results of a Direct Access Clinic

INTRODUCTION

Spine pain is one of the largest and costliest burdens to our healthcare systems. While evidence-based guidelines for spine pain have been established, and continue to evolve, the actual management of this condition continues to burden the healthcare system. This has led to increased costs due to inefficient entry to healthcare, utilization of treatments unsupported by clinical guidelines, and patient navigation through our healthcare systems. The purpose of this study was to assess the healthcare utilization and related outcomes for Active Duty Service Members (ADSM) receiving healthcare services in a novel acute spine pain clinic (ASPC) during the first 5 years of operation at a large Military Treatment Facility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2014 the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy (PT) services designed a novel acute spine clinic intended to directly receive ADSM with acute spine symptoms for an initial evaluation by a Physical Therapist. The inclusion criteria into the ASPC were: ADSM, pain less than or equal to 7 days, no more than three prior episodes of acute spine pain in the past 3 years, and not currently receiving care from Chiropractic, Pain Management, or PT services. The exclusion criteria were: significant and/or progressive neurological deficits, bowel or bladder dysfunction, unstable vital signs or fever, hematuria or extensive trauma.

RESULTS

A total of 1,215 patients presented to the ASPC for evaluation between 2014 and 2019. The most common chief complaint was acute pain in the lumbar spine (73%), followed by cervical spine pain (15%), and thoracic spine pain (12%) represented the fewest. The average number of PT visits per patient was 3.5 (range 1-13) with 61.1% utilizing three or fewer visits. Over 95% of cases returned to work the same day as their initial evaluation. Sixty-six percent returned to work without restriction the same day as their initial evaluation. Light duty recommendations were provided to 412 (33.9%) patients ranging from one to 30 days, with greater than 85% of the light duty being less than 14 days. Recommendations to not return to work (sick-in-quarters) were issued to 56 (4.6%) patients. The sick-in-quarters recommendations were for a 24-hour period in 48 cases, 48 hours for seven cases, and 72 hours for one case. All encounters in which the patient first sought care at the ASPC for low back pain met the Healthcare Effectiveness Data Set standard for low back pain care of having no imaging within 28 days of the first encounter for nonspecific low back pain. A medical record review of 100 randomly selected patients within 12 months of the initial evaluation demonstrated decreased utilization of medication, imaging, and referral to surgical services.

CONCLUSIONS

This innovative approach demonstrates the potential benefits of rapid access to treatment and education for patients with acute spine pain by a Physical Therapist. Modeling this approach at Military Treatment Facilities may lead to decreased utilization of medications, radiology services, specialty care referrals, and reduced cost of care provided to individuals with acute spine pain.

What Is New in the Clinical Management of Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition associated with disability. Treating patients with LBP becomes further complicated by the potential presence of underlying conditions, such as cancer or traumatic injury, or biopsychosocial aspects. LBP usually has a neuropathic component that must be assessed and treated appropriately. Pharmacological management of LBP requires a thorough knowledge of the available agents and the mechanisms of the LBP. Although there are effective pharmacological treatments for LBP, it is important to consider safety issues. Fixed-dose combination products may be helpful, as they can reduce opioid consumption without sacrificing analgesic benefits. Neuromodulation is an important and sometimes overlooked treatment option for LBP and may be appropriate for chronic LBP requiring long-term treatment. Imaging studies support neuroplastic changes in the brain as a result of neuromodulation. Interventional approaches to chronic LBP are numerous and must be appropriately selected based on the individual patient. Evidence in support of epidural injections for LBP is strong for short-term pain control but moderate to limited for long-term relief. Rehabilitation for LBP can be an important element of long-term care, and new forms of rehabilitation programs are being developed using telemedicine. A variety of new and established treatments are available for patients with LBP, and clinicians and patients may benefit from emerging new treatment modalities.

Association of Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation With Persistent Opioid Use in Patients With Postlaminectomy Syndrome

IMPORTANCE

The results of studies evaluating spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) have yielded mixed results. This has led to an increased emphasis on objective outcome measures such as opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between SCS and long-term opioid therapy (LOT) for PLS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, adults with PLS were identified using the TriNetx Diamond Network and separated based on whether they underwent SCS. Patients were stratified according to baseline opioid use (opioid-naive or receiving LOT) and subsequent opioid therapy over the 12-month period ranging from 3 to 15 months post-SCS implantation or post-PLS index date. Statistical analysis was performed from June to December 2021.

EXPOSURE

SCS.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was cessation of opioid use among patients receiving LOT or abstinence from opioids among opioid-naive patients. Opioid-naive patients were defined as those receiving at most 2 opioid prescriptions per year, and patients on LOT were those receiving at least 6 opioid prescriptions per year.

RESULTS

Among 552 937 eligible patients treated between December 2015 and May 2021, 26 179 with PLS received an SCS implant. The median (IQR) patient age was 60 (51-69) years; 305 802 patients (55.3%) were female. Among those reporting racial identify (37.0% [204 758 patients]), 9.3% (18 971 patients) were African American, 0.3% (648 patients) were Asian, and 90.4% (185 139 patients) were White. Compared with those who did not receive an SCS, individuals who received an SCS were more likely to be using opioids preimplantation (mean [SD] prescriptions: 4.3 [8.5] vs 4.1 [9.3]; P < .001) but less likely to be using opioids after SCS implantation (mean [SD] prescriptions: 3.8 [8.2] vs 4.0 [9.4]; P = .006). In the 12-month study period, similar proportions in the SCS and no-SCS groups receiving baseline LOT remained on LOT (70.3% [n = 74 585] vs 69.2% [n = 3882], respectively; P = .10). In opioid-naive patients, SCS was associated with a small decreased likelihood of patients subsequently receiving LOT (7.6% vs 7.0%; difference, -0.6% [95% CI, -1.0% to -0.2%]; P = .003). In multivariable analysis, SCS was associated with an increased likelihood of not being on opioids in both opioid-naive (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.96]; P < .001) and LOT patients (adjusted OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; P = .02). White patients were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with PLS (ie, underwent surgery) (90.4% vs 85.2%; difference, 5.2% [95% CI, 5.1%-5.4%]; P < .001) and receive an SCS (93.7% vs 90.3%; difference, 3.4% [95% CI, 2.9% to 4.0%]; P < .001) than patients of other racial identities.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that under real-life conditions, SCS was associated with small, clinically questionable associations with opioid discontinuation and not starting opioids in the context of PLS.

Effect of age on outcomes after allogeneic disc tissue supplementation in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain in the VAST trial

Aim: To explore the effects of viable allogeneic disc tissue supplementation in younger patients with discogenic chronic low back pain (CLBP). Patients & methods: VAST was a randomized placebo-controlled trial of disc allograft supplementation in 218 patients with discogenic CLBP. We conducted a post hoc analysis of change from baseline to 12 months in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale for pain intensity scores stratified by patient age. Results: Patients aged <42 years receiving allograft experienced greater improvement in ODI (p = 0.042) and a higher ODI response rate (≥10-, ≥15- and ≥20-point reductions in ODI) than those receiving saline (p = 0.001, p = 0.002 and p = 0.021, respectively). Conclusion: Young patients with discogenic CLBP may have significant functional improvement following nonsurgical disc allograft supplementation.

Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up

Objective

The demand for treating degenerative lumbar spinal disease has been increasing, leading to increased utilization of medical resources. Thus, we need to understand how the budget of insurance is currently used. The objective of the present study is to overview the utilization of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) by providing the direct insured cost between patients receiving surgery and patients receiving nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

The NHIS-National Sample Cohort was utilized to select patients with lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis. A matched cohort study design was used to show direct medical costs of surgery (n = 2,698) and nonsurgical (n = 2,698) cohorts. Non-surgical treatment included medication, physiotherapy, injection, and chiropractic. The monthly costs of the surgery cohort and nonsurgical cohort were presented at initial treatment, posttreatment 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and yearly thereafter for 10 years.

Results

The characteristics and matching factors were well-balanced between the matched cohorts. Overall, surgery cohort spent $50.84/patient/month, while the nonsurgical cohort spent $29.34/patient/month (p<0.01). Initially, surgery treatment led to more charge to NHIS ($2,762) than nonsurgical treatment ($180.4) (p<0.01). Compared with the non-surgical cohort, the surgery cohort charged $33/month more for the first 3 months, charged less at 12 months, and charged approximately the same over the course of 10 years.

Conclusion

Surgical treatment initially led to more government reimbursement than nonsurgical treatment, but the charges during follow-up period were not different. The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the costs of medical services, indirect costs, societal cost, quality of life and societal willingness to pay in each country. The monetary figures are implied to be actual economic costs but those in the reimbursement system instead reflect reimbursement charges from the government.

More Than 1 in 3 Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Continue to Use Opioids Long-term After Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

A common expectation for patients after elective spine surgery is that the procedure will result in pain reduction and minimize the need for pain medication. Most studies report changes in pain and function after spine surgery, but few report the extent of opioid use after surgery. This systematic review aims to identify the rates of opioid use after lumbar spine fusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid Medline were searched to identify studies published between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2020 that assessed the effectiveness of lumbar fusion for the management of low back pain.

RESULTS

Of 6872 abstracts initially identified, 329 studies met the final inclusion criteria, and only 32 (9.7%) reported any postoperative opioid use. Long-term opioid use after surgery persists for more than 1 in 3 patients with usage ranging from 6 to 85.9% and a pooled mean of 35.0% based on data from 21 studies (6.4% of all lumbar fusion studies).

DISCUSSION

Overall, opioid use is not reported in the majority of lumbar fusion trials. Patients may expect a reduced need for opioid-based pain management after surgery, but the limited data available suggests long-term use is common. Lack of consistent reporting of these outcomes limits definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of spinal fusion for reducing long-term opioid. Patient decisions about undergoing surgery may be altered if they had realistic expectations about rates of postsurgical opioid use. Spine surgery trials should track opioid utilization out to a minimum of 6 months after surgery as a core outcome.

Prevalence, Characteristics, Association Factors of and Management Strategies for Low Back Pain Among Italian Amateur Cyclists: an Observational Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a burdensome problem affecting amateur cyclists. This cross-sectional study analysed Italian amateur cycling cohort’s demographic and sport-specific characteristics, the prevalence and characteristics of LBP among this population, its possible association factors, the management strategies adopted to deal with LBP and the sample’s beliefs among possible LBP triggers. A web-based cross-sectional survey was created. The questionnaire included 56 questions divided into six sections, querying the sample’s demographic, clinical, and cycling characteristics. Binomial logistic regression with a Wald backward method was performed to ascertain the effects of some covariates (“Sex”, “Age”, “Body Mass Index”, “Sleep hours”, “Work type”, “Cycling year”, “Number of training sessions per week”, “Stretching sessions”, “Being supervised by a coach or following a scheduled training”, “Other sports practised regularly”, “Number of cycling competitions per year”, “Past biomechanic visits”, “Specific pedal training”, “LBP before cycling”) on the likelihood of developing LBP in the last 12 months.

Results

A total of 1274 amateur cyclists answered the survey. The prevalence of LBP appeared to be 55.1%, 26.5% and 10.8% in life, in the last 12 months and the last 4 weeks, respectively. The final model of the logistic regression included the covariates “Sex”, “Work type”, “Cycling year”, “Being supervised by a coach or following a scheduled training”, “Other sports practised regularly”, “Specific pedal training”, “LBP before cycling”, among which “Cycling year” (variable “Between 2 and 5 years” vs. “Less than 2 years”, OR 0.48, 95% CI [0.26–0.89]), “Being supervised by a coach or following a scheduled training” (OR 0.53, 95% CI [0.37–0.74]), “Specific pedal training” (OR 0.69, 95% CI [0.51–0.94]), and “LBP before cycling” (OR 4.2, 95% CI [3.21–5.40]) were found to be significant.

Conclusions

The prevalence of LBP among Italian amateur cyclists seems to be less frequent compared to the general population. Moreover, undergoing previous specific pedal training and being supervised by a coach or following scheduled training drew a negative association with LBP development. This evidence highlights the importance of being overseen by specific sport figures that could offer a tailored evidence-based training to reach good physical level and to practise sports safely.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-021-00370-2.

Treatment Patterns in Patients with Diagnostic Imaging for Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study

Purpose

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent reasons for medical consultations. Literature suggests a large evidence-performance gap, especially regarding pain management. Therefore, the monitoring of treatment patterns is important to ensure high quality of treatment. This study aimed to describe treatment patterns specific to patients with diagnostic imaging of the spine for LBP.

Patients and Methods

The study was retrospective observational and based on health claims data from 2015 to 2019 provided by a Swiss health insurance company covering around 12% of the population. Patients, ≥18 years of age, with diagnostic imaging of the spine were included and observed 12 months before and after imaging. Patients with back surgery or comorbidities associated with the use of pain medications were excluded.

Results

In total, 60,822 patients (mean age: 53.5 y, 56.1% female) were included and 85% received at least one pain medication. Of these, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, or opioids were prescribed in 88.6%, 70.7%, and 40.3% of patients, respectively. Strong opioids were used in 17% of patients given opioids. Patients with combinations of diagnostic imaging methods had the highest odds of receiving pain medication prescriptions (1.81, 95% CI: 1.66, 1.96, P < 0.001). Prescribed defined daily doses corresponded to short-term therapies.

Conclusion

Although the majority of patients received non-opioid short-term therapies, we found a substantial use of opioids, and in particular, a relative high usage of strong opioids. Our results highlighted the importance of both patient and healthcare provider awareness regarding the prudent treatment of LBP.

Design of the Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure Trial (SPINE CARE) study: Methods and lessons from a multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back and neck pain (together, spine pain) are among the leading causes of medical visits, lost productivity, and disability. For most people, episodes of spine pain are self-limited; nevertheless, healthcare spending for this condition is extremely high. Focusing care on individuals at high-risk of progressing from acute to chronic pain may improve efficiency. Alternatively, postural therapies, which are frequently used by patients, may prevent the overuse of high-cost interventions while delivering equivalent outcomes.

METHODS

The SPINE CARE (Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure) trial is a cluster-randomized multi-center pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and healthcare utilization of two interventions for primary care patients with acute and subacute spine pain. The study was conducted at 33 primary care clinics in geographically distinct regions of the United States. Individuals ≥18 years presenting to primary care with neck and/or back pain of ≤3 months' duration were randomized at the clinic-level to 1) usual care, 2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary approach called the Identify, Coordinate, and Enhance (ICE) care model, or 3) Individualized Postural Therapy (IPT), a standardized postural therapy method of care. The trial's two primary outcomes are change in function at 3 months and spine-related spending at one year. 2971 individuals were enrolled between June 2017 and March 2020. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021.

DISCUSSION

The SPINE CARE trial will determine the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of two interventions for patients with spine pain presenting to primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03083886.

Utilization Patterns of Skeletal Muscle Relaxants Among Commercially Insured Adults in the United States from 2006 to 2018

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence and duration of skeletal muscle relaxant (SMR) treatment among commercially insured adults in the United States.

METHODS

We used the MarketScan Research Database to identify a cohort of adults 18 to 64 years who had ≥2-year continuous enrollment between 2005 and 2018. We estimated the prevalence of SMR treatment using a repeated cross-sectional design and derived treatment duration using the Kaplan-Meier method. Analyses were stratified by age group, sex, geographic region, individual SMR agent, and musculoskeletal disorder.

RESULTS

48.7 million individuals were included. Treatment prevalence ranged from 61.5 to 68.3 per 1,000. About one-third of users did not have a preceding musculoskeletal disorder diagnosis. Cyclobenzaprine was the dominant agent accounting for >50% of prescriptions. The considerable growth in the use of baclofen, tizanidine, and methocarbamol paralleled with a decline in carisoprodol and metaxalone use. The prevalence was highest in the South while lowest in the Northeast. The median treatment duration was 14 days with 4.0%, 1.9%, and 1.0% of individuals using SMRs for more than 90, 180, and 365 days, respectively. Compared with cyclobenzaprine, patients initiating baclofen, tizanidine, and carisoprodol had longer treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

SMRs are widely used in the United States. Their use slightly increased in recent years, but trends varied among individual agents, patient groups, and geographic regions. Despite limited evidence to support efficacy, a sizable number of U.S. adults used SMRs for long-term and off-label conditions. Further study is needed to understand determinants of treatment as well as outcomes associated with such use.

Measuring the Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Chronic Low Back and Chronic Neck Pain in Chiropractic Patients

STUDY DESIGN

RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) applied to chiropractic manipulation for patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP).

OBJECTIVE

Determine the rate of appropriate care provided by US chiropractors.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal manipulation has been shown effective for CLBP and CNP but may not be appropriate for all patients with these conditions.

METHODS

Ratings of the appropriateness of spinal and cervical manipulation previously developed by two RUAM expert panels were applied to data abstracted from random samples of patient charts from chiropractors in six US regions to determine the appropriateness of manipulation for each patient.

RESULTS

Of 125 chiropractors sampled, 89 provided charts that could be abstracted. Of the 2128 charts received, 1054 were abstracted. Charts received but not abstracted included 460 that were unusable (e.g., illegible), and 555 did not have CLBP or CNP. Across the abstracted charts 72% had CLBP, 57% had CNP, and 29% had both; 84% of patients with CLBP and 86% with CNP received manipulation. Patients with CLBP who had minor neurologic findings, sciatic nerve irritation, or no joint dysfunction were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Patients with CNP who had substantial trauma etiology, no joint dysfunction, or no radiographs were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Most manipulation for CLBP (64%) was appropriate and most manipulation for CNP (93%) was for patients where appropriateness was uncertain or equivocal. The proportions of patients receiving inappropriate manipulation for either condition were low (1%-3%) as were the numbers of patients presenting to these chiropractors for which manipulation was inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractors in this US sample tend to provide manipulation to very few patients with CLBP or CNP for which it is inappropriate. However, more research is needed to determine which patients with CNP benefit from manipulation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Predictors of Prolonged Opioid Use After Lumbar Fusion and the Effects of Opioid Use on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

To determine risk factors associated with prolonged opioid use after lumbar fusion and to elucidate the effect of opioid use on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent 1-3 level lumbar decompression and fusion with at least one-year follow-up were identified. Opioid data were collected through the Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Preoperative "chronic use" was defined as consumption of >90 days in the one-year before surgery. Postoperative "prolonged use" was defined as a filled prescription 90-days after surgery. PROMs included the following: Short Form-12 Health Survey PCS-12 and MCS-12, ODI, and VAS-Back and Leg scores. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent predictors for prolonged opioid use.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 260 patients. BMI >35 (OR: .44 [.20, .90], P = .03) and current smoking status (OR: 2.73 [1.14, 6.96], P = .03) significantly predicted postoperative opioid usage. Chronic opioid use before surgery was associated with greater improvements in MCS-12 (β= 5.26 [1.01, 9.56], P = .02). Patients with prolonged opioid use self-reported worse VAS-Back (3.4 vs 2.1, P = .003) and VAS-Leg (2.6 vs 1.2, P = .03) scores after surgery. Prolonged opioid use was associated with decreased improvement in VAS-Leg over time (β = .14 [.15, 1.85], P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Current smoking status and lower BMI were significantly predictive of prolonged opioid use. Excess opioid use before and after surgery significantly affected PROMs after lumbar fusion.

The Effect of Reduced Access to Chiropractic Care on Medical Service Use for Spine Conditions Among Older Adults

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which access to chiropractic care affects medical service use among older adults with spine conditions.

METHODS

We used Medicare claims data to identify a cohort of 39,278 older adult chiropractic care users who relocated during 2010-2014 and thus experienced a change in geographic access to chiropractic care. National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data were used to determine chiropractor per population ratios across the United States. A reduction in access to chiropractic care was defined as decreasing 1 quintile or more in chiropractor per population ratio after relocation. Using a difference-in-difference analysis (before versus after relocation), we compared the use of medical services among those who experienced a reduction in access to chiropractic care versus those who did not.

RESULTS

Among those who experienced a reduction in access to chiropractic care (versus those who did not), we observed an increase in the rate of visits to primary care physicians for spine conditions (an annual increase of 32.3 visits, 95% CI: 1.4-63.1 per 1,000) and rate of spine surgeries (an annual increase of 5.5 surgeries, 95% CI: 1.3-9.8 per 1,000). Considering the mean cost of a visit to a primary care physician and spine surgery, a reduction in access to chiropractic care was associated with an additional cost of $114,967 per 1,000 beneficiaries on medical services ($391 million nationally).

CONCLUSIONS

Among older adults, reduced access to chiropractic care is associated with an increase in the use of some medical services for spine conditions.

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event).

RESULTS

49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/.

Is multidisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain effective in patients above 65 years? An observational cohort study with 12-month follow-up

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the broad evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients of working age, little is known about the benefit in patients aged ≥ 65 years.

AIM

To quantify the short-term and 12-month effects of a 3-week CLBP specific MBR program in patients ≥ 65 years of age; to compare the effects in patients ≥ 65 years of age to the effects in younger patients.

DESIGN

Observational prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Outpatient clinic at a tertiary physical medicine and rehabilitation centre.

POPULATION

Consecutive patients with CLBP who participated in a CLBP a specific MBR program.

METHODS

The 3-week MBR program included 44 hours of treatment. The primary outcomes pain and disability were measured by the North American Spine Society Questionnaire (NASS). Secondary outcome measures were the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and the numerical rating scale for pain. Effects were quantified using effect sizes (ES).

RESULTS

From 203 included patients, 104 patients older than 65 years (mean: 70.7; SD: 4.0) were compared to 99 patients younger than 65 years (mean: 56.4; SD: 6.7). The older patients had more comorbidities (two or more comorbidities: 49.5% versus 23.5%; p < 0.001). Both groups showed significant improvements in pain and disability at discharge (both groups: p<0.001) and at the 12 months' follow-up (old: p < 0.001; young: 0.039) with slightly higher effects for the older patients compared to the younger patients (discharge: ES = 0.67 versus ES = 0.53; 12 months: ES = 0.42 versus ES = 0.29). Both groups also improved in the SF-36 Physical Component Summary with slightly lower effects for the older patients (discharge: ES =0.31, p<0.001 versus ES=0.43, p<0.001; 12 months: ES=0.27, p=0.025 versus ES=0.39, p=0.001). The group differences of the change scores were not significant in any of the outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

MBR shows similar improvements in pain and disability in patients aged ≥ 65 compared to younger patients for at least 12 months.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

The findings support the concept of MBR in the growing population of CLBP patients older than 65 years of age.

Cognitive Functional Therapy for People with Nonspecific Persistent Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting-A Propensity Matched, Case-Control Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Effective, inexpensive, and low-risk interventions are needed for patients with nonspecific persistent low back pain (NS-PLBP) who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is a multidimensional behavioral self-management approach that has demonstrated promising results in primary care and has not been tested in secondary care.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of CFT and compare it with usual care for patients with NS-PLBP.

DESIGN

Case-control study.

SETTING

A secondary care spine center.

SUBJECTS

Thirty-nine patients received a CFT intervention and were matched using propensity scoring to 185 control patients receiving usual care.

METHODS

The primary outcome was Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-100 scale) score. Group-level differences at six- and 12-month follow-up were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression.

RESULTS

At six-month follow-up, a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in disability favored the CFT group (-20.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -27.2 to -14.2, P < 0.001). Significant differences also occurred for LBP and leg pain, fear, anxiety, and catastrophizing in favor of CFT. At 12-month follow-up, the difference in disability was smaller and no longer statistically significant (-8.1, 95% CI = -17.4 to 1.2, P = 0.086). Differences in leg pain intensity and fear remained significantly in favor of CFT. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher in the CFT group at six- (93% vs 66%) and 12-month (84% vs 52%) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support that CFT is beneficial for patients with NS-PLBP who are unresponsive to primary care interventions. Subsequent randomized controlled trials could incorporate booster sessions, which may result in larger effects at 12-month follow-up.

The Relationship of the Therapeutic Alliance to Patient Characteristics and Functional Outcome During an Episode of Physical Therapy Care for Patients With Low Back Pain: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Research supports the relevance of the therapeutic alliance (TA) between patients and physical therapists on outcomes, but the impact of TA during routine physical therapist practice has not been quantified. The primary objective of this study was to examine the relationship between TA assessed during a physical therapy episode of care for patients with low back pain and functional outcome at the conclusion of care. The secondary objective was to examine psychometric properties of the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR) form, a patient-reported TA measure.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 676 patients (mean [SD] age = 55.6 [16.1] y; 55.9% female) receiving physical therapy for low back pain in 45 outpatient clinics from 1 health system in the United States. Participating clinics routinely collect patient-reported data at initial, interim, and final visits. The lumbar computer-adapted test (LCAT) was used to evaluate functional outcome. The TA was assessed from the patient's perspective at interim assessments using the WAI-SR, bivariate correlations were examined, and regression models were examined if interim WAI-SR scores explained outcome variance beyond a previously validated multivariate prediction model. Internal consistency and ceiling effects for the WAI-SR were examined.

RESULTS

Interim WAI-SR scores were not correlated with patient characteristics or initial LCAT, but they were correlated with final LCAT and LCAT change from initial to final assessment. WAI-SR total score (adjusted R2 = 0.36), and Task (adjusted R2 = 0.38) and Goal subscales (adjusted R2 = 0.35) explained additional variance in outcome beyond the base model (adjusted R2 = 0.33). Internal consistency was higher for WAI-SR total score (α = .88) than for subscales (α = .76-.82). Substantial ceiling effects were observed for all WAI-SR scores (27.2%-63.6%).

CONCLUSION

Findings support the importance of TA in physical therapist practice. Measurement challenges were identified, most notably ceiling effects.

IMPACT

This study supports the impact of the patient-physical therapist alliance on functional outcome. Results extend similar findings from controlled studies into a typical physical therapist practice setting. Better understanding of the role of contextual factors including the therapeutic alliance might be key to improving the magnitude of treatment effect for discrete physical therapist interventions and enhancing clinical outcomes of physical therapy episodes of care.

Prescribing Patterns of Pain Medications in Unspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Retrospective Analysis

Acute low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. Since there is evidence of excessive prescriptions of analgesics, i.e., opioids, the aim of this study was to describe the use of pain medications in patients with LBP in the Swiss primary care setting. A retrospective, observational study was performed using medical prescriptions of 180 general practitioners (GP) during years 2009–2020. Patterns of pain medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and opioids) as well as co-medications were analyzed in patients with a LBP diagnosis. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed GP and patient characteristics associated with the prescription of pain medication. Patients included were 10,331 (mean age 51.7 years, 51.2% female); 6449 (62.4%) received at least one pain medication and of these 86% receive NSAIDs and 22% opioids. GP characteristics (i.e., self-employment status) and patient characteristics (male gender and number of consultations) were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any pain medication in multivariable analysis. 3719 patients (36%) received co-medications. Proton-pump-inhibitors and muscle relaxants were the most commonly used co-medications. In conclusion, two-thirds of LBP patients were treated with pain medications. Prescribing patterns were conservative, with little use of strong opioids and co-medications.

Crosswalking the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity Scores to the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index

OBJECTIVE

To link scores from 2 condition-specific measures for chronic low back pain (CLBP), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), to Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores.

DESIGN

Ordinary least squares regression analyses of existing data to link the PROMIS scores with the ODI and RMDQ.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

Samples of adults with CLBP (N=2279) obtained from the Center for Excellence in Research for Complementary and Integrative Health (CERC) Study (n=1677), the Assessment of Chiropractic Treatment for Low Back Pain and Smoking Cessation in Military Active Duty Personnel (ACT) (n=384), and the pain subsample of the PROMIS 1 Wave 2 Pain and Depression study (PROMIS 1 W2) (n=218).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity (CERC, ACT, and PROMIS 1 W2), ODI (CERC and PROMIS 1 W2), and RMDQ (ACT and PROMIS 1 W2).

RESULTS

In predicting PROMIS scores, the ODI model R² values ranged from 0.26-0.56 and the RMDQ model R² values ranged from 0.13-0.50. ODI and RMDQ models were the least precise in predicting the PROMIS pain intensity score (R² value range, 0.13-0.41) relative to the other PROMIS scores. Models with the 3 PROMIS scores as predictors yielded R² values ranging from 0.64-0.68 and 0.46-0.58 for the ODI and RMDQ, respectively. Models using combined data from 2 studies (ie, PROMIS 1 W2 and ACT, or PROMIS 1 W2 and CERC) tended to be more precise than models using only a single study sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Model results reported here can be used to translate PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores to and from the ODI and RMDQ. The empirical linkages can facilitate comparisons across CLBP interventions and broaden interpretation of study results.

A successful, cost-effective low back pain triage system: a pilot study

Background: Effective triage - directing patients with low back pain to appropriate treatment or correct referral - is fundamental to quality care. Without guidelines, a physician's initial decision may lead to unnecessary investigation, unneeded intervention or unwarranted consultation.

Methods: To compare the functional outcomes of patients triaged by a classification based on clinical presentation with those of patients selected at the clinicians’ discretion, an insurance-owned hospital network employed forty-seven specially-trained physical therapists, working within participating primary care practices, to classify low back pain patients into specific Patterns of Pain. Between October 2017 and April 2019, the primary care physicians used this classification, derived entirely from the patient's history and physical examination, to direct subsequent treatment for 260 consecutive low back pain patients. Patients with systemic symptoms, recent substantial trauma or non-mechanical diagnoses indicative of spinal infections or possible malignancy were excluded. Functional outcome measures were spinal imaging, opioid use, length of treatment and number of visits, back-related unplanned care, frequency of spinal surgery and back-related episode cost. These were compared with a control group of 256 propensity-matched patients and, for assessing the financial impact, with a historic cohort of 111 previously treated, non-classified patients.

Results: Spinal imaging: study group 24.5%; controls 42.2% (P< .001). Narcotic use: study group 4.6%; controls 13.3% (P< .001). Treatment length: study group 62.2 days; controls 74.5 days (P=.10). Treatment visits: study group 1528 visits; controls 2,046 visits (P=.003). Unplanned care: study group 1.9%; controls 12.8% (P< .001). Spine surgery: study group 15.4%; controls 26.2% (P=.005). Episode cost: study group $1453; controls $2334 (P=.005).

Conclusions: A well-defined clinically-based triage system produced meaningful reductions in imaging, opioid use, treatment duration, unplanned interventions, surgery and cost of care.