The Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program Data Harmonization: Rationale for Data Elements and Standards.

OBJECTIVE: One aim of the Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program is to develop an integrated model of chronic low back pain that is informed by combined data from translational research and clinical trials. We describe efforts to maximize data harmonization and accessibility to facilitate Consortium-wide analyses. METHODS: Consortium-wide working groups established harmonized data elements to be collected in all studies and developed standards for tabular and nontabular data (eg, imaging and omics). The BACPAC Data Portal was developed to facilitate research collaboration across the Consortium. RESULTS: Clinical experts developed the BACPAC Minimum Dataset with required domains and outcome measures to be collected by use of questionnaires across projects. Other nonrequired domain-specific measures are collected by multiple studies. To optimize cross-study analyses, a modified data standard was developed on the basis of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model to harmonize data structures and facilitate integration of baseline characteristics, participant-reported outcomes, chronic low back pain treatments, clinical exam, functional performance, psychosocial characteristics, quantitative sensory testing, imaging, and biomechanical data. Standards to accommodate the unique features of chronic low back pain data were adopted. Research units submit standardized study data to the BACPAC Data Portal, developed as a secure cloud-based central data repository and computing infrastructure for researchers to access and conduct analyses on data collected by or acquired for BACPAC. CONCLUSIONS: BACPAC harmonization efforts and data standards serve as an innovative model for data integration that could be used as a framework for other consortia with multiple, decentralized research programs.

Hip-focused physical therapy versus spine-focused physical therapy for older adults with chronic low back pain at risk for mobility decline (MASH): a multicentre, single-masked, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we identified a population of older adults with chronic low back pain, hip pain, and hip muscle weakness who had worse 12-month low back pain and functional outcomes than age-matched adults with only low back pain, indicating an increased risk for future mobility decline. We sought to determine whether tailored, hip-focused physical therapy reduced pain and functional limitations in this high-risk population compared with non-tailored, spine-focused physical therapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, single-masked, randomised controlled trial at three research-based sites in the USA. We recruited older adults (aged 60-85 years) with hip pain and weakness who reported moderate low back pain intensity at least half the days in the last 6 months. Patients were randomly assigned to hip-focused physical therapy or spine-focused physical therapy using permuted blocks with random block size, stratified by site and sex (ie, male or female). The primary outcomes were self-reported disability using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and performance-based 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT) at 8 weeks. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Adverse events were collected by study staff via a possible adverse event reporting form and then adjudicated by site investigators. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04009837. FINDINGS: Between Nov 1, 2019, and April 30, 2022, 184 participants were randomly assigned to receive hip-focused (n=91) or spine-focused physical therapy (n=93) interventions. The mean age was 70·7 (SD 6·2) years. 121 (66%) of 184 participants were women, 63 (34%) were men, and 149 (81%) were White. At 8 weeks, the mean between-group difference on the QBPDS was 4·0 (95% CI 0·5 to 7·5), favouring hip-focused physical therapy. Both groups had similar, clinically meaningful gait speed improvements (10MWT) at 8 weeks (mean difference 0·004 m/s [95% CI -0·044 to 0·052]). No serious adverse events were related to study participation. INTERPRETATION: Tailored hip-focused physical therapy demonstrated greater improvements in low back pain-related disability at 8 weeks. However, both hip-focused physical therapy and spine-focused physical therapy produced clinically meaningful improvements in disability and function for this high-risk population at 6 months. These findings warrant further investigation before clinical implementation. FUNDING: US National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy. CONCLUSION: Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes. IMPACT: Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.