Comparison of stratification techniques for optimal management of patients with chronic low back pain in spine clinics.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Identifying optimal stratification techniques for subgrouping patients with low back pain (LBP) into treatment groups for the purpose of identifying optimal management and improving clinical outcomes is an important area for further research. PURPOSE: Our study aimed to compare performance of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) and 3 stratification techniques involving PROMIS domain scores for use in patients presenting to a spine clinic for chronic LBP. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with chronic LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as part of routine care, and were followed up with completed PROs 1 year later. OUTCOME MEASURES: Four stratification techniques, including SBT, and 3 PROMIS-based techniques: the NIH Task Force recommended Impact Stratification Score (ISS), symptom clusters based on latent class analysis (LCA), and SPADE symptom clusters. METHODS: The 4 stratification techniques were compared according to criterion validity, construct validity, and prognostic utility. For criterion validity, overlap in characterization of mild, moderate, and severe subgroups were compared to SBT, which was considered the gold standard, using quadratic weighted kappa statistic. Construct validity compared techniques' ability to differentiate across disability groups defined by modified Oswestry LBP Disability Questionnaire (MDQ), median days in the past month unable to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), and worker's compensation using standardized mean differences (SMD). Prognostic utility was compared based on the techniques' ability to predict long-term improvement in outcomes, defined as improvement in global health and MDQ at 1-year. RESULTS: There were 2,246 adult patients with chronic LBP included in our study (mean age 61.0 [SD 14.0], 55.0% female, 83.4% white). All stratification techniques resulted in roughly a third of patients grouped into mild, moderate, and severe categories, with ISS and LCA demonstrating substantial agreement with SBT, while SPADE had moderate agreement. Construct validity was met for all techniques, with large effects demonstrated between mild and severe categories for differentiating MDQ, ADLs, and worker's compensation disability groups (SMD range 0.57-2.48). All stratification techniques demonstrated ability to detect improvement by 1-year, with severe groups experiencing the greatest improvement in multivariable logistic regression models. CONCLUSIONS: All 4 stratification techniques demonstrated validity and prognostic utility for subgrouping patients with chronic LBP based on risk of long-term disability. ISS and LCA symptom clusters may be the optimal methods given the improved feasibility of including only a few relevant PROMIS domains. Future research should investigate multidisciplinary treatment approaches to target mild, moderate, and severe patients based on these techniques.

Stratification of spine patients based on self-reported clinical symptom classes: Evaluation of long-term outcomes and subsequent interventions.

Background: Prior work by our group developed a stratification tool based on four PROMIS domains for patients with low back pain (LBP). Our study aimed to evaluate the ability of our previously developed symptom classes to predict long-term outcomes, and determine whether there were differential treatment effects by intervention. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with LBP seen in spine clinics in a large health system between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes as part of routine care at baseline and again at 12-months follow-up. Latent class analysis identified symptom classes based on PROMIS domain scores (physical function, pain interference, social role satisfaction, and fatigue) that were ≥1 standard deviation worse (meaningfully worse) than the general population. The ability of the profiles to predict long-term outcomes at 12-months was evaluated through multivariable models. Differences in outcomes by subsequent treatments (physical therapy, specialist visits, injections, and surgery) were investigated. Results: There were 3,236 adult patients (average age 61.1 ± 14.2, 55.4% female) included in the study with three distinct classes identified: mild symptoms (n = 986, 30.5%), mixed (n = 798, 24.7%) with poor scores on physical function and pain interference but better scores on other domains, and significant symptoms (n = 1,452, 44.9%). The classes were significantly associated with long-term outcomes, with patients with significant symptoms improving the most across all domains. Utilization differed across classes, with the mixed symptom class receiving more PT and injections and significant symptom class receiving more surgeries and specialist visits. Conclusions: Patients with LBP have distinct clinical symptom classes which could be utilized to stratify patients into groups based on risk of future disability. These symptom classes can also be used to provide estimates of the effectiveness of different interventions, further increasing the clinical utility of these classes in standard care.

Transforming Standard of Care for Spine Surgery: Integration of an Online Single-Session Behavioral Pain Management Class for Perioperative Optimization.

Estimates suggest that 10-40% of lumbar spine surgery patients experience persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP). PPSP is associated with 50% greater healthcare costs, along with risks of emotional distress and impaired quality of life. In 2019, U.S. Health and Human Services identified brief and digital behavioral treatments as important for pain management after surgery. Indeed, brief behavioral pain treatments delivered in the perioperative period may offer patients a low burden opportunity to acquire essential pain coping strategies for enhanced surgical recovery. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has diminished in-person pain treatment access during extended perioperative time frames, thus underscoring the need for on-line options and home based care. This report describes the integration of an online, live-instructor delivered single-session pain self-management intervention (Empowered Relief) into the standard of care for lumbar spine surgery. Here, we apply the RE-AIM framework; describe systems implementation of the Empowered Relief intervention in a large, academic medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic; describe operational challenges and financial considerations; and present patient engagement data. Finally, we discuss the scalable potential of Empowered Relief and other single-session interventions in surgical populations, their importance during extended perioperative periods, practical and scientific limitations, and new directions for future research on this topic.

Stratification of spine patients based on self-reported clinical symptom classes.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Improving prognostic stratification for patients with low back pain (LBP) outside of a primary care setting has been identified as an important area for further research. PURPOSE: Our study aimed to identify clinical symptom classes of patients presenting to a spine clinic based on 4 Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains and evaluate demographic and clinical differences across classes. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional study of patients seen in spine centers at a large health system. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with LBP seen in a spine center between November 14, 2018 and May 14, 2019 who completed patient-reported outcomes as part of routine care. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS physical function, pain interference, satisfaction with social roles and activities, and fatigue. METHODS: Latent class analysis identified symptom classes based on PROMIS domain scores ≥1 standard deviation worse (meaningfully worse) than the general population. A multivariable multinomial logistic regression model was constructed to evaluate differences in symptom classes based on demographics and socioeconomic characteristics. Lastly, the ability of the profiles to discriminate across levels of disability, based on the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), was evaluated. RESULTS: There were 7,144 adult patients included in the study who visited spine clinics for a primary complaint of LBP and completed all 4 PROMIS domains (age 58.7±15.9, 54% female). Three distinct classes were identified. Class 1 ("Significant Symptoms," n=3238) had PROMIS scores that were meaningfully worse than the population average for all domains. Class 2 ("Mixed Symptoms," n=1366) had meaningfully worse scores on physical function and pain interference but average scores on other domains. Class 3 ("Mild Symptoms," n=2540) had average scores across all domains. Compared to patients in Class 3, those in Class 2 were more likely older, and those in Classes 1 and 2 were more likely to be divorced, have lower household income, and no employment. Level of disability was significantly different across each class (average (SD) ODI for Classes 1-3: 53.4 (14.3), 39.9 (12.5), 22.9 (12.1), p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to specialty clinics for LBP demonstrate distinct clinical symptom classes which could be utilized to inform specific symptom-based treatment. Future research should evaluate the ability of these classes to predict long-term disability.

Validation of PROMIS CATs and PROMIS Global Health in an Interdisciplinary Pain Program for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To (1) confirm validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and pain interference computer-adaptive tests (CATs) and (2) assess the validity of PROMIS Global Health (GH) and five additional PROMIS CATs: social role satisfaction, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance in a population of patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) who completed a 3-month Interdisciplinary Pain Program (IPP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent recommendations for assessing outcomes in patients with cLBP have included PROMIS scales; however, there is a need for further evaluation, and PROMIS GH has not been studied in this population. METHODS: The study cohort included patients with cLBP who completed the entirety of a 3-month IPP between August 2016 and December 2018. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed before the start of the IPP and at graduation. Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients. Known groups' validity assessed the change in PROMIS scores stratified by improvement on the Modified LBP Disability Questionnaire. Responsiveness was evaluated with standardized response means based on global impression of change. RESULTS: IPP was completed by 217 patients (67.7% women, age 53.8 ±â€Š12.8). Convergent validity was supported (P < 0.01 for all pairwise PROMs comparisons). All PROMs improved significantly by graduation, with the largest improvement for PROMIS pain interference, physical function, social role satisfaction, and Modified LBP Disability Questionnaire. Known groups' validity demonstrated the greatest change on PROMIS physical function, social role satisfaction, pain interference, and depression. Responsiveness was supported for all PROMs in 170 (78.3%) patients who indicated at least minimal improvement (standardized response means 0.43-1.06). CONCLUSION: Our study provides support of PROMIS CATs, highlights the importance of including other meaningful outcome measures, such as social role satisfaction, and provides the first validation of PROMIS GH, in patients with cLBP. PROMs collection can be streamlined through the use of PROMIS CATs which offer advantages over legacy measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Impact of Preoperative Chronic Opioid Therapy in Patients Undergoing Decompression Laminectomy of the Lumbar Spine.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of electronic medical records (EMR). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) characterize the pattern of opioid utilization in patients undergoing spine surgery and (2) compare the postoperative course between patients with and without chronic preoperative opioid prescriptions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative pain management for patients with a history of opioid usage remains a challenge for spine surgeons. Opioids are controversial in this setting due to side effects and potential for abuse and addiction. Given the increasing rate of opioid prescriptions for spine-related pain, more studies are needed to evaluate patterns and risks of preoperative opioid usage in surgical patients. METHODS: EMR were reviewed for patients (age > 18) with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing lumbar laminectomy in 2011 at our institution. Data regarding patient demographics, levels operated, pre/postoperative medications, and in-hospital length of stay were collected. Primary outcomes were length of stay and duration of postoperative opioid usage. RESULTS: One hundred patients were reviewed. Fifty-five patients had a chronic opioid prescription documented at least 3 months before surgery. Forty-five patients were not on chronic opioid therapy preoperatively. The preoperative opioid group compared with the non-opioid group had a greater proportion of females (53% vs. 40%), younger mean age (63 yrs vs. 65 yrs), higher frequency of preoperative benzodiazepine prescription (20% vs. 11%), longer average in-hospital length of stay (3.7 d vs. 3.2 d), and longer duration on postoperative opioids (211 d vs. 79 d). CONCLUSION: Patients on chronic opioids prior to spine surgery are more likely to have a longer hospital stay and continue on opioids for a longer time after surgery, compared with patients not on chronic opioid therapy. Spine surgeons and pain specialists should seek to identify patients on chronic opioids before surgery and evaluate strategies to optimize pain management in the pre- and postoperative course. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Comparative Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary Pain Program for Chronic Low Back Pain, Compared to Physical Therapy Alone.

STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of PT to an interdisciplinary treatment approach in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CLBP is a costly and potentially disabling condition. Physical therapy (PT), cognitive behavioral therapy, and interdisciplinary pain programs (IPPs) are superior to usual care. Empirical evidence is lacking to clearly support one treatment approach over another in patients with CLBP. METHODS: One hundred seventeen adult patients who completed an IPP for individuals with ≥3 months of back pain were compared to 214 adult patients with similar characteristics who completed PT. The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire was the primary outcome measure. Additional measures included: PROMIS physical function, global health, social role satisfaction, pain interference, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and Patient Health Questionnaire. Patients who completed the IPP were matched by propensity score to a historical control group of patients who completed a course of PT. Change in functional disability was compared between IPP patients and matched controls. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed pre to post participation in the IPP using paired t test and by calculating the proportion with clinically meaningful improvement. RESULTS: Propensity score matching generated 81 IPP and 81 PT patients. Patients enrolled in the IPP had significantly greater improvement in MDQ scores upon completion compared to patients in PT (15.8 vs. 7.1, P < 0.001). The majority of IPP patients reached the threshold for clinically meaningful change of ≥10 point reduction (60.5%) compared to 34.6% of PT patients, P < 0.01. Patients in the IPP also showed statistically and clinically significant improvement in social role satisfaction, fatigue, and sleep disturbance. CONCLUSION: CLBP patients in an IPP demonstrated greater functional improvements compared to similar patients participating in PT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The psychosocial burden of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychosocial impact of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), describe how health-related quality of life (QoL) is affected in patients with PsA, discuss measures used to evaluate the psychosocial impact of PsA, and review studies examining the effect of therapy on QoL. METHODS: A targeted review on the impact of PsA on QoL and the role of tailored psychosocial management in reducing the psychosocial burden of the disease was performed. PubMed literature searches were conducted using the terms PsA, psychosocial burden, QoL, and mood/behavioral changes. Articles were deemed relevant if they presented information regarding the psychosocial impact of PsA, methods used to evaluate these impacts, or ways to manage/improve management of PsA and its resulting comorbidities. The findings of this literature search are descriptively reviewed and the authors׳ expert opinion on their interpretation is provided. RESULTS: The psychosocial burden of PsA negatively affects QoL. Patients suffer from sleep disorders, fatigue, low-level stress, depression and mood/behavioral changes, poor body image, and reduced work productivity. Additionally, each patient responds to pain differently, depending on a variety of psychological factors including personality structure, cognition, and attention to pain. Strategies for evaluating the burdens associated with PsA and the results of properly managing patients with PsA are described. CONCLUSIONS: PsA is associated with a considerable psychosocial burden and new assessment tools, specific to PsA, have been developed to help quantify this burden in patients. Future management algorithms of PsA should incorporate appropriate assessment and management of psychological and physical concerns of patients. Furthermore, patients with PsA should be managed by a multidisciplinary team that works in coordination with the patient and their family or caregivers.

Pain Psychology: A Global Needs Assessment and National Call to Action.

OBJECTIVE: The Institute of Medicine and the draft National Pain Strategy recently called for better training for health care clinicians. This was the first high-level needs assessment for pain psychology services and resources in the United States. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, cross-sectional. METHODS: Brief surveys were administered online to six stakeholder groups (psychologists/therapists, individuals with chronic pain, pain physicians, primary care physicians/physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and the directors of graduate and postgraduate psychology training programs). RESULTS: 1,991 responses were received. Results revealed low confidence and low perceived competency to address physical pain among psychologists/therapists, and high levels of interest and need for pain education. We found broad support for pain psychology across stakeholder groups, and global support for a national initiative to increase pain training and competency in U.S. therapists. Among directors of graduate and postgraduate psychology training programs, we found unanimous interest for a no-cost pain psychology curriculum that could be integrated into existing programs. Primary barriers to pain psychology include lack of a system to identify qualified therapists, paucity of therapists with pain training, limited awareness of the psychological treatment modality, and poor insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This report calls for transformation within psychology predoctoral and postdoctoral education and training and psychology continuing education to include and emphasize pain and pain management. A system for certification is needed to facilitate quality control and appropriate reimbursement. There is a need for systems to facilitate identification and access to practicing psychologists and therapists skilled in the treatment of pain.

A multilevel path model analysis of the relations between sleep, pain, and pain catastrophizing in chronic pain rehabilitation patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Pain catastrophizing is linked to heightened pain and poorer coping among individuals with chronic pain, yet little is known about how pain catastrophizing associates with sleep and pain over the course of treatment for chronic pain. Previous research employing a cross-sectional design suggests that sleep mediates the association between pain catstrophizing and pain, but there have been no longitudinal studies examining the directionality of these associations. Thus, the aim of this study was to test two competing theoretical models. The first model specified that pain catastrophizing leads to increased pain via poor sleep. The second model specified that poor sleep leads to increased pain catastrophizing via increased pain. METHODS: This study examined the relations between pain catastrophizing, sleep, and pain among 50 consecutive patients (36 female, 14 male) ages 20-80 (M=45.96, SD=13.94) with chronic, non-malignant pain who were admitted to the Cleveland Clinic, Chronic Pain Rehabilitation Programme (CPRP). The CPRP, within the Neurological Centre for Restoration, Neurologic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary programme designed to treat patients with disabling chronic pain. As part of their daily, morning update with their case manager, patients completed self-report ratings of their previous night's sleep time (TST), and their current pain, anxiety, and depression. Pain catastrophizing was assessed at admission and discharge. RESULTS: Over the course of treatment, daily TST increased from approximately 5h and 20min per night to nearly 6h and 30min per night, and average daily pain, daily depression, and daily anxiety decreased over the course of treatment. As the data in this study has a multilevel structure, with daily reports nested with in patients, we conducted multilevel path models to examine the longitudinal relations between pain catastrophizing, sleep, and pain. Multilevel path analysis permits the analysis of interdependent data without violating the assumptions of standard multiple regression. Models were conducted for pain catastrophizing and each of its subscales: rumination, magnification and helplessness. The findings were uniform across the composite pain catastrophizing scale and its subscales. There was an indirect path from sleep to pain catastrophizing (post-treatment) via pain, but not from pain catastrophizing (pre-treatment) to pain via sleep. There were also direct effects of sleep on pain and from pain to pain catastrophizing (post-treatment). Additionally, decreases in pain over the course of treatment were related to lower pain catastrophizing post-treatment. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These results call into question previous evidence that pain catastrophizing indirectly affects pain by way of its impact on sleep. Rather, our findings suggest that pain mediates the relationship between sleep and levels of pain catastrophizing. These results therefore underscore importance and value in collecting longitudinal data and potential influence on the conclusions gained with regards to sleep, pain and psychological variables. These findings may be of clinical importance when tailoring interventions for individuals with chronic pain and perhaps even more so for those with comorbid pain and sleep disturbance; prioritizing the treatment of sleep difficulties could result in improvements to pain-related outcomes.

Chronic pain rehabilitation.

The article discusses chronic pain rehabilitation and describes its components and some of the core operating principles. Outcomes in chronic pain are best when multiple treatment strategies with a focus on functional restoration are employed, and this is often best done in an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program.

Variability in the relationship between sleep and pain in patients undergoing interdisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain and sleep disturbance frequently coexist and often complicate the course of treatment. Despite the well-established comorbidity, there are no studies that have investigated concurrent changes in sleep and pain among patients participating in an interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation program (ICPRP). The goal of this study was to investigate the daily changes in sleep and pain among patients participating in an ICPRP. METHODS: Multilevel modeling techniques were used to evaluate the daily changes in total sleep time (TST) and pain among a sample of 50 patients with chronic noncancer pain participating in the ICPRP. RESULTS: Increases in TST were predictive of less pain the following treatment day, although daily pain ratings were not predictive of that night's TST. Time in treatment was a significant predictor of both TST and pain reduction, even while controlling for age, gender, anxiety, and depression. Additional analyses revealed significant individual variability in the relationship between TST and next day pain. Individuals with stronger associations between previous night's TST and next day pain were found to experience the greatest treatment benefits overall, in terms of pain reduction and TST. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide compelling support for individual variability of the pain-sleep relationship in patients with intractable pain conditions participating in an ICPRP. Importantly, these findings suggest that when pain and sleep are comorbid, both must be addressed to reap the maximum response to treatment programs such as an ICPRP. PERSPECTIVE STATEMENT: This study demonstrates the utility of treating sleep problems in patients participating in an interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation program. Results highlight the benefits of accounting for individual variability in the pain-sleep relationship in a clinical setting and targeting sleep interventions for those individuals whose pain and sleep problems are comorbid.

The role of exercise and types of exercise in the rehabilitation of chronic pain: specific or nonspecific benefits.

Chronic pain is one of the most common complaints seen in general practitioners' offices, and it contributes to social, emotional, physical, and economical losses. The management of this problem poses challenges for health care providers when the current treatment of choice for chronic pain is pharmacological management, which may not be a sufficient and/or holistic approach to the management of chronic pain. Our goal is to increase awareness of the significance of physical activity, as well as examine additional cost-effective, integrated approaches to help manage the complex and debilitating effects of this condition. This article summarizes the types of exercise in the rehabilitation of chronic pain patients and provides practical recommendations for the clinician based on empirical and clinical experience. This safe, cost-free, nonpharmacologic way of managing pain has been found to reduce anxiety and depression, improve physical capacity, increase functioning and independence, and reduce morbidity and mortality.

Comprehensive review of obesity and psychological considerations for treatment.

Although obesity is considered to be a medical condition, psychosocial variables influence its development, course, and treatment. To date, obesity research focuses heavily on the associated physical problems and the identification of effective treatments. While an array of behavioral, pharmacological and surgical treatments has been developed, their ability to demonstrate long-term weight losses is not convincing. Thus, there has been a shift towards the identification of psychological and social factors that may assist in the prediction of successful treatments, most notably in the surgical treatment of obesity. As a result, less emphasis has been placed on post-treatment psychosocial influences. As the treatment of obesity becomes increasing multidimensional, the need for attention to psychosocial factors and the involvement of mental health providers increases. For the allied or mental health provider, a comprehensive understanding of obesity's physical, psychological and social basis is vital to ensure proper assessment or treatment, as it is warranted.