Effects of Including Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports on Prescribing Non-Opioid Medications for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Information on the prevalence of common imaging findings among patients without back pain in spine imaging reports might affect pain medication prescribing for patients with back pain. Prior research on inserting this text suggested a small reduction in opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of epidemiologic information in spine imaging reports on non-opioid pain medication prescribing for primary care patients with back pain. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology cluster-randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 170,680 patients aged ≥ 18 years from four healthcare systems who received thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging from 2013 to 2016 and had not received a prescription for non-opioid pain medication in the preceding 120 days. INTERVENTION: Text of age- and modality-specific epidemiologic benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common findings in people without back pain inserted into thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging reports at intervention clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: any non-opioid prescription within 90 days after index imaging, overall, and by sub-class (skeletal muscle relaxants, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, duloxetine). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: count of non-opioid prescriptions within 90 days, overall, and by sub-class. KEY RESULTS: The intervention was not associated with the likelihood of patients receiving at least one prescription for new non-opioid pain-related medications, overall (adjusted OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08) or by sub-class. The intervention was not associated with the number of prescriptions for any non-opioid medication (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04). However, the intervention was associated with more new prescriptions for NSAIDs (IRR, 1.12) and tricyclic antidepressants (IRR, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiologic text in spine imaging reports had no effect on whether new non-opioid pain-related medications were prescribed but was associated with the number of new prescriptions for certain non-opioid sub-classes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02015455.

Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of inserting epidemiological information into lumbar spine imaging reports on subsequent nonsurgical and surgical procedures involving the thoracolumbosacral spine and sacroiliac joints. DESIGN: Analysis of secondary outcomes from the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) pragmatic stepped-wedge randomized trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics within four integrated health care systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: 238,886 patients ≥18 years of age who received lumbar diagnostic imaging between 2013 and 2016. METHODS: Clinics were randomized to receive text containing age- and modality-specific epidemiological benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common spine imaging findings in people without low back pain, inserted into lumbar spine imaging reports (the "LIRE intervention"). The study outcomes were receiving 1) any nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedure (lumbosacral epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, or facet joint radiofrequency ablation; or sacroiliac joint injection) or 2) any surgical procedure involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine (decompression surgery or spinal fusion or other spine surgery). RESULTS: The LIRE intervention was not significantly associated with subsequent utilization of nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedures (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.09; P = 0.79) or any surgical procedure (OR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.74) involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine. The intervention was also not significantly associated with any individual spine procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiological text into spine imaging reports had no effect on nonsurgical or surgical procedure utilization among patients receiving lumbar diagnostic imaging.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions.

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Multi-site Pain Is Associated with Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Adults with Persistent Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of co-occurring pain sites among older adults with persistent back pain and associations of multisite pain with longitudinal outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: Eight hundred ninety-nine older adults with persistent back pain. METHODS: Participants reported pain in the following sites: stomach, arms/legs/joints, headaches, neck, pelvis/groin, and widespread pain. Over 18 months, we measured back-related disability (Roland Morris, scored 0-24), pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], utility from 0-1), and falls in the past three weeks. We used mixed-effects models to test the association of number and type of pain sites with each outcome. RESULTS: Nearly all (N = 839, 93%) respondents reported at least one additional pain site. There were 216 (24%) with one additional site and 623 (69%) with multiple additional sites. The most prevalent comorbid pain site was the arms/legs/joints (N = 801, 89.1%). Adjusted mixed-effects models showed that for every additional pain site, RMDQ worsened by 0.65 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43 to 0.86), back pain intensity increased by 0.14 points (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.22), EQ-5D worsened by 0.012 points (95% CI = -0.018 to -0.006), and the odds of falling increased by 27% (odds ratio = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.43). Some specific pain sites (extremity pain, widespread pain, and pelvis/groin pain) were associated with greater long-term disability. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite pain is common among older adults with persistent back pain. Number of pain sites was associated with all outcomes; individual pain sites were less consistently associated with outcomes.

Management of Pain in Elite Athletes: Identified Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Directions.

OBJECTIVE: For elite athletes to train and compete at peak performance levels, it is necessary to manage their pain efficiently and effectively. A recent consensus meeting on the management of pain in elite athletes concluded that there are many gaps in the current knowledge and that further information and research is required. This article presents the crystallization of these acknowledged gaps in knowledge. DATA SOURCES: Information was gathered from a wide variety of published scientific sources that were reviewed at the consensus meeting and the gaps in knowledge identified. MAIN RESULTS: Gaps have been identified in the epidemiology of analgesic use, the management of pain associated with minor injuries, and the field of play management of pain for athletes with major injuries. From a pharmacological perspective, there is a lack of information on the prescribing of opioid medications in elite athletes and more data are required on the use of local anesthetics injections, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during training and in competition. Pain management strategies for the general population are widely available, but there are few for the elite sporting population and virtually none for elite athletes with a disability. More research is also needed in assessing cognitive-behavior therapies in improving specific outcomes and also into the new process of psychologically informed physiotherapy. A key issue is the paucity of data relating to incidence or prevalence of persistent pain and how this relates to persistent dysfunction, exercise performance, and physiological function in later life. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of the gaps in knowledge in the management of pain in elite athletes will provide a unified direction for the retrieval of information and further research that will provide reassurance, speed return to active sport, and benefit performance.

A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients who had lumbar central spinal stenosis and moderate-to-severe leg pain and disability to receive epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone. The patients received one or two injections before the primary outcome evaluation, performed 6 weeks after randomization and the first injection. The primary outcomes were the score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, in which scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater physical disability) and the rating of the intensity of leg pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating "pain as bad as you can imagine"). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in the RMDQ score (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect between the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group, -1.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.1; P=0.07) or the intensity of leg pain (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect, -0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.4; P=0.48). A prespecified secondary subgroup analysis with stratification according to type of injection (interlaminar vs. transforaminal) likewise showed no significant differences at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238536.).

Long-Term Effects of Repeated Injections of Local Anesthetic With or Without Corticosteroid for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall long-term effectiveness of treatment with epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis and the effect of repeat injections, including crossover injections, on outcomes through 12 months. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. SETTING: Sixteen clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with imaging-confirmed lumbar central spinal stenosis (N=400). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone with the option of blinded crossover after 6 weeks to receive the alternate treatment. Participants could receive 1 to 2 injections from 0 to 6 weeks and up to 2 injections from 6 to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, participants received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (range, 0-24, where higher scores indicate greater disability) and leg pain intensity (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [pain as bad as you can imagine]). Secondary outcomes included opioid use, spine surgery, and crossover rates. RESULTS: At 12 months, both treatment groups maintained initial observed improvements, with no significant differences between groups on the RDQ (adjusted mean difference, -0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 0.9; P=.55), leg pain (adjusted mean difference, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7; P=.75), opioid use (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 41.4% vs lidocaine alone: 36.3%; P=.41), or spine surgery (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 16.8% vs lidocaine alone: 11.8%; P=.22). Fewer participants randomized to corticosteroid plus lidocaine (30%, n=60) versus lidocaine alone (45%, n=90) crossed over after 6 weeks (P=.003). Among participants who crossed over at 6 weeks, the 6- to 12-week RDQ change did not differ between the 2 randomized treatment groups (adjusted mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.7; P=.24). In both groups, participants crossing over at 6 weeks had worse 12-month trajectories compared with participants who did not choose to crossover. CONCLUSIONS: For lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine offered no benefits from 6 weeks to 12 months beyond that of injections of lidocaine alone in terms of self-reported pain and function or reduction in use of opioids and spine surgery. In patients with improved pain and function 6 weeks after initial injection, these outcomes were maintained at 12 months. However, the trajectories of pain and function outcomes after 3 weeks did not differ by injectate type. Repeated injections of either type offered no additional long-term benefit if injections in the first 6 weeks did not improve pain.

Pain in elite athletes-neurophysiological, biomechanical and psychosocial considerations: a narrative review.

Pain is a common problem among elite athletes and is frequently associated with sport injury. Both injury and pain interfere with peak performance. Pain management should be based on the physiological, anatomical and psychosocial influences on the individual's pain and is not equivalent to injury management, which focuses on musculoskeletal recovery and return-to-play. This narrative review provides a foundation for understanding the differing causes and types of pain in elite athletes, thereby serving as a springboard for comprehensive pain management.

International Olympic Committee consensus statement on pain management in elite athletes.

Pain is a common problem among elite athletes and is frequently associated with sport injury. Both pain and injury interfere with the performance of elite athletes. There are currently no evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the management of pain in elite athletes. Typically, pain management consists of the provision of analgesics, rest and physical therapy. More appropriately, a treatment strategy should address all contributors to pain including underlying pathophysiology, biomechanical abnormalities and psychosocial issues, and should employ therapies providing optimal benefit and minimal harm. To advance the development of a more standardised, evidence-informed approach to pain management in elite athletes, an IOC Consensus Group critically evaluated the current state of the science and practice of pain management in sport and prepared recommendations for a more unified approach to this important topic.

Timeliness of Care Planning upon Initiation of Chronic Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic opioid therapy (COT) guidelines recommend developing a COT care plan at the initiation of COT. OBJECTIVE: Assess the timeliness of care planning upon initiation of COT. DESIGN: Observational cohort study in a setting incentivizing and tracking documentation of COT care plans in electronic health records (EHRs). PARTICIPANTS: Study participants (N = 896) were aged 45 years or older, had initiated an episode of opioid use within the prior 6 months, and reported regular use of prescription analgesics when screened for a baseline interview about 3 months after an index opioid prescription MEASURES: A timely care plan was defined by an EHR documented care plan prior to or within 4 months after the index opioid prescription. RESULTS: Among COT initiators, 30% had a timely COT care plan documented in the EHR within 4 months following index prescription, while 51% had a documented COT care plan within 12 months following index prescription. Among those interviewed at 1 year follow-up (N = 735), 252 (34.2%) reported opioid use on 7 or more days in the prior 2 weeks. Less than half (45.6%) of the 252 individuals who sustained regular opioid use at 1 year had predicted at baseline that it was somewhat, very, or extremely likely they would be using opioids regularly in 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating COT were unlikely to have timely COT care plans. Many who sustained regular opioid use at 1 year had not anticipated using opioids long term.

The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Increases in prescriptions of opioid medications for chronic pain have been accompanied by increases in opioid overdoses, abuse, and other harms and uncertainty about long-term effectiveness. PURPOSE: To evaluate evidence on the effectiveness and harms of long-term (>3 months) opioid therapy for chronic pain in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (January 2008 through August 2014); relevant studies from a prior review; reference lists; and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials and observational studies that involved adults with chronic pain who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy and that evaluated opioid therapy versus placebo, no opioid, or nonopioid therapy; different opioid dosing strategies; or risk mitigation strategies. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual extraction and quality assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS: No study of opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy evaluated long-term (>1 year) outcomes related to pain, function, quality of life, opioid abuse, or addiction. Good- and fair-quality observational studies suggest that opioid therapy for chronic pain is associated with increased risk for overdose, opioid abuse, fractures, myocardial infarction, and markers of sexual dysfunction, although there are few studies for each of these outcomes; for some harms, higher doses are associated with increased risk. Evidence on the effectiveness and harms of different opioid dosing and risk mitigation strategies is limited. LIMITATIONS: Non-English-language articles were excluded, meta-analysis could not be done, and publication bias could not be assessed. No placebo-controlled trials met inclusion criteria, evidence was lacking for many comparisons and outcomes, and observational studies were limited in their ability to address potential confounding. CONCLUSION: Evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for improving chronic pain and function. Evidence supports a dose-dependent risk for serious harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Opioid poisonings in Washington State Medicaid: trends, dosing, and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Opioid poisonings have increased as use of prescription opioid medications have increased. To reduce these poisonings, guidelines for chronic opioid use have been implemented. However, if opioid poisonings occur in individuals who do not have high prescribed doses and who are not chronic opioid users, the current guidelines may need revision. OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in rates of methadone and other opioid poisonings after implementation of the WA State Opioid Guideline in 2007 and to examine the prescription history before poisonings. METHODS: The study sample consisted of individuals who had at least 1 paid claim for an opioid prescription in the Medicaid fee-for-service system between April 2006 and December 2010 and had an emergency department or inpatient hospital claim for an opioid poisoning. RESULTS: Methadone poisonings occurred at 10 times the rate of other prescription opioid poisonings and increased between 2006 and 2010. Rates of other prescription opioid poisonings appeared to level off after implementation of the WA opioid guideline in 2007. Among individuals with nonmethadone opioid poisonings, only 44% had chronic opioid use, 17% had prescribed doses in the week before the poisoning >120 mg/d morphine-equivalent dose (MED), 28% had doses <50 mg/d MED, and 48% had concurrent sedative prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: It may be prudent to revise guidelines to address opioid poisonings occurring at relatively low prescribed doses and with acute and intermittent opioid use. Research is needed to establish the best strategies to prevent opioid poisonings.

A qualitative study of changes in expectations over time among patients with chronic low back pain seeking four CAM therapies.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between patient expectations about a treatment and the treatment outcomes, particularly for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies, is not well understood. Using qualitative data from a larger study to develop a valid expectancy questionnaire for use with participants starting new CAM therapies, we examined how participants' expectations of treatment changed over the course of a therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 64 participants initiating one of four CAM therapies (yoga, chiropractic, acupuncture, massage) for chronic low back pain. Participants just starting treatment were interviewed up to three times over a period of 3 months. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a qualitative mixed methods approach incorporating immersion/crystallization and matrix analysis for a decontexualization and recontextualization approach to understand changes in thematic emphasis over time. RESULTS: Pre-treatment expectations consisted of conjecture about whether or not the CAM therapy could relieve pain and improve participation in meaningful activities. Expectations tended to shift over the course of treatment to be more inclusive of broader lifestyle factors, the need for long-term pain management strategies and attention to long-term quality of life and wellness. Although a shift toward greater acceptance of chronic pain and the need for strategies to keep pain from flaring was observed across participants regardless of therapy, participants varied in their assessments of whether increased awareness of the need for ongoing self-care and maintenance strategies was considered a "positive outcome". Regardless of how participants evaluated the outcome of treatment, participants from all four therapies reported increased awareness, acceptance of the chronic nature of pain, and attention to the need to take responsibility for their own health. CONCLUSIONS: The shift in treatment expectations to greater acceptance of pain and the need for continued self-care suggests that future research should explore how CAM practitioners can capitalize on these shifts to encourage feelings of empowerment rather than disappointment surrounding realizations of the need for continued engagement with self-care.

Association of early imaging for back pain with clinical outcomes in older adults.

IMPORTANCE: In contrast to the recommendations for younger adults, many guidelines allow for older adults with back pain to undergo imaging without waiting 4 to 6 weeks. However, early imaging may precipitate interventions that do not improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare function and pain at the 12-month follow-up visit among older adults who received early imaging with those who did not receive early imaging after a new primary care visit for back pain without radiculopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of 5239 patients 65 years or older with a new primary care visit for back pain (2011-2013) in 3 US health care systems. We matched controls 1:1 using propensity score matching of demographic and clinical characteristics, including diagnosis, pain severity, pain duration, functional status, and prior resource use. EXPOSURES: Diagnostic imaging (plain films, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of the lumbar or thoracic spine within 6 weeks of the index visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: back or leg pain-related disability measured by the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (score range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater disability) 12 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Among the 5239 patients, 1174 had early radiographs and 349 had early MRI/CT. At 12 months, neither the early radiograph group nor the early MRI/CT group differed significantly from controls on the disability questionnaire. The mean score for patients who underwent early radiography was 8.54 vs 8.74 among the control group (difference, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.50]; mixed model, P = .36). The mean score for the early MRI/CT group was 9.81 vs 10.50 for the control group (difference,-0.51 [-1.62 to 0.60]; mixed model, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain, early imaging was not associated with better 1-year outcomes. The value of early diagnostic imaging in older adults for back pain without radiculopathy is uncertain.

Chronic opioid therapy risk reduction initiative: impact on urine drug testing rates and results.

BACKGROUND: In response to epidemic levels of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and diversion, routine urine drug tests (UDTs) are recommended for patients receiving chronic opioid therapy (COT) for chronic pain. However, UDT ordering for COT patients is inconsistent in primary care, and little is known about how to increase UDT ordering or the impact of increased testing on rates of aberrant results. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates and results of UDTs for COT patients before versus after implementation of an opioid risk reduction initiative in a large healthcare system. DESIGN: Pre-post observational study. PATIENTS: Group Health patients on COT October 2008-September 2009 (N = 4,821), October 2009-September 2010 (N = 5,081), and October 2010-September 2011 (N = 5,498). INTERVENTION: Multi-faceted opioid risk reduction initiative. MAIN MEASURES: Annual rates of UDTs and UDT results. KEY RESULTS: Half of COT patients received at least one UDT in the year after the initiative was implemented, compared to only 7 % 2 years prior. The adjusted odds of COT patients having at least one UDT in the first year of the opioid initiative were almost 16 times (adjusted OR = 15.79; 95 % CI: 13.96-17.87) those 2 years prior. The annual rate of UDT detection of marijuana and illicit drugs did not change (12.6 % after initiative implementation), and largely reflected marijuana use (detected in 11.1 % of all UDTs in the year after initiative implementation). In the year after initiative implementation, 10.7 % of UDTs were negative for opioids. CONCLUSIONS: The initiative appeared to dramatically increase urine drug testing of COT patients in the healthcare system without impacting rates of aberrant results. The large majority of aberrant results reflected marijuana use or absence of opioids in the urine. The utility of increased urine drug testing for COT patient safety and prevention of diversion remains uncertain.

Chronic opioid therapy urine drug testing in primary care: prevalence and predictors of aberrant results.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug tests (UDTs) are recommended for patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT). Knowledge of the risk factors for aberrant UDT results could help optimize their use. OBJECTIVE: To identify primary care COT patient and opioid regimen characteristics associated with aberrant UDT results. DESIGN: Population-based observational. SAMPLE: 5,420 UDTs for Group Health integrated group practice COT patients. MEASURES: Group Health database measures of patient demographics, medical history, COT characteristics, and UDT results. RESULTS: Thirty percent of UDTs had aberrant results, including prescribed opioid non-detection (12.3%), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; 11.2%), non-prescribed opioid (5.3%), illicit drug (excluding THC; 0.6%), non-prescribed benzodiazepine (1.7%), and dilute (4.8%). Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) of any aberrant result were higher for males than females (1.24 [1.07, 1.43]), patients with versus without prior substance use disorder diagnoses (1.42 [1.17, 1.72]), and current smokers versus non-smokers (1.50 [1.30, 1.73]). Odds ratios were lower for patients aged 45-64 (0.77 [0.65, 0.92]) and 65+ (0.40 [0.32, 0.50]) versus patients aged 20-44 and for patients on long-acting opioids only (0.72 [0.55, 0.95]) or long-acting plus short-acting (0.67 [0.54, 0.83]) versus short-acting only. Adjusted odds of prescribed opioid non-detection were lower for patients aged 45-64 (0.79 [0.63, 0.998]) and 65+ (0.44 [0.32, 0.59]) versus patients aged 20-44, for those on 40-<120 mg daily morphine-equivalent dose (0.52 [0.39, 0.70]) or 120+ mg (0.22 [0.11, 0.43]) versus <40 mg, and for patients on long-acting (0.35 [0.21, 0.57]) or long-acting plus short-acting (0.35 [0.24, 0.50]) opioids (versus short-acting only); and odds ratios were higher for patients with versus without prior diagnoses of substance use disorder (1.70 [1.31, 2.20]). CONCLUSIONS: In this primary care setting, results were aberrant for 30% of UDTs of COT patients, largely because of prescribed opioid non-detection and THC. Aberrant results of almost all types were more likely among patients under the age of 45. Other risk factors varied across aberrancies, but commonly included current smoking and prior substance use disorder diagnosis.

Back pain in seniors: the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) cohort baseline data.

BACKGROUND: Back pain represents a substantial burden globally, ranking first in a recent assessment among causes of years lived with disability. Though back pain is widely studied among working age adults, there are gaps with respect to basic descriptive epidemiology among seniors, especially in the United States. Our goal was to describe how pain, function and health-related quality of life vary by demographic and geographic factors among seniors presenting to primary care providers with new episodes of care for back pain. METHODS: We examined baseline data from the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) registry, the largest inception cohort to date of seniors presenting to a primary care provider for back pain. The sample included 5,239 patients ≥ 65 years old with a new primary care visit for back pain at three integrated health systems (Northern California Kaiser-Permanente, Henry Ford Health System [Detroit], and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates [Boston]). We examined differences in patient characteristics across healthcare sites and associations of patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with baseline patient-reported measures of pain, function, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Patients differed across sites in demographic and other characteristics. The Detroit site had more African-American patients (50%) compared with the other sites (7-8%). The Boston site had more college graduates (68%) compared with Detroit (20%). Female sex, lower educational status, African-American race, and older age were associated with worse functional disability as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Except for age, these factors were also associated with worse pain. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline pain and functional impairment varied substantially with a number of factors in the BOLD cohort. Healthcare site was an important factor. After controlling for healthcare site, lower education, female sex, African-American race, and older age were associated with worse physical disability and all of these factors except age were associated with worse pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01776242; Registration date: June 13, 2012.

Cognitive interviews guide design of a new CAM patient expectations questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: No consistent relationship exists between pre-treatment expectations and therapeutic benefit from various complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in clinical trials. However, many different expectancy measures have been used in those studies, with no validated questionnaires clearly focused on CAM and pain. We undertook cognitive interviews as part of a process to develop and validate such a questionnaire. METHODS: We reviewed questions about expectations of benefits of acupuncture, chiropractic, massage, or yoga for pain. Components of the questions - verbs, nouns, response options, terms and phrases describing back pain - were identified. Using seven different cognitive interview scripts, we conducted 39 interviews to evaluate how individuals with chronic low back pain understood these individual components in the context of expectancy questions for a therapy they had not yet received. Chosen items were those with the greatest agreement and least confusion among participants, and were closest to the meanings intended by the investigators. RESULTS: The questionnaire drafted for psychometric evaluation had 18 items covering various domains of expectancy. "Back pain" was the most consistently interpreted descriptor for this condition. The most understandable response options were 0-10 scales, a structure used throughout the questionnaire, with 0 always indicating no change, and 10 anchored with an absolute descriptor such as "complete relief". The use of words to describe midpoints was found to be confusing. The word "expect" held different and shifting meanings for participants. Thus paired items comparing "hope" and "realistically expect" were chosen to evaluate 5 different aspects of treatment expectations (back pain; back dysfunction and global effects; impact of back pain on specific areas of life; sleep, mood, and energy; coping). "Impact of back pain" on various areas of life was found to be a consistently meaningful concept, and more global than "interference". CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive interviews identified wordings with considerable agreement among both participants and investigators. Some items widely used in clinical studies had different meanings to participants than investigators, or were confusing to participants. The final 18-item questionnaire is undergoing psychometric evaluation with goals of streamlining as well as identifying best items for use when questionnaire length is constrained.

New perspectives on patient expectations of treatment outcomes: results from qualitative interviews with patients seeking complementary and alternative medicine treatments for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Positive patient expectations are often believed to be associated with greater benefits from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. However, clinical studies of CAM treatments for chronic pain have not consistently supported this assumption, possibly because of differences in definitions and measures of expectations. The goal of this qualitative paper is to provide new perspectives on the outcome expectations of patients prior to receiving CAM therapies for chronic low back pain. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 64 individuals receiving massage, chiropractic, acupuncture or yoga for chronic low back pain. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed by a team of experienced qualitative researchers using an immersion/crystallization approach to coding and analysis. RESULTS: Overall, participants' expectations of treatment outcomes tended to cluster in four key domains: pain relief, improved function (including an increase in ability to engage in meaningful activities), improved physical fitness, and improved overall well-being (including mental well-being). Typically, patients had modest expectations for outcomes from treatment. Furthermore, outcome expectations were complex on several levels. First, the concept of expectations overlapped with several related concepts; in particular, hopes. Participants sometimes used expectations and hopes interchangeably and at other times made clear distinctions between these two terms depending on context. A related finding was that participants were cautious about stating that they expected positive outcomes. Finally, participants articulated strong interrelationships among the four key domains and often discussed how changes in one domain might affect other domains. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings contribute to a growing body of literature exploring the role of expectations in patient outcomes. This paper provides important guidance that may help refine the way treatment expectations are studied in the future. In particular, participants' statements indicate that standardized measures of patient expectations should include items that capture hesitancy to articulate overly optimistic outcomes as well as interrelationships among different outcomes.