Toward the Identification of Distinct Phenotypes: Research Protocol for the Low Back Pain Biological, Biomechanical, and Behavioral (LB3P) Cohort Study and the BACPAC Mechanistic Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh.

As a member of the Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC), the University of Pittsburgh Mechanistic Research Center's research goal is to phenotype chronic low back pain using biological, biomechanical, and behavioral domains using a prospective, observational cohort study. Data will be collected from 1,000 participants with chronic low back pain according to BACPAC-wide harmonized and study-specific protocols. Participation lasts 12 months with one required in person baseline visit, an optional second in person visit for advanced biomechanical assessment, and electronic follow ups at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12 to assess low back pain status and response to prescribed treatments. Behavioral data analysis includes a battery of patient-reported outcomes, social determinants of health, quantitative sensory testing, and physical activity. Biological data analysis includes omics generated from blood, saliva, and spine tissue. Biomechanical data analysis includes a physical examination, lumbopelvic kinematics, and intervertebral kinematics. The statistical analysis includes traditional unsupervised machine learning approaches to categorize participants into groups and determine the variables that differentiate patients. Additional analysis includes the creation of a series of decision rules based on baseline measures and treatment pathways as inputs to predict clinical outcomes. The characteristics identified will contribute to future studies to assist clinicians in designing a personalized, optimal treatment approach for each patient.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Incidence of High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Primary Care Patients with Acute Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether race or ethnicity was associated with the incidence of high-impact chronic low back pain (cLBP) among adults consulting a primary care provider for acute low back pain (aLBP). METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, patients with aLBP were identified through screening at seventy-seven primary care practices from four geographic regions. Incidence of high-impact cLBP was defined as the subset of patients with cLBP and at least moderate disability on Oswestry Disability Index [ODI >30]) at 6 months. General linear mixed models provided adjusted estimates of association between race/ethnicity and high-impact cLBP. RESULTS: We identified 9,088 patients with aLBP (81.3% White; 14.3% Black; 4.4% Hispanic). Black/Hispanic patients compared to White patients, were younger and more likely to be female, obese, have Medicaid insurance, worse disability on ODI, and were at higher risk of persistent disability on STarT Back Tool (all P < .0001). At 6 months, more Black and Hispanic patients reported high-impact cLBP (30% and 25%, respectively) compared to White patients (15%, P < .0001, n = 5,035). After adjusting for measured differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors, compared to White patients, the increased odds of high-impact cLBP remained statistically significant for Black but not Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ration [aOR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.87 and aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.83-1.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased incidence of high-impact cLBP among Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients. This disparity was partly explained by racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic and back-related risk factors. Interventions that target these factors to reduce pain-related disparities should be evaluated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02647658.

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.

Which Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Respond Favorably to Yoga, Physical Therapy, and a Self-care Book? Responder Analyses from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To identify baseline characteristics of adults with chronic low back pain (cLBP) that predict response (i.e., a clinically important improvement) and/or modify treatment effect across three nonpharmacologic interventions. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic safety net hospital and seven federally qualified community health centers. SUBJECTS: Adults with cLBP (N = 299). METHODS: We report patient characteristics that were predictors of response and/or modified treatment effect across three 12-week treatments: yoga, physical therapy [PT], and a self-care book. Using preselected characteristics, we used logistic regression to identify predictors of "response," defined as a ≥30% improvement in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Then, using "response" as our outcome, we identified baseline characteristics that were treatment effect modifiers by testing for statistical interaction (P < 0.05) across two comparisons: 1) yoga-or-PT vs self-care and 2) yoga vs PT. RESULTS: Overall, 39% (116/299) of participants were responders, with more responders in the yoga-or-PT group (42%) than the self-care (23%) group. There was no difference in proportion responding to yoga (48%) vs PT (37%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.88 - 2.6). Predictors of response included having more than a high school education, a higher income, employment, few depressive symptoms, lower perceived stress, few work-related fear avoidance beliefs, high pain self-efficacy, and being a nonsmoker. Effect modifiers included use of pain medication and fear avoidance beliefs related to physical activity (both P = 0.02 for interaction). When comparing yoga or PT with self-care, a greater proportion were responders among those using pain meds (OR = 5.3), which differed from those not taking pain meds (OR = 0.94) at baseline. We also found greater treatment response among those with lower (OR = 7.0), but not high (OR = 1.3), fear avoidance beliefs around physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed important subgroups for whom referral to yoga or PT may improve cLBP outcomes.

Resolving the Burden of Low Back Pain in Military Service Members and Veterans (RESOLVE): Protocol for a Multisite Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapy (PT) is frequently used for the management of low back pain (LBP) within the US Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA). However, variations in PT practice patterns and use of ineffective interventions lower the quality and increase the cost of care. Although adherence to the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can improve the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of LBP care, PT CPG adherence remains below 50%. The Resolving the Burden of Low Back Pain in Military Service Members and Veterans (RESOLVE) trial will evaluate the effectiveness of an active PT CPG implementation strategy using an education, audit, and feedback model for reducing pain, disability, medication use, and cost of LBP care within the DOD and VA health care systems. DESIGN: The RESOLVE trial will include 3,300 to 7,260 patients with LBP across three DOD and two VA medical facilities using a stepped-wedge study design. An education, audit, and feedback model will be used to encourage physical therapists to better adhere to the PT CPG recommendations. The Oswestry Disability Index and the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale will be used as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include the LBP-related medication use, medical resource utilization, and biopsychosocial predictors of outcomes. Statistical analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle and will use linear mixed models to compare treatment conditions and examine the interactions between treatment and subgrouping status (e.g., limb loss). SUMMARY: The RESOLVE trial will provide a pragmatic approach to evaluate whether better adherence to PT CPGs can reduce pain, disability, medication use, and LBP care cost within the DOD and VA health care systems.

Implementing stratified care for acute low back pain in primary care using the STarT Back instrument: a process evaluation within the context of a large pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Although risk-stratifying patients with acute lower back pain is a promising approach for improving long-term outcomes, efforts to implement stratified care in the US healthcare system have had limited success. The objectives of this process evaluation were to 1) examine variation in two essential processes, risk stratification of patients with low back pain and referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy and 2) identify barriers and facilitators related to the risk stratification and referral processes. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed methods study design to evaluate implementation of stratified care at 33 primary care clinics (17 intervention, 16 control) participating in a larger pragmatic trial. We used electronic health record data to calculate: 1) clinic-level risk stratification rates (proportion of patients with back pain seen in the clinic over the study period who completed risk stratification questionnaires), 2) rates of risk stratification across different points in the clinical workflow (front desk, rooming, and time with clinician), and 3) rates of referral of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy among intervention clinics. We purposively sampled 13 clinics for onsite observations, which occurred in month 24 of the 26-month study. RESULTS: The overall risk stratification rate across the 33 clinics was 37.8% (range: 14.7-64.7%). Rates were highest when patients were identified as having back pain by front desk staff (overall: 91.9%, range: 80.6-100%). Rates decreased as the patient moved further into the visit (rooming, 29.3% [range: 0-83.3%]; and time with clinician, 11.3% [range: 0-49.3%]. The overall rate of referrals of high-risk patients to psychologically informed physical therapy across the 17 intervention clinics was 42.1% (range: 8.3-70.8%). Barriers included staffs' knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, patients' needs, technology issues, lack of physician engagement, and lack of time. Adaptability of the processes was a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to key stratified care processes varied across primary care clinics and across points in the workflow. The observed variation suggests room for improvement. Future research is needed to build on this work and more rigorously test strategies for implementing stratified care for patients with low back pain in the US healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02647658 ). Registered January 6, 2016.

Reducing sedentary behaviour to decrease chronic low back pain: the stand back randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Stand Back study evaluated the feasibility and effects of a multicomponent intervention targeting reduced prolonged sitting and pain self-management in desk workers with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This randomised controlled trial recruited 27 individuals with chronic LBP, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) >10% and desk jobs (sitting ≥20 hours/week). Participants were randomised within strata of ODI (>10%-<20%, ≥20%) to receive bimonthly behavioural counselling (in-person and telephone), a sit-stand desk attachment, a wrist-worn activity-prompting device and cognitive behavioural therapy for LBP self-management or control. Self-reported work sitting time, visual analogue scales (VAS) for LBP and the ODI were assessed by monthly, online questionnaires and compared across intervention groups using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Baseline mean (SD) age was 52 (11) years, 78% were women, and ODI was 24.1 (10.5)%. Across the 6-month follow-up in models adjusted for baseline value, work sitting time was 1.5 hour/day (P<0.001) lower comparing intervention to controls. Also across follow-up, ODI was on average 8 points lower in intervention versus control (P=0.001). At 6 months, the relative decrease in ODI from baseline was 50% in intervention and 14% in control (P=0.042). LBP from VAS was not significantly reduced in intervention versus control, though small-to-moderate effect sizes favouring the intervention were observed (Cohen's d ranged from 0.22 to 0.42). CONCLUSION: An intervention coupling behavioural counselling targeting reduced sedentary behaviour and pain self-management is a translatable treatment strategy that shows promise for treating chronic LBP in desk-bound employees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0224687; Pre-results.

Yoga, Physical Therapy, or Education for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Yoga is effective for mild to moderate chronic low back pain (cLBP), but its comparative effectiveness with physical therapy (PT) is unknown. Moreover, little is known about yoga's effectiveness in underserved patients with more severe functional disability and pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether yoga is noninferior to PT for cLBP. DESIGN: 12-week, single-blind, 3-group randomized noninferiority trial and subsequent 40-week maintenance phase. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01343927). SETTING: Academic safety-net hospital and 7 affiliated community health centers. PARTICIPANTS: 320 predominantly low-income, racially diverse adults with nonspecific cLBP. INTERVENTION: Participants received 12 weekly yoga classes, 15 PT visits, or an educational book and newsletters. The maintenance phase compared yoga drop-in classes versus home practice and PT booster sessions versus home practice. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were back-related function, measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and pain, measured by an 11-point scale, at 12 weeks. Prespecified noninferiority margins were 1.5 (RMDQ) and 1.0 (pain). Secondary outcomes included pain medication use, global improvement, satisfaction with intervention, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: One-sided 95% lower confidence limits were 0.83 (RMDQ) and 0.97 (pain), demonstrating noninferiority of yoga to PT. However, yoga was not superior to education for either outcome. Yoga and PT were similar for most secondary outcomes. Yoga and PT participants were 21 and 22 percentage points less likely, respectively, than education participants to use pain medication at 12 weeks. Improvements in yoga and PT groups were maintained at 1 year with no differences between maintenance strategies. Frequency of adverse events, mostly mild self-limited joint and back pain, did not differ between the yoga and PT groups. LIMITATIONS: Participants were not blinded to treatment assignment. The PT group had disproportionate loss to follow-up. CONCLUSION: A manualized yoga program for nonspecific cLBP was noninferior to PT for function and pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health of the National Institutes of Health.

Factors Associated With Ambulatory Activity in De Novo Parkinson Disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Objective ambulatory activity during daily living has not been characterized for people with Parkinson disease prior to initiation of dopaminergic medication. Our goal was to characterize ambulatory activity based on average daily step count and examine determinants of step count in nonexercising people with de novo Parkinson disease. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from a randomized controlled trial, which excluded people performing regular endurance exercise. Of 128 eligible participants (mean ± SD = 64.3 ± 8.6 years), 113 had complete accelerometer data, which were used to determine daily step count. Multiple linear regression was used to identify factors associated with average daily step count over 10 days. Candidate explanatory variable categories were (1) demographics/anthropometrics, (2) Parkinson disease characteristics, (3) motor symptom severity, (4) nonmotor and behavioral characteristics, (5) comorbidities, and (6) cardiorespiratory fitness. RESULTS: Average daily step count was 5362 ± 2890 steps per day. Five factors explained 24% of daily step count variability, with higher step count associated with higher cardiorespiratory fitness (10%), no fear/worry of falling (5%), lower motor severity examination score (4%), more recent time since Parkinson disease diagnosis (3%), and the presence of a cardiovascular condition (2%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Daily step count in nonexercising people recruited for this intervention trial with de novo Parkinson disease approached sedentary lifestyle levels. Further study is warranted for elucidating factors explaining ambulatory activity, particularly cardiorespiratory fitness, and fear/worry of falling. Clinicians should consider the costs and benefits of exercise and activity behavior interventions immediately after diagnosis of Parkinson disease to attenuate the health consequences of low daily step count.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A170).

Frailty as Tested by Gait Speed is an Independent Risk Factor for Cirrhosis Complications that Require Hospitalization.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty is a known risk factor for major life-threatening liver transplant complications, deaths, and waitlist attrition. Whether frailty indicates risk for adverse outcomes in cirrhosis short of lethality is not well defined. We hypothesized that clinical measurements of frailty using gait speed and grip strength would indicate the risk of subsequent hospitalization for the complications of cirrhosis. METHODS: We assessed frailty as gait speed and grip strength in a 1-year prospective study of 373 cirrhotic patients evaluated for or awaiting liver transplantation. We determined its association with the outcome of subsequent hospital days/100 days at risk for 7 major complications of cirrhosis. We tested potential covariate influences of Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) scores, age, sex, height, depression, narcotic use, vitamin D deficiency, and hepatocellular carcinoma using multivariable modeling. RESULTS: Patients experienced 2.14 hospital days/100 days at risk, or 7.81 days/year. Frailty measured by gait speed was a strong risk factor for hospitalization for all cirrhosis complications. Each 0.1 m/s gait speed decrease was associated with 22% greater hospital days (P<0.001). Grip strength showed a similar but nonsignificant association. Gait speed remained independently significant when adjusted for MELD, CTP, and other covariates. At hospital costs of $4,000/day, patients with normal 1 m/s gait speed spent 6.2 days and $24,800/year; patients with 0.5 m/s speed spent 21.2 days and $84,800/year; and patients with 0.25 m/s speed spent 40.2 days and $160,800/year. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty as measured by gait speed is an independent and potentially modifiable risk factor for cirrhosis complications requiring hospitalization. The potential clinical value of frailty measurements to help define such risk merits broader evaluation.

The gap between clinically assessed physical performance and objective physical activity in liver transplant candidates.

Frailty with sarcopenia in cirrhosis causes liver transplant wait-list attrition and deaths. Regular physical activity is needed to protect patients with cirrhosis from frailty. We subjectively assess physical performance in selecting patients for transplant listing, but we do not know whether clinical assessments reflect the extent of activity patients actually perform. To investigate this question, 53 wait-listed patients self-assessed their performance of ordinary physical tasks using the Rosow-Breslau survey, and clinicians assessed their physical performance status with the Karnofsky index. We compared these assessments with actual activity measured using an accelerometer/thermal sensing armband worn from 4 to 7 days. We found that their measured activity was among the lowest reported in chronic disease, similar to that of patients with advanced chronic pulmonary disease or renal failure. Their percentages of waking hours spent in sedentary, light, and moderate-vigorous activity were 75.9% ± 18.9%, 18.9% ± 14.3%, and 4.9% ± 6.9%, respectively. Higher mean sedentary and lower mean moderate-vigorous activity was significantly associated with 9 wait-list deaths (P = 0.004). Compared with a range of 7000-13,000 steps/day in healthy adults, patients' mean steps/day were 3164 ± 2842. Both their activity percentage and step data were typical of other severely inactive populations. Neither their Rosow-Breslau scores (mean 2.3 ± 0.8, maximum 3.0) nor their Karnofsky scores (mean 79 ± 12, maximum 100) suggested major impairment or showed a correlation with patients' actual physical performance. In conclusion, physical activity in patients with cirrhosis wait-listed for transplantation is highly sedentary. Self-assessments and provider assessments of physical activity do not reliably indicate actual performance. Whether the gap between assessed and actual performance may be favorably modified by interventions to improve activity and ameliorate frailty merits further study. Liver Transplantation 22 1324-1332 2016 AASLD.

A Quality Improvement Project in Balance and Vestibular Rehabilitation and Its Effect on Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Unwarranted variation in practice is among the principal contributors of suboptimal outcomes in health care. This variation can be minimized via quality improvement initiatives. However, quality improvement projects focus mostly on assessing processes, and less attention is given to the effect of the variation on clinical outcomes. An effective implementation of a clinical treatment algorithm (CTA) could improve care for individuals with balance and vestibular disorders. The first aim of this quality improvement project was to examine adherence to a CTA developed by physical therapists who treat persons with balance and vestibular disorders. The second aim was to examine the effect of adherence on patient outcomes. METHODS: Twenty-three physical therapists who provided rehabilitation for individuals with balance and vestibular disorders participated in the quality improvement project. All physical therapists worked for the same health care provider, and developed the minimum data set and CTA. The physical therapists were cluster randomized into 2 groups; both groups received educational training and reminders regarding adherence to the CTA. The first group received the training and reminders after an 8-week baseline period (initial group), and the second group (delayed group) after a 12-week baseline period. The prescribed interventions were classified as being adherent or nonadherent to the CTA. Clinical outcomes, including the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale, Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), and the Global Rating of Change (GRC), were recorded at the initial evaluation and discharge for 454 individual with balance or vestibular disorders. RESULTS: Across the 16-week project, adherence rates improved significantly by 9% and 12% for the initial and delayed groups, respectively (P = 0.008), but there was no difference between groups related to the timing of the educational training and adherence reminders. Clinical outcomes improved for individuals, with balance or vestibular disorders but there was no differences in the change in ABC, DHI, and GRC scores based on whether the interventions were or were not adherent to the CTA. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement project was effective in increasing the adherence to the CTA in both groups. Although on average individuals with balance and vestibular disorders showed improvement on the clinical outcomes, there was no additional benefit in the clinical outcome for adherent interventions.Video abstract is available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A125).

Surgery versus nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary care management decisions for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are challenging, and nonsurgical guidance is limited by lack of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical decompression with physical therapy (PT) for LSS and evaluate sex differences. DESIGN: Multisite randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00022776). SETTING: Neurologic and orthopedic surgery departments and PT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Surgical candidates with LSS aged 50 years or older who consented to surgery. INTERVENTION: Surgical decompression or PT. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was physical function score on the Short Form-36 Health Survey at 2 years assessed by masked testers. RESULTS: The study took place from November 2000 to September 2007. A total of 169 participants were randomly assigned and stratified by surgeon and sex (87 to surgery and 82 to PT), with 24-month follow-up completed by 74 and 73 participants in the surgery and PT groups, respectively. Mean improvement in physical function for the surgery and PT groups was 22.4 (95% CI, 16.9 to 27.9) and 19.2 (CI, 13.6 to 24.8), respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed no difference between groups (24-month difference, 0.9 [CI, -7.9 to 9.6]). Sensitivity analyses using causal-effects methods to account for the high proportion of crossovers from PT to surgery (57%) showed no significant differences in physical function between groups. LIMITATION: Without a control group, it is not possible to judge success attributable to either intervention. CONCLUSION: Surgical decompression yielded similar effects to a PT regimen among patients with LSS who were surgical candidates. Patients and health care providers should engage in shared decision-making conversations that include full disclosure of evidence involving surgical and nonsurgical treatments for LSS. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. DESIGN: Expert panel and preliminary evaluation of key recommendations. METHODS: The NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting. RESULTS: The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. CONCLUSION: The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement. PERSPECTIVE: A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Focus article: report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain.

UNLABELLED: Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement. PERSPECTIVE: A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the National Institutes of Health task force on research standards for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed nonspecific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The purpose of this article is to disseminate the report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) task force on research standards for cLBP. METHODS: The NIH Pain Consortium charged a research task force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting. RESULTS: The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved these recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. CONCLUSIONS: The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of cLBP. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

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.

A Cluster Analysis of Initial Primary Care Orders for Patients with Acute Low Back Pain.

PURPOSE: Primary care physicians (PCPs) often face a complex intersection of patient expectations, evidence, and policy that influences their care recommendations for acute low back pain (aLBP). The purpose of this study was to elucidate patterns of PCP orders for patients with aLBP, identify the most common patterns, and describe patient clinical and demographic characteristics associated with patterns of aLBP care. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 9574 aLBP patients presenting to 1 of 77 primary care practices in 4 geographic locations in the United States. We performed a cluster analysis of PCP orders extracted from electronic health records within the first 21 days of an initial visit for aLBP. RESULTS: 1401 (15%) patients did not receive a PCP order related to back pain within the first 21 days of their initial visit. These patients predominantly had aLBP without leg pain, less back-related disability, and were at low-risk for persistent disability. Of the remaining 8146 patients, we found 4 distinct order patterns: combined nonpharmacologic and first-line medication (44%); second-line medication (39%); imaging (10%); and specialty referral (7%). Among all patients, 29% received solely 1 order from their PCP. PCPs more often combined different guideline concordant and discordant orders. Patients with higher self-reported disability and psychological distress were more likely to receive guideline discordant care. CONCLUSION: Guideline discordant orders such as steroids and NSAIDS are often combined with guideline recommended orders such as physical therapy. Further defining patient, clinician, and health care setting characteristics associated with discordant care would inform targeted efforts for deimplementation initiatives.

Beyond Discharge Disposition: A Scoping Review on Sociodemographic Disparities in Rehabilitation Use after Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this scoping review were to summarize the evidence regarding sex, racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic disparities in post-acute rehabilitation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PEDro. Studies were included if they were original research articles published 1993 or later; used data from the US; included patients after THA and/or TKA; presented results according to relevant sociodemographic variables, including sex, race, ethnicity, geography, or socioeconomic status; and studied utilization of post-acute rehabilitation as an outcome. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Five examined disparities in inpatient rehabilitation and found that Black patients and women experience longer lengths of stay after arthroplasty, and women are less likely than men to be discharged home after inpatient THA rehabilitation. Four studies examined data from skilled nursing facilities and found that insurance type and dual eligibility impact length of stay and rates of community discharge but found conflicting results regarding racial disparities in skilled nursing facility utilization after TKA. Five studies examined home health data and noted that rural agencies provide less care after TKA. Results regarding racial disparities in home health utilization after arthroplasty were conflicting. Six studies of outpatient rehabilitation noted geographic differences in timing of outpatient rehabilitation but mixed results regarding race differences in outpatient rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates that sex, race, ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status are associated with disparities in post-acute rehabilitation use after arthroplasty. IMPACT: Rehabilitation providers across the post-acute continuum should be aware of disparities in the population of patients after arthroplasty and regularly assess social determinants of health and other factors that may contribute to disparities. Customized care plans should ensure optimal timing and amount of rehabilitation is provided, and advocate for patients who need additional care to achieve the desired functional outcome.

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.