Development of a low back pain care pathway in an academic hospital system: results of a consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant component of healthcare expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been highlighted as a key resource to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to develop a clinical pathway for LBP based on CPGs in an academic health system. METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi study of clinicians caring for patients with LBP who were asked to rate 21 CPG-informed seed statements through an online survey. The goal was to identify statements that achieved a minimum of 80% consensus among panelists. RESULTS: Thirty-five healthcare providers participated as panelists. The majority of participants were male (68.6%), had MD or DO (62.9%) degrees, and were clinicians (73.8%) working in neurosurgery (36.1%), orthopedics (25.7%), emergency medicine (14.3%), or physical therapy (11.4%). Initially, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 seed statements. One statement did not reach consensus in the initial round and was revised into two separate statements based on feedback from panelists. One of these statements achieved consensus in the second review round. All statements reaching consensus were incorporated into a care pathway consisting of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for LBP. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers across various disciplines supported statements interpreting current CPGs related to care for LBP. This study represents a step toward supporting guideline-concordant care for LBP. Additional research is needed to assess how such pathways impact actual clinical care.

Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS. METHODS: Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

Differentiating rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis: a systematic analysis of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging features-preliminary findings.

BACKGROUND: Because of overlapping phenotypical presentations, the diagnostic differentiation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remains challenging. Thus, this study aimed to examine the diagnostic value of distinct imaging features obtained by high-resolution 3-T MRI for the diagnostic differentiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with PsA and 28 patients with RA were imaged at high resolution using 3-T MRI scanners and a dedicated 16-channel hand coil. All images were analyzed according to the outcome measures in rheumatology clinical trials' (OMERACT) RAMRIS (Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score) and PsAMRIS (Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score) for the presence and intensity of synovitis, flexor tenosynovitis, bone edema, bone erosion, periarticular inflammation, bone proliferation, and joint space narrowing. Next, odds ratios (OR) were calculated to determine the strength of the associations between these imaging features, demographic characteristics, and the outcome RA vs. PsA. RESULTS: PsA could be differentiated from RA by extracapsular inflammatory changes (PsAMRIS sub-score "periarticular inflammation"), with low odds for the presence of RA (OR of 0.06, p < 0.01) at all metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints. A prediction model informed by the items that were strongest associated with the presence of RA or PsA demonstrated excellent differentiating capability with an area under the curve of 98.1%. CONCLUSION: High-resolution imaging is beneficial for the identification of relevant imaging features that may assist the clinical differentiation of inflammatory conditions of the hand. At the MCP level, extracapsular inflammatory changes were strongly associated with PsA and may consequently allow the imaging differentiation of PsA and RA.

Chiropractic Services and Diagnoses for Low Back Pain in 3 U.S. Department of Defense Military Treatment Facilities: A Secondary Analysis of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the diagnoses and chiropractic services performed by doctors of chiropractic operating within 3 military treatment facilities for patients with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a descriptive secondary analysis of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) plus chiropractic care to UMC alone for U.S. active-duty military personnel with LBP. Participants who were allocated to receive UMC plus 6 weeks of chiropractic care and who attended at least 1 chiropractic visit (n = 350; 1547 unique visits) were included in this analysis. International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes were transcribed from chiropractic treatment paper forms. The number of participants receiving each diagnosis and service and the number of each service on unique visits was tabulated. Low back pain and co-occurring diagnoses were grouped into neuropathic, nociceptive, bone and/or joint, general pain, and nonallopathic lesions categories. Services were categorized as evaluation, active interventions, and passive interventions. RESULTS: The most reported pain diagnoses were lumbalgia (66.1%) and thoracic pain (6.6%). Most reported neuropathic pain diagnoses were sciatica (4.9%) and lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis (2.9%). For the nociceptive pain, low back sprain and/or strain (15.8%) and lumbar facet syndrome (9.2%) were most common. Most reported diagnoses in the bone and/or joint category were intervertebral disc degeneration (8.6%) and spondylosis (6.0%). Tobacco use disorder (5.7%) was the most common in the other category. Chiropractic care was compromised of passive interventions (94%), with spinal manipulative therapy being the most common, active interventions (77%), with therapeutic exercise being most common, and a combination of passive and active interventions (72%). CONCLUSION: For the sample in this study, doctors of chiropractic within 3 military treatment facilities diagnosed, managed, and provided clinical evaluations for a range of LBP conditions. Although spinal manipulation was the most commonly used modality, chiropractic care included a multimodal approach, comprising of both active and passive interventions a majority of the time.

Introduction of a Simplified Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (sPsAMRIS): A Potential Tool for Treatment Monitoring in Peripheral Psoriatic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether a simplified (s) version of the psoriatic arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score (PsAMRIS), sPsAMRIS, is a potential tool for therapy monitoring in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Seventeen patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 T of the clinically dominant hand at baseline and after 6 months. Scoring was performed by two musculoskeletal radiologists in terms of the PsAMRIS and sPsAMRIS, which is a simplified version with reduced item numbers based on prior evaluation of responsiveness to change by standardized response means (SRMs). Both scores were compared by calculation of overall and each sub-score's SRMs and relative efficacy (RE) after bootstrapping. RESULTS: PsAMRIS sub-scores of MCP joints 3 and 4, and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint 4 had the highest SRM (-0.07 each), indicating highest responsiveness to change, and were, therefore, included in sPsAMRIS. Compared to PsAMRIS, sPsAMRIS was characterized by higher SRMs (sPsAMRIS: -0.13 vs. PsAMRIS: -0.02) and higher RE (29.46). sPsAMRIS and PsAMRIS were highly correlated at baseline (r = 0.75, p < 0.01 (Pearson's correlation)) and at 6-month follow-up (r = 0.64, p = 0.01). Mean time burden for completion of scoring per MRI study was significantly reduced when using PsAMRIS (469 ± 87.03 s) as compared to sPsAMRIS (140.1 ± 21.25 s) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Due to its similar responsiveness to change compared to standard PsAMRIS, and time efficiency, sPsAMRIS might be a potential diagnostic tool to quantitatively assess and monitor therapy in PsA.

Differential Outcomes With Edetate Disodium-Based Treatment Among Stable Post Anterior vs. Non-Anterior Myocardial Infarction Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) found that chelation therapy significantly reduced clinical events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI). The initial report of TACT included the observation of an interaction between edetate disodium infusions and MI location, as well as diabetes. Thus, we examined in greater detail the effect of edetate disodium chelation therapy as a function of MI location and diabetes. METHODS: Patients (n = 1708) at least 6 weeks post-MI and age ≥ 50 were randomized to receive 40 infusions of a 500 mL chelation solution or placebo (median follow-up 55 months). The effect of edetate disodium on the primary outcome (all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, hospitalization for angina, or coronary revascularization) was assessed as a function of MI location using log-rank test and Cox regression model, adjusting for other prognostic variables. RESULTS: Among patients with post anterior MI (n = 674), chelation was associated with a lower risk of the primary endpoint (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, p = 0.003) among anterior MI patients, but not in post non-anterior MI (n = 1034) patients (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.20, p = 0.702) (p-for-interaction = 0.032). The point estimates for each component of the primary endpoint favored chelation therapy. The differing treatment effect in patients with post anterior vs. non-anterior MI was consistent among patients with or without diabetes and remained significant after adjusting for other prognostic variables (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Edetate disodium infusions reduced the risk of cardiovascular events among patients with a prior anterior MI. Future studies should focus on replicating these results and understanding the mechanisms of benefit.

Opioid Use Among Veterans of Recent Wars Receiving Veterans Affairs Chiropractic Care.

Objective: To examine patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with opioid use among Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) who receive chiropractic care, and to explore the relationship between timing of a chiropractic visit and receipt of an opioid prescription. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data on OEF/OIF/OND veterans who had at least one visit to a Veterans Affairs (VA) chiropractic clinic between 2004 and 2014. Opioid receipt was defined as at least one prescription within a window of 90 days before to 90 days after the index chiropractic clinic visit. Results: We identified 14,025 OEF/OIF/OND veterans with at least one chiropractic visit, and 4,396 (31.3%) of them also received one or more opioid prescriptions. Moderate/severe pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.72-2.03), PTSD (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.41-1.69), depression (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.29-1.53), and current smoking (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.26-1.52) were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. The percentage of veterans receiving opioid prescriptions was lower in each of the three 30-day time frames assessed after the index chiropractic visit than before. Conclusions: Nearly one-third of OEF/OIF/OND veterans receiving VA chiropractic services also received an opioid prescription, yet the frequency of opioid prescriptions was lower after the index chiropractic visit than before. Further study is warranted to assess the relationship between opioid use and chiropractic care.

Association Among Opioid Use, Treatment Preferences, and Perceptions of Physician Treatment Recommendations in Patients With Neck and Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between self-reported use of opioids by patients with neck and back pain and their demographics, pain characteristics, treatment preferences, and recollections of their physicians' opinions regarding treatment options. METHODS: We analyzed 2017 Gallup Poll survey data from 1680 US adults who had substantial spine pain in the past year and used logistic regression to explore the aforementioned relationships. RESULTS: Our multiple regression analysis indicated that adults with neck or back pain severe enough to have sought health care within the last year were more likely to have used opioids in the last year if they (in descending order of marginal impact) had pain that had lasted 1 year or less (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 34.35, 90% confidence interval [CI] 17.56-74.32); concurrently used benzodiazepines (OR = 6.02, 90% CI 2.95-12.33); had Medicaid as an insurance source (OR = 3.29, 90% CI 1.40-7.48); indicated that they preferred to use pain medications prescribed by a doctor to treat physical pain (OR = 3.24, 90% CI 1.88-5.60); or were not college educated (OR = 1.83, 90% CI 1.05-3.25). Compared with patients aged 65 years and older, those aged 18 to 34 years were less likely to have used opioids in the past year (OR = 0.09, 90% CI 0.01-0.40, 0.50 for 95% CI). Respondents' perceptions of medical doctors' positive or negative opinions regarding a variety of neck and back pain treatment options were not significantly associated with opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with neck and back pain who use opioids differ from those who do not use opioids in that they are more likely to have pain that is of shorter duration, to use benzodiazepines, to have Medicaid as an insurance source, and to prefer to use pain medications. Those characteristics should be considered when developing opioid use prevention strategies.

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Per Capita Supply of Doctors of Chiropractic and Opioid Use in Younger Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the per-capita supply of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) or Medicare spending on chiropractic care was associated with opioid use among younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Using 2011 data, at the hospital referral region level, we correlated the per-capita supply of DCs and spending on chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) with several measures of per-capita opioid use by younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries. RESULTS: Per-capita supply of DCs and spending on CMT were strongly inversely correlated with the percentage of younger Medicare beneficiaries who had at least 1, as well as with 6 or more, opioid prescription fills. Neither measure was correlated with mean daily morphine equivalents per opioid user or per chronic opioid user. CONCLUSIONS: A higher per-capita supply of DCs and Medicare spending on CMT were inversely associated with younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries obtaining an opioid prescription. However, neither measure was associated with opioid dosage among patients who obtained opioid prescriptions.

The Association Between Use of Chiropractic Care and Costs of Care Among Older Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multiple Comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether use of chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) was associated with lower healthcare costs among multiply-comorbid Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of chronic low back pain (cLBP). METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective study of 2006 to 2012 Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements for 72326 multiply-comorbid patients aged 66 and older with cLBP episodes and 1 of 4 treatment exposures: chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) alone, CMT followed or preceded by conventional medical care, or conventional medical care alone. We used propensity score weighting to address selection bias. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, total and per-episode day Part A, Part B, and Part D Medicare reimbursements during the cLBP treatment episode were lowest for patients who used CMT alone; these patients had higher rates of healthcare use for low back pain but lower rates of back surgery in the year following the treatment episode. Expenditures were greatest for patients receiving medical care alone; order was irrelevant when both CMT and medical treatment were provided. Patients who used only CMT had the lowest annual growth rates in almost all Medicare expenditure categories. While patients who used only CMT had the lowest Part A and Part B expenditures per episode day, we found no indication of lower psychiatric or pain medication expenditures associated with CMT. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that older multiply-comorbid patients who used only CMT during their cLBP episodes had lower overall costs of care, shorter episodes, and lower cost of care per episode day than patients in the other treatment groups. Further, costs of care for the episode and per episode day were lower for patients who used a combination of CMT and conventional medical care than for patients who did not use any CMT. These findings support initial CMT use in the treatment of, and possibly broader chiropractic management of, older multiply-comorbid cLBP patients.

Prevalence of radiographic findings in individuals with chronic low back pain screened for a randomized controlled trial: secondary analysis and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to measure the prevalence of graded disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis, transitional segmentation, and the distribution of sacral slope in patients 21 to 65 years of age with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 247 digital lumbar radiographic series obtained during a randomized controlled trial of chiropractic patients with CLBP. Chronic low back pain was defined as pain in the low back lasting 12 weeks or longer. Radiographic findings of disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis, and lumbosacral transitional segmentation were graded by 2 authors using established classification criteria. Sacral slope was measured with a digital tool contained within imaging software. RESULTS: Lumbosacral transitional segments graded I to IV (Castellvi classification) were present in 14% of cases. Lumbar disc degeneration was most prevalent at L3-4 (49%), followed by L4-5 (42%), L2-3 (41%), L5-S1 (37%), and L1-2 (29%). Isthmic spondylolisthesis was present in 5% of cases, with L5 the most common location. Degenerative spondylolisthesis demonstrated a prevalence of 18%, most commonly occurring at L4. The prevalence of degenerative spondylolisthesis was 51% for women aged 50 to 59 years and 24% for men in the same age range. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-severe disc degeneration, multilevel disc narrowing, and degenerative spondylolisthesis were common in individuals with CLBP with age more than 40 years. Isthmic spondylolisthesis was not more prevalent than what has been reported in other populations. Transitional segmentation was identified in a minority of participants, with some of these exhibiting accessory joints or fusion. Mean sacral slope in individuals with CLBP was not substantially different from mean slopes reported in other populations.

The association of complementary and alternative medicine use and health care expenditures for back and neck problems.

BACKGROUND: Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. SUBJECTS: Adults (above 17 y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services. MEASURES: Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1470; P = 0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P = 0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users. CONCLUSIONS: CAM users did not add to the overall medical spending in a nationally representative sample with neck and back problems. As the causal associations remain unclear in these cross-sectional data, future research exploring these cost differences might benefit from research designs that minimize confounding.