Association Between Chiropractic Utilization and Opioid Prescriptions Among People With Back or Neck Pain: Evaluation of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between patients in the United States seeing a chiropractor and receiving an opioid prescription for back or neck pain. METHODS: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (Years 2012 to 2015) respondents for longitudinal panels 17 to 19 who participated in all 5 rounds were at least 18 years of age, did not have cancer, and reported back or neck pain. We defined chiropractic users as participants reporting at least 1 chiropractic visit for back or neck pain and opioid users as participants reporting purchase or receipt of a prescription classified as Multum Lexicon "60" and "191" for back or neck pain. We adjusted for socioeconomic and clinical variables using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample contained 4686 people, 21% of whom reported an opioid prescription for back or neck pain. Among opioid users, 14% reported a chiropractic visit for back or neck pain compared to 31% of nonopioid users. The adjusted odds ratio for chiropractic use among opioid users compared to nonopioid users was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.57). CONCLUSION: Patients with back or neck pain who saw a chiropractor had approximately half the odds of reporting an opioid prescription compared to those who did not see a chiropractor.

Health Care Resource Utilization in Management of Opioid-Naive Patients With Newly Diagnosed Neck Pain.

Importance: Research has uncovered heterogeneity and inefficiencies in the management of idiopathic low back pain, but few studies have examined longitudinal care patterns following newly diagnosed neck pain. Objective: To understand health care utilization in patients with new-onset idiopathic neck pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used nationally sourced longitudinal data from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan claims database (2007-2016). Participants included adult patients with newly diagnosed neck pain, no recent opioid use, and at least 1 year of continuous postdiagnosis follow-up. Exclusion criteria included prior or concomitant diagnosis of traumatic cervical disc dislocation, vertebral fractures, myelopathy, and/or cancer. Only patients with at least 1 year of prediagnosis lookback were included. Data analysis was performed from January 2021 to January 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was 1-year postdiagnosis health care expenditures, including costs, opioid use, and health care service utilization. Early services were those received within 30 days of diagnosis. Multivariable regression models and regression-adjusted statistics were used. Results: In total, 679 030 patients (310 665 men [45.6%]) met the inclusion criteria, of whom 7858 (1.2%) underwent surgery within 1 year of diagnosis. The mean (SD) age was 44.62 (14.87) years among nonsurgical patients and 49.69 (9.53) years among surgical patients. Adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, 1-year regression-adjusted health care costs were $24 267.55 per surgical patient and $515.69 per nonsurgical patient. Across all health care services, $95 379 949 was accounted for by nonsurgical patients undergoing early imaging who did not receive any additional conservative therapy or epidural steroid injections, for a mean (SD) of $477.53 ($1375.60) per patient and median (IQR) of $120.60 ($20.70-$452.37) per patient. On average, patients not undergoing surgery, physical therapy, chiropractic manipulative therapy, or epidural steroid injection, who underwent either early advanced imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) or both early advanced and radiographic imaging, accumulated significantly elevated health care costs ($850.69 and $1181.67, respectively). Early conservative therapy was independently associated with 24.8% (95% CI, 23.5%-26.2%) lower health care costs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, early imaging without subsequent intervention was associated with significantly increased health care spending among patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic neck pain. Early conservative therapy was associated with lower costs, even with increased frequency of therapeutic services, and may have reduced long-term care inefficiency.

Outcomes of Cervical Therapeutic Medial Branch Blocks and Radiofrequency Neurotomy: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Utility are Equivalent.

BACKGROUND: Cervical facet joint pain is often managed with either cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical medial branch blocks, or cervical intraarticular injections. However, the effectiveness of each modality continues to be debated. Further, there is no agreement in reference to superiority or inferiority of facet joint nerve blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy, even though cervical facet joint radiofrequency neurotomy has been preferred by many and in fact, has been mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), except when radiofrequency cannot be confirmed. Each procedure has advantages and disadvantages in reference to clinical utility, outcomes, cost utility, and side effect profile. However, comparative analysis has not been performed thus far in the literature in a clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, case-control, comparative evaluation of outcomes and cost utility. SETTING: The study was conducted in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost utility of therapeutic medial branch blocks with radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic neck pain of facet joint origin. METHODS: The study was performed utilizing Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Analysis (STROBE) criteria. Only the patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks were included.The main outcome measure was pain relief measured by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief. Cost utility was calculated with direct payment data for the procedures with addition of estimated indirect costs over a period of one year based on highly regarded surgical literature and previously published interventional pain management literature. RESULTS: Overall, 295 patients met inclusion criteria with 132 patients receiving cervical medial branch blocks and 163 patients with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. One hundred and seven patients in the cervical medial branch group and 105 patients in the radiofrequency group completed one year follow-up. There was significant improvement in both groups from baseline to 12 months with pain relief and proportion of patients with >= 50% pain relief. Average relief of each procedure for cervical medial branch blocks was 13 to 14 weeks, whereas for radiofrequency neurotomy, it was 20 to 25 weeks. Significant pain relief was recorded in 100%, 94%, and 81% of the patients in the medial branch blocks group, whereas it was 100%, 69%, and 64% in the radiofrequency neurotomy group at 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up, with significant difference at 6 and 12 months.Cost utility analysis showed average cost for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $4,994 for cervical medial branch blocks compared to $5,364 for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. Six of 132 patients (5%) in the cervical medial branch group and 53 of 163 (33%) patients in the cervical radiofrequency neurotomy group were converted to other treatments, either due to side effects (6 patients or 4%) or inadequate relief (47 patients or 29%). CONCLUSION: In this study, outcomes of cervical therapeutic medial branch blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy demonstrated significantly better outcomes with significant pain relief with similar costs for both treatments over a period of one year.

Long-Term Comparison of Health Care Utilization and Reoperation Rates in Patients Undergoing Cervical Disc Arthroplasty and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease.

BACKGROUND: Thus study was a retrospective cohort analysis. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the gold-standard procedure for single-level degenerative disc disease (DDD). Recently, cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has become increasingly prevalent as an alternative intervention. OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term costs and reoperation rates associated with CDA and ACDF for the treatment of single-level DDD. METHODS: In the present study, we performed a retrospective cohort analysis using the MarketScan database of patients who underwent either ACDF or CDA between 2007 and 2011 and had 5 years postsurgery follow-up. Outcomes related to the health care utilization, cost, and reoperation were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Of 12,434 patients, 12,099 underwent ACDF and 335 CDA. Length of hospital stay and initial hospitalization cost was higher after ACDF compared with CDA. More patients undergoing CDA had early physical therapy compared with patients undergoing ACDF (CDA 30.15% vs. ACDF 22.39%; P = 0.0176). Five years after surgery, there was no significant difference in overall payments between patients undergoing ACDF and patients undergoing CDA. Reoperation rates were comparable at 5 years after the index procedure (CDA 8.06% vs. ACDF 9.25%; P = 0.5862). Patients who underwent ACDF showed decreased use of tramadol after surgery (15.09% before surgery vs. 9.55% after surgery; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in health care utilization between ACDF and CDA procedures for DDD 5 years after surgery. Also, there was no difference in reoperation rates during the study period. ACDF resulted in significant reduction in overall opioid use after versus before procedure.

Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in the Treatment of Cervical Disc Herniation, Post Surgery Syndrome, or Discogenic Pain: Cost Utility Analysis from Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the major conditions attributing to overall disability in the United States. There have been multiple publications assessing clinical and cost effectiveness of multiple modalities of interventions in managing chronic neck pain. Even then, the literature has been considered sparse in relation to cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck pain. In contrast, cost utility studies of lumbar interlaminar injections, caudal epidural injections, cervical and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, percutaneous adhesiolysis demonstrated costs of less than $3,500 for quality-adjusted life year (QALY). OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and/or upper extremity pain secondary to cervical disc herniation, post-surgery syndrome in neck, and axial or discogenic neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis based on 3 previously published randomized trials of the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections assessing their role in disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and axial or discogenic pain. SETTING: A contemporary, private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States. METHODS: Cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing cervical disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and cervical discogenic or axial neck back pain was conducted with data derived from 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included a 2-year follow-up, with inclusion of 356 patients. The primary outcome was significant improvement defined as at least 50% in pain reduction and disability status. Direct payment data from all carriers from 2018 was utilized for the assessment of procedural costs. Overall costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 to accommodate for indirect payments respectively for disc herniation, discogenic pain, and cervical post-surgery syndrome. RESULTS: The results of the 3 RCTs showed direct cost utility for one year of QALY of $2,412.31 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, $2,081.07 for disc herniation, and $2,309.20 for post surgery syndrome, with an average cost per one year QALY of $2,267.57, with total estimated overall costs with addition of indirect costs of $3,475.38, $4,028.55, $3,856.36, and $3,785.89 respectively. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this cost utility analysis includes that it is a single center evaluation. Indirect costs were extrapolated. CONCLUSION: This cost utility analysis of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in patients nonresponsive to conservative management in the treatment of disc herniation, post surgery syndrome and axial or discogenic neck pain shows $2,267.57 for direct costs with a total cost of $3,785.89 per QALY. KEY WORDS: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections, chronic neck pain, cervical disc herniation, cervical discogenic pain, post surgery syndrome, cost utility analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, quality-adjusted life years.

Health Care Costs and Opioid Use Associated With High-impact Chronic Spinal Pain in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive analysis of secondary data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate health care costs and opioid use for those with high-impact chronic spinal (back and neck) pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The US National Pain Strategy introduced a focus on high-impact chronic pain-that is, chronic pain associated with work, social, and self-care restrictions. Chronic neck and low-back pain are common, costly, and associated with long-term opioid use. Although chronic pain is not homogenous, most estimates of its costs are averages that ignore severity (impact). METHODS: We used 2003 to 2015 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) data to identify individuals with chronic spinal pain, their health care expenditures, and use of opioids. We developed prediction models to identify those with high- versus moderate- and low-impact chronic spinal pain based on the variables available in MEPS. RESULTS: We found that overall and spine-related health care costs, and the use and dosage of opioids increased significantly with chronic pain impact levels. Overall and spine-related annual per person health care costs for those with high-impact chronic pain ($14,661 SE: $814; and $5979 SE: $471, respectively) were more than double that of those with low-impact, but still clinically significant, chronic pain ($6371 SE: $557; and $2300 SE: $328). Those with high-impact chronic spinal pain also use spine-related opioids at a rate almost four times that of those with low-impact pain (48.4% vs. 12.4%), and on average use over five times the morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in mg (15.3 SE: 1.4 vs. 2.7 SE: 0.6). Opioid use and dosing increased significantly across years, but the increase in inflation-adjusted health care costs was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although most studies of chronic spinal pain do not differentiate participants by the impact of their chronic pain, these estimates highlight the importance of identifying chronic pain levels and focusing on those with high-impact chronic pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Timing of physical therapy consultation on 1-year healthcare utilization and costs in patients seeking care for neck pain: a retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients seek care from physical therapists for neck pain but it is unclear what the association of the timing of physical therapy (PT) consultation is on 1-year healthcare utilization and costs. The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year healthcare utilization and costs between three PT timing groups: patients who consulted a physical therapist (PT) for neck pain within 14 days (early PT consultation), between 15 and 90 days (delayed PT consultation) or between 91 and 364 days (late PT consultation). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 308 patients (69.2% female, ages 48.7[±14.5] years) were categorized into PT timing groups. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each group. In adjusted regression models, 1-year healthcare utilization of injections, imaging, opioids and costs were compared between groups. RESULTS: Compared to early PT consultation, the odds of receiving an opioid prescription (aOR = 2.79, 95%CI: 1.35-5.79), spinal injection (aOR = 4.36, 95%CI:2.26-8.45), undergoing an MRI (aOR = 4.68, 95%CI:2.25-9.74), X-ray (aOR = 2.97, 95%CI:1.61-5.47) or CT scan (aOR = 3.36, 95%CI: 1.14-9.97) were increased in patients in the late PT consultation group. Similar increases in risk were found in the delayed group (except CT and Opioids). Compared to the early PT consultation group, mean costs were $2172 ($557, $3786) higher in the late PT contact group and $1063 (95%CI: $ 138 - $1988) higher in the delayed PT consultation group. DISCUSSION: There was an association with the timing of physical therapy consultation on healthcare utilization and costs, where later consultation was associated with increases costs and healthcare utilization. This study examined the association of timing of physical therapy consultation on costs and healthcare utilization, but not the association of increased access to physical therapy consultation. Therefore, the findings warrant further investigation to explore the effects of increased access to physical therapy consultation on healthcare utilization and costs in a prospective study.

Neck Pain, Preoperative Opioids, and Functionality After Cervical Fusion.

The use of opioids among patients with workers' compensation claims is associated with tremendous costs, especially for patients who undergo spinal surgery. This study compared return-to-work rates after single-level cervical fusion for degenerative disk disease between patients who received opioids before surgery and patients who underwent fusion with no previous opioid use. All study subjects qualified for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained at work between 1993 and 2011. The study population included 281 subjects who underwent single-level cervical fusion for degenerative disk disease with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and Current Procedural Terminology code algorithms. The opioid group included 77 subjects who received opioids preoperatively. The control group included 204 subjects who had surgery with no previous opioid use. The primary outcome was meeting return-to-work criteria within 3 years of follow-up after fusion. Secondary outcome measures after surgery, surgical details, and presurgical characteristics for each cohort also were collected. In 36.4% of the opioid group, return-to-work criteria were met compared with 56.4% of the control group. Patients who took opioids were less likely to meet return-to-work criteria compared with the control group (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.76; P=.0028). Return-to-work rates within the first year after fusion were 24.7% for the opioid group and 45.6% for the control group (P=.0014). Patients who used opioids were absent from work for 255 more days compared with the control group (P=.0001). The use of opioids for management of diskogenic neck pain, with the possibility of surgical intervention, is a negative predictor of successful return to work after fusion in a workers' compensation population. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(1):25-32.].

OPAL: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of opioid analgesia for the reduction of pain severity in people with acute spinal pain. Trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain and neck pain are extremely prevalent and are responsible for an enormous burden of disease globally. Strong analgesics, such as opioid analgesics, are recommended by clinical guidelines for people with acute low back pain or neck pain who are slow to recover and require more pain relief. Opioid analgesics are widely and increasingly used, but there are no strong efficacy data supporting the use of opioid analgesics for acute low back pain or neck pain. Concerns regarding opioid use are further heightened by the risks of adverse events, some of which can be serious (eg, dependency, misuse and overdose). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: OPAL is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded trial that will investigate the judicious use of an opioid analgesic in 346 participants with acute low back pain and/or neck pain who are slow to recover. Participants will be recruited from general practice and randomised to receive the opioid analgesic (controlled release oxycodone plus naloxone up to 20 mg per day) or placebo in addition to guideline-based care (eg, reassurance and advice of staying active) for up to 6 weeks. Participants will be followed-up for 3 months for effectiveness outcomes. The primary outcome will be pain severity. Secondary outcomes will include physical functioning and time to recovery. Medication-related adverse events will be assessed and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. We will additionally assess long-term use and risk of misuse of opioid analgesics for up to 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained. Trial results will be disseminated by publications and conference presentations, and via the media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000775516: Pre-results.

Assessment of clinical outcomes of cervical epidural neuroplasty using a Racz-catheter and predictive factors of efficacy in patients with cervical spinal pain.

BACKGROUND: Epidural neuroplasty using the Racz catheter has a therapeutic effect in patients with cervical disc herniation and central stenosis who do not respond to fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of cervical epidural neuroplasty in patients with posterior neck and upper extremity pain and to demonstrate correlations between predictive factors and unsuccessful results of cervical epidural neuroplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice in a university hospital. METHODS: Outcome measures were obtained using the numeric rating scale (NRS) for total pain, neck pain, arm pain, and sleep disturbance; and the neck pain and disability scale (NPDS); as well as opioid consumption at preprocedure, one month, 3, 6, and 12 months after procedure. Successful epidural neuroplasty was defined as 50% or greater reduction from the preprocedure NRS for total pain, and at least a 40% reduction in the NPDS. We obtained clinical data and radiologic findings to evaluate correlations between predictive factors and efficacy of epidural neuroplasty. RESULTS: Of the 169 patients, successful outcomes were observed in 108 patients (63.9%) at one month following the procedure, in 109 patients (64.5%) at 3 months, in 96 patients (56.8%) at 6 months, and in 89 patients (52.7%) at 12 months. Previous surgery, spondylolisthesis, and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament were significantly associated with unsuccessful outcomes as measured by NRS and NPDS (P < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this evaluation include the lack of a placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical epidural neuroplasty may be an effective treatment for pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with cervical spinal pain who did not respond to conservative treatment, and may decrease surgical demand. Previous surgery, spondylolisthesis, and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament are associated with unsuccessful outcomes of epidural neuroplasty.

Complexity of pain management among patients with nociceptive or neuropathic neck, back, or osteoarthritis diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Approaches to pain management are diverse, requiring prescribers to evaluate an array of clinical issues and potential solutions. In addition to the difficult task of selecting a treatment option, pain treatment may be further complicated by multiple prescribers, multiple medications, and multiple mechanisms of pain origination. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient demographics (e.g., age, gender); comorbidities; office visits (e.g., physician, chiropractor, physical therapy, psychiatry, allergist); number of different prescribers overall prescription use; pain medications as classified by the World Health Organization's (WHO) pain ladder; adjuvant medications; nonpharmacologic procedures; and potential drug interactions in a broad sample of patients with nociceptive or neuropathic neck or back diagnoses, or osteoarthritis diagnoses, in a commercial population. METHODS: This claims-data analysis used a cross-sectional cohort comparison with a fixed 2-year observation period from September 1, 2006, to August 31, 2008, for patients in the PharMetrics national managed care database. The assigned cohorts were neuropathic-related neck/back diagnoses (NEURO); neuropathic and nociceptive neck/back diagnoses (NEURO/NOCI); nociceptive neck/back diagnoses without a neuropathic-related diagnosis (NOCI); and only osteoarthritis (OA) diagnoses. All analyses were conducted by cohort. The analysis included the following patient-descriptive variables: patient demographics, comorbidities, office visits, most frequent medical providers and number of different prescribers, all medications, pain medications as classified by the WHO pain ladder, adjuvant medications, adjuvant procedures and potential drug interactions. The goal for selecting these variables was to describe a range of data that might provide insight into the complexity of pain management decisions faced by clinicians. RESULTS: The study included 85,014 patients, classified as NEURO (n = 2,375), NEURO/NOCI (n = 37,019), NOCI (n = 39,496), and OA (n = 6,124). The most frequently occurring comorbidities (observed in > 40% of patients) included cardiovascular and neuropathic pain conditions. Considering all types of medication claims observed among all cohorts, the overall mean prescription claim count for the 2-year observation period was 57.9 claims (standard deviation 56.2). Weak opioids (WHO pain relief ladder rung 2) accounted for the majority of pain medication claims across all cohorts. Across cohorts, 25.7% of patients had 10 or more days of overlapping drug availability (for inducers or inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 system concomitantly), a measure of potential for drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Choosing the appropriate pain treatment involves assessing currently used medications for existing illnesses and deciding on the appropriate types of pain medications. However, potentially serious drug-drug interactions are a consequence of multiple drug use, and such a potential requires thoughtful consideration by those involved in patient care.

Economic burden of back and neck pain: effect of a neuropathic component.

This was a retrospective database analysis (2001-2009) of employees' medical, prescription drug, and absence costs and days from sick leave, short- and long-term disability, and workers' compensation. Employees with an ICD-9 diagnostic code for back or neck pain and an ICD-9 for a back- or neck-related neuropathic condition (eg, myelopathy, compression of the spinal cord, neuritis, radiculitis) or radiculopathy were considered to have nociceptive back or neck pain with a neuropathic component. Employees with an ICD-9 for back pain or neck pain and no ICD-9 for a back- or neck-related neuropathic condition or radiculopathy were defined to have nociceptive back or neck pain. Patients with nociceptive back or neck pain with a neuropathic component were classified as having or not having prior nociceptive pain. Annual costs (medical and prescription drug costs and absence costs) and days from sick leave, short- and long-term disability, and workers' compensation were evaluated. Mean annual total costs were highest ($8512) for nociceptive pain with a neuropathic component with prior nociceptive pain (n=9162 employees), $7126 for nociceptive pain with a neuropathic component with no prior nociceptive pain (n=5172), $5574 for nociceptive pain only (n=35,347), and $3017 for control employees with no back or neck pain diagnosis (n=226,683). Medical, short-term disability, and prescription drugs yielded the highest incremental costs compared to controls. Mean total absence days/year were 8.26, 7.86, 5.70, and 3.44, respectively. The economic burden of back pain or neck pain is increased when associated with a neuropathic component.

Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review.

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.

Prevalence of chronic head, neck and low back pain and associated factors in women residing in the Autonomous Region of Madrid (Spain).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of chronic headache (CH), chronic neck pain (CNP) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) in the autonomous region of Madrid by analyzing gender differences and to determine the factors associated with each pain location in women in 2007. METHODS: We analyzed data obtained from adults aged 16 years or older (n = 12,190) who participated in the 2007 Madrid Regional Health Survey. This survey includes data from personal interviews conducted in a representative population residing in family dwellings in Madrid. The presence CH, CNP, and CLBP was analyzed. Sociodemographic features, self-perceived health status, lifestyle habits, psychological distress, drug consumption, use of healthcare services, the search for alternative solutions, and comorbid diseases were analyzed by using logistic regression models. RESULTS: The prevalence of CH, CNP and CLBP was significantly higher (P<0.001) in women (7.3%, 8.4%, 14.1%, respectively) than in men (2.2%, 3.2%, 7.8%, respectively). In women, CH, CNP and CBLP were significantly associated with having ≥3 chronic diseases (OR 7.1, 8.5, 5.8, respectively), and with the use of analgesics and drugs for inflammation (OR: 3.5, 1.95, 2.5, respectively). In the bivariate analysis, the factors associated with pain in distinct body locations differed between men and women. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that CH, CNP and CLBP are a major public health problem in women in central Spain. Women have a higher overall prevalence of chronic pain than men. Chronic pain was associated with a higher use of analgesics and healthcare services.

The burden of chronic low back pain: clinical comorbidities, treatment patterns, and health care costs in usual care settings.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of an insurance claims database. OBJECTIVE: To examine the comorbidities, treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and direct medical costs of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) in clinical practice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the socioeconomic impact of CLBP is substantial, characterization of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and health care resource use/costs of patients with CLBP relative to non-CLBP controls have been infrequently documented. METHODS: Using the LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database (IMS Health Inc., Watertown, MA), patients with CLBP, defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, were identified and matched (age, sex, and region) with non-CLBP individuals. Comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and health care service use/costs (pharmacy, outpatient, inpatient, total) were compared for the 2 groups during 2008. RESULTS: A total of 101,294 patients with CLBP and controls were identified (55% women; mean age was 47.2 ± 11.6 years). Relative to controls, patients with CLBP had a greater comorbidity burden including a significantly higher (P < 0.0001) frequency of musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions and common sequelae of pain such as depression (13.0% vs. 6.1%), anxiety (8.0% vs. 3.4%), and sleep disorders (10.0% vs. 3.4%). Pain-related pharmacotherapy was significantly greater (P < 0.0001) among patients with CLBP including opioids (37.0% vs. 14.8%; P < 0.0001), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (26.2% vs. 9.6%; P < 0.0001), and tramadol (8.2% vs. 1.2%; P < 0.0001). Prescribing of "adjunctive" medications for treating conditions associated with pain (i.e., depression, anxiety, and insomnia) was also significantly greater (P < 0.0001) among patients with CLBP; 36.3% of patients received combination therapy. Health care costs were significantly higher in the CLBP cohort (P < 0.0001), reflecting greater resource utilization. Total direct medical costs were estimated at $8386 ± $17,507 in the CLBP group and $3607 ± $10,845 in the control group; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with CLBP are characterized by greater comorbidity and economic burdens compared with those without CLBP. This economic burden can be attributed to greater prescribing of pain-related medications and increased health resource utilization.

Effect of pregabalin in the treatment of refractory neck pain: cost and clinical evidence from medical practice in orthopedic surgery and rehabilitation clinics.

BACKGROUND: The study aims to prospectively analyze the effect of adding pregabalin upon costs and consequences in the treatment of refractory neck pain under routine medical practice. METHODS: A secondary analysis was carried out including patients over 18 years, with 6-month chronic neck pain refractory from a prospective, naturalistic, 12-week two-visit study. The analysis compared patients adding pregabalin to its therapy vs. usual care. Severity of pain, healthcare resources utilization, lost workday equivalents (LWDE) because of pain, and related cost-adjusted reductions were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients (65.3% women, age 54.2 [12.1] years), 78.2% receiving pregabalin, were analyzed. Adding pregabalin was associated with higher adjusted reduction in pain severity: -3.2 (1.8) points, 55.4% responders (≥50% baseline pain reduction) vs. -2.3 (2.0) and 38.2%, respectively; P<0.001, yielding a higher reduction in mean LWDE: 20.1 (23.1) vs. 8.2 (22.4); P=0.014, which produced significant reductions in the indirect components of cost: €1,041.0 (1,222.8) vs. €457.3 (1,132.1), P=0.028. The costs of pregabalin (€309.8 [193.2] vs. €26.4 [79.6], P<0.001) was offset by higher numerical reductions in the other components of costs, producing similar direct cost reductions in both groups at the end of the study: €66.8 (1,080.8) and €143.5 (1,922.4), respectively; P=0.295. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, the addition of pregabalin to treat refractory neck pain seems to be associated with a higher reduction in pain severity and lost work-days equivalents, which in turn results in a greater reduction of the indirect components of cost while maintaining similar healthcare cost levels despite its higher price.

Pain management by the family physician: the family practice pain education project.

Pain is a common complaint of patients who visit a family physician, and its appropriate management is a medical mandate. The fundamental principles for pain management are: placing the patient at the center of care; adequately assessing and quantifying pain; treating pain adequately; maximizing function; accounting for culture and gender differences; identifying red and yellow flags early; understanding and differentiating tolerance, dependence and addiction; minimizing side effects; and being familiar with and using CAM therapies when good evidence of efficacy exists. The pharmacologic management of pain requires thorough knowledge of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors, and opioids. A table of equianalgesic dosages is useful because patients may need to move from one opioid to another. Accompanying this article are papers discussing 5 common pain disorders seen by family physicians, including: neck pain, low back pain, joint pain, pelvic pain, and cancer/end of life pain. The family physician who learns these principles of pain management and the algorithms for these common pain disorders can serve patients well.