Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of low back pain is common and a substantial contributor to the disease and economic burden of low back pain. Exercise is recommended to prevent recurrence, but the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an accessible and low-cost intervention, such as walking, is yet to be established. We aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention to prevent the recurrence of low back pain. METHODS: WalkBack was a two-armed, randomised controlled trial, which recruited adults (aged 18 years or older) from across Australia who had recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain that was not attributed to a specific diagnosis, and which lasted for at least 24 h. Participants were randomly assigned to an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention facilitated by six sessions with a physiotherapist across 6 months or to a no treatment control group (1:1). The randomisation schedule comprised randomly permuted blocks of 4, 6, and 8 and was stratified by history of more than two previous episodes of low back pain and referral method. Physiotherapists and participants were not masked to allocation. Participants were followed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the date of enrolment. The primary outcome was days to the first recurrence of an activity-limiting episode of low back pain, collected in the intention-to-treat population via monthly self-report. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the societal perspective and expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ACTRN12619001134112). FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2019, and June 10, 2022, 3206 potential participants were screened for eligibility, 2505 (78%) were excluded, and 701 were randomly assigned (351 to the intervention group and 350 to the no treatment control group). Most participants were female (565 [81%] of 701) and the mean age of participants was 54 years (SD 12). The intervention was effective in preventing an episode of activity-limiting low back pain (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85], p=0·0002). The median days to a recurrence was 208 days (95% CI 149-295) in the intervention group and 112 days (89-140) in the control group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was AU$7802, giving a 94% probability that the intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $28 000. Although the total number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event over 12 months was similar between the intervention and control groups (183 [52%] of 351 and 190 [54%] of 350, respectively, p=0·60), there was a greater number of adverse events related to the lower extremities in the intervention group than in the control group (100 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: An individualised, progressive walking and education intervention significantly reduced low back pain recurrence. This accessible, scalable, and safe intervention could affect how low back pain is managed. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation: A UK Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this economic analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM-SCS) for treating chronic intractable low back pain, compared with conventional spinal cord stimulation (C-SCS) and conservative medical management (CMM), by updating and expanding the inputs for a previously published cross-industry model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This model comprised a 12-month decision-tree phase followed by a long-term Markov model. Costs and outcomes were calculated from a UK National Health Service perspective, over a base-case horizon of 15 years and up to a maximum of 40 years. All model inputs were derived from published literature or other deidentified sources and updated to reflect recent clinical trials and costs. Deterministic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to calculate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across the 15-year time horizon and to explore the impact of individual parameter variability on the cost-effectiveness results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of joint parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: DTM-SCS was the most cost-effective option from a payer perspective. Compared with CMM alone, DTM-SCS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6101 per QALY gained (incremental net benefit [INB] = £21,281). The INB for C-SCS compared with CMM was lower than for DTM-SCS, at £8551. For the comparison of DTM-SCS and C-SCS, an ICER of £897 per QALY gained was calculated, with a 99.5% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20,000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with low back pain treated over a 15-year follow-up period, DTM-SCS and C-SCS are cost-effective compared with CMM, from both payer and societal perspectives. DTM-SCS is associated with a lower ICER than that of C-SCS. Wider uptake of DTM-SCS in the UK health care system is warranted to manage chronic low back pain.

Temporal Trends and Geographic Variations in the Supply of Clinicians Who Provide Spinal Manipulation to Medicare Beneficiaries: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for first-line treatment of patients with low back pain. Inadequate access to SM may result in inequitable spine care for older US adults, but the supply of clinicians who provide SM under Medicare is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to measure temporal trends and geographic variations in the supply of clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Medicare is a US government-administered health insurance program that provides coverage primarily for older adults and people with disabilities. We used a serial cross-sectional design to examine Medicare administrative data from 2007 to 2015 for SM services identified by procedure code. We identified unique providers by National Provider Identifier and distinguished between chiropractors and other specialties by Physician Specialty Code. We calculated supply as the number of providers per 100 000 beneficiaries, stratified by geographic location and year. RESULTS: Of all clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries, 97% to 98% are doctors of chiropractic. The geographic supply of doctors of chiropractic providing SM services in 2015 ranged from 20/100 000 in the District of Columbia to 260/100 000 in North Dakota. The supply of other specialists performing the same services ranged from fewer than 1/100 000 in 11 states to 8/100 000 in Colorado. Nationally, the number of Medicare-active chiropractors declined from 47 102 in 2007 to 45 543 in 2015. The count of other clinicians providing SM rose from 700 in 2007 to 1441 in 2015. CONCLUSION: Chiropractors constitute the vast majority of clinicians who bill for SM services to Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of Medicare-active SM providers varies widely by state. The overall supply of SM providers under Medicare is declining, while the supply of nonchiropractors who provide SM is growing.

Cost-effectiveness of Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain in Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Yoga interventions can improve function and reduce pain in persons with chronic low back pain (cLBP). OBJECTIVE: Using data from a recent trial of yoga for military veterans with cLBP, we analyzed the incremental cost-effectiveness of yoga compared with usual care. METHODS: Participants (n=150) were randomized to either 2× weekly, 60-minute yoga sessions for 12 weeks, or to delayed treatment (DT). Outcomes were measured at 12 weeks, and 6 months. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured using the EQ-5D scale. A 30% improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (primary outcome) served as an additional effectiveness measure. Intervention costs including personnel, materials, and transportation were tracked during the study. Health care costs were obtained from patient medical records. Health care organization and societal perspectives were examined with a 12-month horizon. RESULTS: Incremental QALYs gained by the yoga group over 12 months were 0.043. Intervention costs to deliver yoga were $307/participant. Negligible differences in health care costs were found between groups. From the health care organization perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to provide yoga was $4488/QALY. From the societal perspective, yoga was "dominant" providing both health benefit and cost savings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates an 89% chance of yoga being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000. A scenario comparing the costs of yoga and physical therapy suggest that yoga may produce similar results at a much lower cost. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Yoga is a cost-effective treatment for reducing pain and disability among military veterans with cLBP.

The longitudinal relationships between pain severity and disability versus health-related quality of life and costs among chronic low back pain patients.

PURPOSE: Previous studies found higher levels of pain severity and disability to be associated with higher costs and lower health-related quality of life. However, these findings were based on cross-sectional data and little is known about the longitudinal relationships between pain severity and disability versus health-related quality of life and costs among chronic low back pain patients. This study aims to cover this knowledge gap by exploring these longitudinal relationships in a consecutive cohort. METHODS: Data of 6316 chronic low back pain patients were used. Measurements took place at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Pain severity (Numeric pain rating scale; range: 0-100), disability (Oswestry disability index; range: 0-100), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L: range: 0-1), societal and healthcare costs (cost questionnaire) were measured. Using linear generalized estimating equation analyses, longitudinal relationships were explored between: (1) pain severity and health-related quality of life, (2) disability and health-related quality of life, (3) pain severity and societal costs, (4) disability and societal costs, (5) pain severity and healthcare costs, and (6) disability and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Higher pain and disability levels were statistically significantly related with poorer health-related quality of life (pain intensity: - 0.0041; 95% CI - 0.0043 to - 0.0039; disability: - 0.0096; 95% CI - 0.0099 to - 0.0093), higher societal costs (pain intensity: 7; 95% CI 5 to 8; disability: 23; 95% CI 20 to 27) and higher healthcare costs (pain intensity: 3; 95% CI 2 to 4; disability: 9; 95% CI 7 to 11). CONCLUSION: Pain and disability were longitudinally related to health-related quality of life, societal costs, and healthcare costs. Disability had a stronger association with all outcomes compared to pain.

Using Public Cost Information During Low Back Pain Visits: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Patients desire information about health care costs because they are increasingly responsible for these costs. Public Web sites that offer cost information could inform provider-patient discussions of costs at the point of care. Objective: To evaluate tools to facilitate the use of publicly available cost information during clinical visits for low back pain (LBP). Design: Qualitative study using individual and group interviews and surveys. Setting: 6 rural primary care practices in 2 health systems in Maine. Participants: Practice staff (n = 50) and adult patients with LBP (n = 72). Intervention: Participating health systems and practices were offered financial incentives, a series of trainings, and technical assistance to pilot tools for discussing costs of LBP care using CompareMaine.org, Maine's cost and quality transparency Web site. Measurements: Integration of tools into workflow, awareness and value to providers, and patient experience were identified through 11 group interviews with practice staff (n = 25) and health system leaders (n = 11), provider (n = 25), and patient (n = 47) surveys; patient interviews (n = 5); and administrative data. Results: The intervention increased provider and consumer awareness of CompareMaine.org, but minimally changed use in clinical discussions as a result of fewer-than-expected patients with LBP, limited system support, workflow barriers, and providers' reluctance to adopt the tools because of perceptions of limited value for their patients. In contrast, patients valued cost conversations and found the tools useful, and over one half reported intending to use CompareMaine.org during future care decisions. Limitations: Generalizability was limited by the small number of practices and participants. Lower-than-anticipated participation precluded examination of the effect of the tool on the frequency of cost-of-care conversations. Conclusion: This multicomponent intervention to introduce publicly reported cost information into LBP clinical discussions had low provider uptake. Whereas cost conversations and CompareMaine.org were perceived as useful by participating patients with LBP, providers were uncomfortable discussing cost variation at the point of care. Successful use of public cost information during clinical visits will require normalizing use to a broader group of patients and greater provider outreach and health system engagement. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

One-stage posterior debridement, bone grafting fusion, and mono-segment vs. short-segment fixation for single-segment lumbar spinal tuberculosis: minimum 5-year follow-up outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between posterior mono-segment and short-segment fixation combined with one-stage posterior debridement and bone grafting fusion in treating single-segment lumbar spinal tuberculosis (LSTB). METHODS: Sixty-two patients with single-segment LSTB treated by a posterior-only approach were divided into two groups: short-segment fixation (Group A, n = 32) and mono-segment fixation (Group B, n = 30). The clinical and radiographic outcomes were analyzed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The intraoperative bleeding volume, operation time, and hospitalization duration were lower in Group B than in Group A. All patients achieved the bony fusion criteria. The visual analog scale score, Japanese Orthopedic Association score, and Oswestry Disability Index were substantially improved 3 months postoperatively and at the last visit in both groups, with no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Kirkaldy-Willis functional evaluation at the final follow-up demonstrated that all patients in both groups achieved excellent or good results. The difference in the angle correction rate and correction loss between Groups A and B was not significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: One-stage posterior debridement, bone grafting fusion, and mono-segment or short-segment fixation can provide satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes. Mono-segment fixation is more suitable for the treatment of single-segment LSTB because the lumbar segments with normal motion can be preserved with less trauma, a shorter operation time, shorter hospitalization, and lower costs.

Implementation of the Primary Spine Care Model in a Multi-Clinician Primary Care Setting: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation was to compare the value of primary spine care (PSC) with usual care for management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs) within a primary care setting. METHODS: We retrospectively examined existing patient encounter data at 3 primary care sites within a multi-clinic health system. Designated clinicians serve in the role as PSC as the initial point of contact for spine patients, coordinate, and follow up for the duration of the episode of care. A PSC may be a chiropractor, physical therapist, or medical or osteopathic physician who has been trained to provide primary care for patients with SRDs. The PSC model of care had been introduced at site I (Lebanon, New Hampshire); sites II (Bedford, New Hampshire) and III (Nashua, New Hampshire) served as control sites where patients received usual care. To evaluate cost outcomes, we employed a controlled quasi-experimental design for analysis of health claims data. For analysis of clinical outcomes, we compared clinical records for PSC at site I and usual care at sites II and III, all with reference to usual care at site I. We examined clinical encounters occurring over a 24-month period, from February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2018. RESULTS: Primary spine care was associated with reduced total expenditures compared with usual care for SRDs. At site I, average per-patient expenditure was $162 in year 1 and $186 in year 2, compared with site II ($332 in year 1; $306 in year 2) and site III ($467 in year 1; $323 in year 2). CONCLUSION: Among patients with SRDs included in this study, implementation of the PSC model within a conventional primary care setting was associated with a trend toward reduced total expenditures for spine care compared with usual primary care. Implementation of PSC may lead to reduced costs and resource utilization, but may be no more effective than usual care regarding clinical outcomes.

The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000888460.

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

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

Care for low back pain: can health systems deliver?

Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally. In 2018, an international working group called on the World Health Organization to increase attention on the burden of low back pain and the need to avoid excessively medical solutions. Indeed, major international clinical guidelines now recognize that many people with low back pain require little or no formal treatment. Where treatment is required the recommended approach is to discourage use of pain medication, steroid injections and spinal surgery, and instead promote physical and psychological therapies. Many health systems are not designed to support this approach. In this paper we discuss why care for low back pain that is concordant with guidelines requires system-wide changes. We detail the key challenges of low back pain care within health systems. These include the financial interests of pharmaceutical and other companies; outdated payment systems that favour medical care over patients' self-management; and deep-rooted medical traditions and beliefs about care for back pain among physicians and the public. We give international examples of promising solutions and policies and practices for health systems facing an increasing burden of ineffective care for low back pain. We suggest policies that, by shifting resources from unnecessary care to guideline-concordant care for low back pain, could be cost-neutral and have widespread impact. Small adjustments to health policy will not work in isolation, however. Workplace systems, legal frameworks, personal beliefs, politics and the overall societal context in which we experience health, will also need to change.

Les lombalgies sont la principale cause d'années de vie vécues avec une incapacité dans le monde. En 2018, un groupe de travail international a invité l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé à attirer l'attention sur la charge que représentent les lombalgies et sur la nécessité d'éviter le recours excessif aux solutions médicales. En effet, selon les dernières recommandations cliniques internationales, de nombreux cas de lombalgie ne nécessitent pas ou peu de traitement formel. Lorsqu'un traitement est requis, il est recommandé de limiter la prise d'analgésiques, les injections de stéroïdes et la chirurgie rachidienne, et d'encourager plutôt les thérapeutiques physiques et psychologiques. Très souvent, les systèmes de santé ne sont pas conçus pour appliquer cette approche. Dans cet article, nous abordons les raisons pour lesquelles un changement des systèmes s'impose si l'on veut prendre en charge les lombalgies suivant les recommandations. Nous détaillons les principales difficultés de la prise en charge des lombalgies dans le cadre des systèmes de santé. Il s'agit notamment des intérêts financiers des laboratoires pharmaceutiques, entre autres; des systèmes de paiement obsolètes qui privilégient la prise en charge médicale à l'autogestion par les patients; et de croyances et traditions médicales profondément ancrées parmi les médecins et la population. Nous donnons des exemples internationaux de solutions, de politiques et de pratiques prometteuses pour les systèmes de santé confrontés de plus en plus souvent à une prise en charge inefficace des lombalgies. Nous suggérons des politiques qui, sans incidence sur les coûts, en transférant les ressources allouées aux soins inutiles vers des soins conformes aux recommandations, pourraient avoir un impact considérable. De petits ajustements des politiques de santé ne suffiront cependant pas. Les systèmes des milieux professionnels, les cadres juridiques, les croyances personnelles, les politiques et le contexte sociétal global dans lequel s'inscrit la santé devront également changer.

El dolor lumbar es la causa principal de vivir con discapacidad durante años en todo el mundo. En 2018, un grupo de trabajo internacional pidió a la Organización Mundial de la Salud que prestara más atención a la carga del dolor lumbar y a la necesidad de evitar soluciones excesivamente médicas. De hecho, las principales directrices clínicas internacionales reconocen ahora que muchas personas con dolor lumbar requieren poco o ningún tratamiento formal. Cuando se requiere tratamiento, el enfoque recomendado es desalentar el uso de analgésicos, inyecciones de esteroides y cirugía de la columna vertebral y, en su lugar, promover las terapias físicas y psicológicas. Muchos sistemas de salud no están diseñados para apoyar este enfoque. En este documento, se expone por qué el cuidado del dolor lumbar de acuerdo con las directrices requiere cambios en todo el sistema. Se detallan los retos clave de la atención del dolor lumbar en los sistemas de salud. Estos incluyen los intereses financieros de las compañías farmacéuticas y de otro tipo, los sistemas de pago obsoletos que favorecen la atención médica por encima del autocuidado de los pacientes, así como las tradiciones y las creencias médicas profundamente arraigadas sobre la atención del dolor de espalda entre los médicos y el público general. Se presentan ejemplos internacionales de soluciones prometedoras y de políticas y prácticas para los sistemas de salud que se enfrentan a una carga cada vez mayor de la atención ineficaz para el dolor lumbar. Se sugieren políticas que, al desplazar los recursos de la atención innecesaria a la atención acorde con las directrices para el dolor lumbar, podrían ser neutras en cuanto a costes y tener un impacto generalizado. Sin embargo, los pequeños ajustes en la política sanitaria no funcionarán de forma aislada. Los sistemas del lugar de trabajo, los marcos jurídicos, las creencias personales, la política y el contexto social general en el que vivimos la salud también tendrán que cambiar.

Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Conventional Therapies for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review of Health Care Resource Utilization and Outcomes in the Last Decade.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to critically appraise the literature for evidence supporting the health care resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared with conventional therapies (CTs) for chronic low back and leg pain. METHODS: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine databases were searched for studies published from January 2008 through October 2018, using the following MeSH terms: "spinal cord stimulation," "chronic pain," "back pain," "patient readmission," "economics," and "costs and cost analysis." Additional sources were added based on bibliographies and consultation with experts. The following data were extracted and analyzed: demographic information, study design, objectives, sample sizes, outcome measures, SCS indications, complications, costs, readmissions, and resource utilization data. RESULTS: Of 204 studies screened, 11 studies met inclusion criteria, representing 31,439 SCS patients and 299,182 CT patients. The mean age was 53.5 years for SCS and 55.6 years for CT. In eight of 11 studies, SCS was associated with favorable outcomes and found to be more cost-effective than CT for chronic low back pain. Compared with CT, SCS resulted in shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates and health care costs at 90 days. SCS was associated with significant improvement in health-related quality of life, health status, and quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of chronic low back and leg pain, the majority of studies are of fair quality, with level 3 or 4 evidence in support of SCS as potentially more cost-effective than CT, with less resource expenditure but higher complication rates. SCS therapy may yet play a role in mitigating the financial burden associated with chronic low back and leg pain.

Cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in Singapore. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy to land-based therapy over 3 months from societal perspective. Target population comprised patients with low back pain (LBP), osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). Subgroup analyses were carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy in individual MSDs. Relative treatment effects were obtained through a systematic review of published data. RESULTS: Compared to land-based therapy, hydrotherapy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD 27 471 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 70 000 per QALY (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). For the respective MSDs, hydrotherapy were dominant (more effective and less costly) in THR and TKR, cost-effective for LBP and RA, and not cost-effective for OA. Treatment adherence and cost of hydrotherapy were key drivers to the ICER values. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrotherapy was a cost-effective rehabilitation compared to land-based therapy for a population with MSDs in Singapore. However, the benefit of hydrotherapy was not observed in patients with OA.

Factors associated with costs and health outcomes in patients with Back and leg pain in primary care: a prospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the economic burden of low back-related leg pain, including sciatica. The aim of this study was to describe healthcare resource utilisation and factors associated with cost and health outcomes in primary care patients consulting with symptoms of low back-related leg pain including sciatica. METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort of 609 adults visiting their family doctor with low back-related leg pain, with or without sciatica in a United Kingdom (UK) Setting. Participants completed questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments, received an MRI scan, and were followed-up for 12-months. The economic analysis outcome was the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) calculated from the EQ-5D-3 L data obtained at baseline, 4 and 12-months. Costs were measured based on patient self-reported information on resource use due to back-related leg pain and results are presented from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and Societal perspective. Factors associated with costs and outcomes were obtained using a generalised linear model. RESULTS: Base-case results showed improved health outcomes over 12-months for the whole cohort and slightly higher QALYs for patients in the sciatica group. NHS resource use was highest for physiotherapy and GP visits, and work-related productivity loss highest from a societal perspective. The sciatica group was associated with significantly higher work-related productivity costs. Cost was significantly associated with factors such as self-rated general health and care received as part of the study, while quality of life was significantly predicted by self-rated general health, and pain intensity, depression, and disability scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results contribute to understanding the economics of low back- related leg pain and sciatica and may provide guidance for future actions on cost reduction and health care improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 13/09/2011 Retrospectively registered; ISRCTN62880786 .

The impact of patient preferences and costs on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Although the delivery of appropriate healthcare is an important goal, the definition of what constitutes appropriate care is not always agreed upon. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method is one of the most well-known and used approaches to define care appropriateness from the clinical perspective-i.e., that the expected effectiveness of a treatment exceeds its expected risks. However, patient preferences (the patient perspective) and costs (the healthcare system perspective) are also important determinants of appropriateness and should be considered. METHODS: We examined the impact of including information on patient preferences and cost on expert panel ratings of clinical appropriateness for spinal mobilization and manipulation for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. RESULTS: The majority of panelists thought patient preferences were important to consider in determining appropriateness and that their inclusion could change ratings, and half thought the same about cost. However, few actually changed their appropriateness ratings based on the information presented on patient preferences regarding the use of these therapies and their costs. This could be because the panel received information on average patient preferences for spinal mobilization and manipulation whereas some panelists commented that appropriateness should be determined based on the preferences of individual patients. Also, because these therapies are not expensive, their ratings may not be cost sensitive. The panelists also generally agreed that preferences and costs would only impact their ratings if the therapies were considered clinically appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the information presented on patient preferences and costs for spinal mobilization and manipulation had little impact on the rated appropriateness of these therapies for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Although it was generally agreed that patient preferences and costs were important to the appropriateness of M/M for CLBP and CNP, it seems that what would be most important were the preferences of the individual patient, not patients in general, and large cost differentials.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain with four leading drugs.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is a major health problem that has a substantial effect on people's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on healthcare systems. However, there has been little cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatments for it. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain. METHODS: A total of 474 patients received pharmacological management for chronic low back pain using four leading drugs for 6 months at 28 institutions in Japan. Outcome measures, including EQ-5D, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (BPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study SF-8, and the visual analog scale, were investigated at baseline and every one month thereafter. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated as drug cost over the quality-adjusted life years. An economic estimation was performed from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics was also performed to explore the characteristics that affect cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The ICUR of pharmacological management for chronic low back pain was JPY 453,756. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics suggested that the pharmacological treatments for patients with a history of spine surgery or cancer, low frequency of exercise, long disease period, low scores in lumbar spine dysfunction and gait disturbance of the JOA BPEQ, and low JOA score at baseline were not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological management for chronic low back pain is cost-effective from the reference willingness to pay. Further optimization based on patient characteristics is expected to contribute to the sustainable development of a universal insurance system in Japan.

Non-specific low back pain.

Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Management guidelines endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both. Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical cause, treatment focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Management consists of education and reassurance, analgesic medicines, non-pharmacological therapies, and timely review. The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients require little if any formal medical care. Two treatment strategies are currently used, a stepped approach beginning with more simple care that is progressed if the patient does not respond, and the use of simple risk prediction methods to individualise the amount and type of care provided. The overuse of imaging, opioids, and surgery remains a widespread problem.

Changes in Primary Care Health Care Utilization after Inclusion of Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine MR Imaging Reports for Uncomplicated Low Back Pain.

Purpose To determine whether inclusion of an epidemiologic statement in radiology reports of lumbar magnetic resonance (MR) imaging influences downstream health care utilization in the primary care population. Materials and Methods Beginning July 1, 2013, a validated epidemiologic statement regarding prevalence of common findings in asymptomatic patients was included in all lumbar MR imaging reports at a tertiary academic medical center. Data were collected from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, and retrospective analysis was completed in September 2016. The electronic medical record was reviewed to capture health care utilization rates in patients for 1 year after index MR imaging. Of 4527 eligible adult patients with low back pain referred for lumbar spine MR imaging during the study period, 375 patients had their studies ordered by in-network primary care providers, did not have findings other than degenerative disease, and had at least one follow-up encounter within the system within 1 year of index MR imaging. In the before-and-after study design, a pre-statement-implementation cohort was compared with a post-statement-implementation cohort by using univariate and multivariate statistical models to evaluate treatment utilization rates in these groups. Results Patients in the statement group were 12% less likely to be referred to a spine specialist (137 of 187 [73%] vs 159 of 188 [85%]; P = .007) and were 7% less likely to undergo repeat imaging (seven of 187 [4%] vs 20 of 188 [11%]; P = .01) compared with patients in the nonstatement group. The intervention was not associated with any change in narcotic prescription (53 of 188 [28%] vs 54 of 187 [29%]; P = .88) or with the rate of low back surgery (24 of 188 [13%] vs 16 of 187 [9%]; P = .19). Conclusion In this study, inclusion of a simple epidemiologic statement in lumbar MR imaging reports was associated with decreased utilization in high-cost domains of low back pain management. © RSNA, 2018.

Impact of an Advanced Imaging Utilization Review Program on Downstream Health Care Utilization and Costs for Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Early magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for acute low back pain (LBP) has been associated with increased costs, greater health care utilization, and longer disability duration in workers' compensation claimants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a state policy implemented in June 2010 that required prospective utilization review (UR) for early MRI among workers' compensation claimants with LBP. RESEARCH DESIGN: Interrupted time series. SUBJECTS: In total, 76,119 Washington State workers' compensation claimants with LBP between 2006 and 2014. MEASURES: Proportion of workers receiving imaging per month (MRI, computed tomography, radiographs) and lumbosacral injections and surgery; mean total health care costs per worker; mean duration of disability per worker. Measures were aggregated monthly and attributed to injury month. RESULTS: After accounting for secular trends, decreases in early MRI [level change: -5.27 (95% confidence interval, -4.22 to -6.31); trend change: -0.06 (-0.01 to -0.12)], any MRI [-4.34 (-3.01 to -5.67); -0.10 (-0.04 to -0.17)], and injection [trend change: -0.12 (-0.06 to -0.18)] utilization were associated with the policy. Radiograph utilization increased in parallel [level change: 2.46 (1.24-3.67)]. In addition, the policy resulted in significant decreasing changes in mean costs per claim, mean disability duration, and proportion of workers who received disability benefits. The policy had no effect on computed tomography or surgery utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The UR policy had discernable effects on health care utilization, costs, and disability. Integrating evidence-based guidelines with UR can improve quality of care and patient outcomes, while reducing use of low-value health services.

Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.