The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy. CONCLUSION: Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes. IMPACT: Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.

First Provider Seen for an Acute Episode of Low Back Pain Influences Subsequent Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Costs associated with low back pain (LBP) continue to rise. Despite numerous clinical practice guidelines, the evaluation and treatments for LBP are variable and largely depend on the individual provider. As yet, little attention has been given to the first choice of provider. Early research indicates that the choice of first provider and the timing of interventions for LBP appear to influence utilization. We sought to examine the association between the first provider seen and health care utilization. METHODS: Using 2015-2018 data from a large insurer, this retrospective analysis focused on patients (29,806) seeking care for a new episode of LBP. The study identified the first provider chosen and examined the following year of medical utilization. Cox proportional hazards models were calculated using inverse probability weighting on propensity scores to evaluate the time to event and the relationship to the first choice of provider. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the timing and use of health care resources. Total health care use was lowest in those who first sought care with chiropractic care or physical therapy. Highest health care use was seen in those patients who chose the emergency department. CONCLUSION: Overall, there appears to be an association between the first choice of provider and future health care use. Chiropractic care and physical therapy provide nonpharmacologic and nonsurgical, guideline-based interventions. The use of physical therapists and chiropractors as entry points into the health system appears related to a decrease in immediate and long-term use of health resources. This study expands the existing body of literature and provides a compelling case for the influence of the first provider on an acute episode of LBP. IMPACT: The first provider seen for an acute episode of LBP influences immediate treatment decisions, the trajectory of a specific patient episode, and future health care choices in the management of LBP.

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

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

Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Compared to Volitional Exercise for Improving Muscle Function in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) with that of high-intensity volitional resistance training for improving muscle structure and function and physical function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also compared pre-intervention and post-intervention values of myocyte characteristics. METHODS: In this 2-group, single-blind, randomized pilot study, adult patients with RA were assigned to 36 sessions of NMES (n = 31 patients) or volitional training (n = 28 patients) over 16 weeks. Outcome measures included muscle structure and function (quadriceps muscle area, density, and strength), physical function (performance-based and patient-reported), feasibility (increased pain, increased disease activity, attrition, and adherence), and myocyte characteristics (area, proportion of type I or II muscle fibers, and intramyocellular lipid content). Analysis of covariance was used to compare groups. RESULTS: The intervention intensity in the NMES group was less than half that in the volitional exercise group (31% versus 77% of maximum effort). Both groups experienced significant improvements in muscle structure and function (P < 0.001 to 0.019). Improvements in muscle characteristics and physical function were not different between groups. Exercise did not result in serious adverse events or increases in pain and disease activity. Attrition was 29% in the NMES group and 7% in the volitional exercise group. CONCLUSION: Both NMES and high-intensity volitional resistance training can be used as effective approaches to improving muscle structure and function in patients with RA. NMES may be a viable alternative for improving muscle function in patients in whom high-intensity resistance exercise may not be tolerated or is contraindicated, but attrition must be considered when using this approach.

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

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

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

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

Yoga vs. physical therapy vs. education for chronic low back pain in predominantly minority populations: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain causes substantial morbidity and cost to society while disproportionately impacting low-income and minority adults. Several randomized controlled trials show yoga is an effective treatment. However, the comparative effectiveness of yoga and physical therapy, a common mainstream treatment for chronic low back pain, is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial for 320 predominantly low-income minority adults with chronic low back pain, comparing yoga, physical therapy, and education. Inclusion criteria are adults 18-64 years old with non-specific low back pain lasting ≥ 12 weeks and a self-reported average pain intensity of ≥ 4 on a 0-10 scale. Recruitment takes place at Boston Medical Center, an urban academic safety-net hospital and seven federally qualified community health centers located in diverse neighborhoods. The 52-week study has an initial 12-week Treatment Phase where participants are randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio into i) a standardized weekly hatha yoga class supplemented by home practice; ii) a standardized evidence-based exercise therapy protocol adapted from the Treatment Based Classification method, individually delivered by a physical therapist and supplemented by home practice; and iii) education delivered through a self-care book. Co-primary outcome measures are 12-week pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale and back-specific function measured using the modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. In the subsequent 40-week Maintenance Phase, yoga participants are re-randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either structured maintenance yoga classes or home practice only. Physical therapy participants are similarly re-randomized to either five booster sessions or home practice only. Education participants continue to follow recommendations of educational materials. We will also assess cost effectiveness from the perspectives of the individual, insurers, and society using claims databases, electronic medical records, self-report cost data, and study records. Qualitative data from interviews will add subjective detail to complement quantitative data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number: NCT01343927.

Exercise and Auricular Acupuncture for Chronic Low-back Pain: A Feasibility Randomized-controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) investigating the effects of adding auricular acupuncture (AA) to exercise for participants with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). METHODS: Participants with CLBP were recruited from primary care and a university population and were randomly allocated (n=51) to 1 of 2 groups: (1) "Exercise Alone (E)"-12-week program consisting of 6 weeks of supervised exercise followed by 6 weeks unsupervised exercise (n=27); or (2) "Exercise and AA (EAA)"-12-week exercise program and AA (n=24). Outcome measures were recorded at baseline, week 8, week 13, and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants in the EAA group demonstrated a greater mean improvement of 10.7% points (95% confidence interval, -15.3,-5.7) (effect size=1.20) in the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire at 6 months compared with 6.7% points (95% confidence interval, -11.4,-1.9) in the E group (effect size=0.58). There was also a trend towards a greater mean improvement in quality of life, LBP intensity and bothersomeness, and fear-avoidance beliefs in the EAA group. The dropout rate for this trial was lower than anticipated (15% at 6 mo), adherence with exercise was similar (72% E; 65% EAA). Adverse effects for AA ranged from 1% to 14% of participants. DISCUSSION: Findings of this study showed that a main RCT is feasible and that 56 participants per group would need to be recruited, using multiple recruitment approaches. AA was safe and demonstrated additional benefits when combined with exercise for people with CLBP, which requires confirmation in a fully powered RCT.

Mechanical vs manual manipulation for low back pain: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This is an observational prospective cohort study to explore the treatment effect of mechanical vs manual manipulation for acute low back pain. METHODS: Ninety-two patients with a history of acute low back pain were recruited from 3 private chiropractic offices, 2 of which used manual lumbar manipulation and 1 used mechanical instrument manipulation (Activator) as their primary modes of treatment. The chiropractors used their "treatment-as-usual" protocols for a maximum of 8 visits or 4 weeks, whichever occurred first. Primary outcome measures were changes in Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores from baseline to 4 weeks. The linear regression models were adjusted for baseline NPRS and ODI scores, age, and treatment expectancy. RESULTS: Comparison of baseline characteristics did not show any significant differences between the groups except for age (38.4 vs 49.7 years, P < .001) and treatment expectancy (5.7 vs 6.3, P = .003). Linear regression revealed significantly lower NPRS scores in the manual manipulation group at 4 weeks (beta = -1.2; 95% confidence interval, -2.1 to -.28) but no significant difference in ODI scores between the 2 groups at 4 weeks (beta = 1.5; 95% confidence interval, -8.3 to 2.4). Treatment expectancy, but not age, was found to have a significant main effect on both NPRS and ODI scores at 4 weeks. Exploratory analysis of the clinical patterns of care between the clinicians revealed significant differences in treatment frequency, duration, modality, and radiograph use between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the challenges inherent with conducting research that allows for "treatment as usual." The data and experience derived from this investigational study will be used to design a future randomized clinical trial in which tighter controls will be imposed on the treatment protocol.

Efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and therapeutic exercise for older adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) in older adults may be disabling and therapeutically challenging, largely because of the inefficacy and/or morbidity associated with traditional pain treatment. We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 200 men and women > or = age 65 with CLBP to evaluate the efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) with and without general conditioning and aerobic exercise (GCAE), for reducing pain and improving physical function. Participants were randomized to receive (1) PENS, (2) control-PENS (brief electrical stimulation to control for treatment expectancy), (3) PENS+GCAE, or (4) control-PENS+GCAE, twice a week for 6 weeks. All four groups experienced significantly reduced pain (range -2.3 to -4.1 on the McGill Pain Questionnaire short form), improved self-reported disability (range -2.1 to -3.0 on Roland scale) and improved gait velocity (0.04-0.07 m/s), sustained at 6 months. The GCAE groups experienced significantly fewer fear avoidance beliefs immediately post-intervention and at 6 months than non-GCAE groups. There were no significant side effects. Since brief electrical stimulation (i.e., control-PENS) facilitated comparably reduced pain and improved function at 6 months as compared with PENS, the exact dose of electrical stimulation required for analgesia cannot be determined. GCAE was more effective than PENS alone in reducing fear avoidance beliefs, but not in reducing pain or in improving physical function.

Spinal palpation for lumbar segmental mobility and pain provocation: an interexaminer reliability study.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the degree of interexaminer reliability using 2 experienced clinicians performing 3 palpation procedures over the lumbar facet joints and sacroiliac joints. METHODS: The sample consisted of 39 patients with low back pain who had a recent history of low back pain. Two doctors of chiropractic independently examined each of these patients in the prone position with 3 different procedures: (1) springing palpation for pain provocation, (2) springing palpation for segmental mobility testing, and (3) the prone instability test. The doctors were blinded to each other's findings and the patient's clinical status, and performed the examinations on the same day. Standard and adjusted kappa values were calculated for each test. RESULTS: The kappa values for palpation of segmental motion restriction were poor (range, -.20 to .17) and in many cases less than chance observation (negative kappa values). The prone instability test showed reasonable reliability (kappa = .54), and palpation for segmental pain provocation also showed fair to good reliability (kappa range, .21 to .73). CONCLUSIONS: Palpation methods that are used to provoke pain responses are more reliable than palpation methods in which the clinician purports to find segmental motion restriction. The prone instability test shows good reliability.

Interexaminer reliability of the prone leg length analysis procedure.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform an interexaminer reliability evaluation of the prone leg length analysis procedure. METHODS: Two chiropractors each examined a series of 45 patients with a history of low back pain. Patients were in the prone position, with the knees in both extended and flexed positions, and with the head rotated right and left. The clinicians were asked to determine the side of the short leg with knees extended and if a change in leg length occurred with head rotation or when the knees were flexed. They were also asked to visually judge the amount of leg length differential by categorizing the difference as either less than 0.25, 0.25 to 0.5, 0.5 to 0.75, or more than 0.75 in. The head rotation portion of the test was performed only with patients (n = 22) in whom the leg length differential was determined to be less than 0.25 in. RESULTS: kappa statistics and frequency distributions were calculated for each of the respective observations. Reliability of determining the side of the short leg with knees extended was good at 82% agreement (kappa = 0.65) but fair for determining the amount of leg length difference at 67% agreement (kappa = 0.28). Reliability of the head rotation testing procedure was extremely poor, with only 50% and 45% agreement about the observed change in leg length with the head rotated left and right, respectively (kappa = 0.04, kappa = -0.195). There was no significant correlation found between the side of reported pain by the patient and the side of the short leg as noted by either clinician (chi2 = 0.55, P = .91, and chi2 = 1.55, P = .67). All of the patients (100%) were judged to have a leg length difference by both clinicians. When the knees were flexed, there was 93% agreement that the short leg became longer (43/45 cases), with no reported cases of the short leg getting shorter. Calculation of kappa statistics was confounded for these last 2 observations because of extremely high prevalence bias. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that 2 clinicians show good reliability in determining the side of the short leg in the prone position with knees extended but show poor reliability when determining the precise amount of that leg length difference. The head rotation test for assessing changes in leg length was unreliable in this sample of patients. There does not appear to be any correlation between the side of pain noted by the patient and the side of the short leg as observed by the clinicians; all 45 patients in this sample were found to have a short leg by both clinicians.