Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Design of the Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure Trial (SPINE CARE) study: Methods and lessons from a multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain (together, spine pain) are among the leading causes of medical visits, lost productivity, and disability. For most people, episodes of spine pain are self-limited; nevertheless, healthcare spending for this condition is extremely high. Focusing care on individuals at high-risk of progressing from acute to chronic pain may improve efficiency. Alternatively, postural therapies, which are frequently used by patients, may prevent the overuse of high-cost interventions while delivering equivalent outcomes. METHODS: The SPINE CARE (Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure) trial is a cluster-randomized multi-center pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and healthcare utilization of two interventions for primary care patients with acute and subacute spine pain. The study was conducted at 33 primary care clinics in geographically distinct regions of the United States. Individuals ≥18 years presenting to primary care with neck and/or back pain of ≤3 months' duration were randomized at the clinic-level to 1) usual care, 2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary approach called the Identify, Coordinate, and Enhance (ICE) care model, or 3) Individualized Postural Therapy (IPT), a standardized postural therapy method of care. The trial's two primary outcomes are change in function at 3 months and spine-related spending at one year. 2971 individuals were enrolled between June 2017 and March 2020. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. DISCUSSION: The SPINE CARE trial will determine the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of two interventions for patients with spine pain presenting to primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03083886.

Rate of Return to Military Active Duty After Single and 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A 4-Year Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: Over the years of rigorous of military service, military personnel may experience cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy. Given the frequency of this occurrence, the capacity to return to unrestricted full duty in the military after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is worthy of analysis. OBJECTIVE: To identify the rate of return to full, unrestricted active duty after single and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy, and fusion surgery in military personnel. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed at a tertiary care military treatment facility for all active duty personnel who underwent a single or 2-level ACDF over a 4-yr period. Patient and procedural data were collected to include single or 2-level fusion, indication for surgery, fusion level, tobacco use, age, and military rank. Fischer's Exact and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to identify statistically significant differences in the rate of return to active duty. RESULTS: A total of 132 anterior cervical discectomy and fusions were analyzed. One hundred sixteen patients (88%) were able to return to unrestricted full active duty, while the remaining 16 required separation from the military for continued pain or disability. The return to active duty rate was significantly higher in service members with a rank of E7 or above (99%) than those E6 and below (73%). There was a strong association between the presence of a pseudoarthrosis and the capacity to return to full duty (P = .013). CONCLUSION: Both single and 2-level ACDFs have high overall success with an 88% rate of return to full duty.