How well do participants in clinical trials represent the U.S. population with chronic neck or back pain?

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing treatment effectiveness; however, they have been criticized for generalizability issues such as how well trial participants represent those who receive the treatments in clinical practice. We assessed the representativeness of participants from eight RCTs for chronic spine pain in the U.S., which were used for an individual participant data meta-analysis on the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation for spine pain. In these clinical trials, spinal manipulation was performed by chiropractors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of RCT data to compare trial participants' socio-demographic characteristics, clinical features, and health outcomes to a representative sample of (a) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain and (b) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain receiving chiropractic care, using secondary data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed differences between trial and U.S. spine populations using independent t-tests for means and z-tests for proportions, accounting for the complex multi-stage survey design of the NHIS and MEPS. RESULTS: We found the clinical trials had an under-representation of individuals from health disparity populations with lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority groups (Black/African American 7% lower, Hispanic 8% lower), less educated (No high school degree 19% lower, high school degree 11% lower), and unemployed adults (25% lower) with worse health outcomes (physical health scores 2.5 lower and mental health scores 5.3 lower using the SF-12/36) relative to the U.S. population with spine pain. While the odds of chiropractic use in the U.S. are lower for individuals from health disparity populations, the trials also under-represented these populations relative to U.S. adults with chronic spine pain who visit a chiropractor. CONCLUSIONS: Health disparity populations are not well represented in spine pain clinical trials. Embracing key community-based approaches, which have shown promise for increasing participation of underserved communities, is needed.

Gender differences in PTSD severity and pain outcomes: Baseline results from the LAMP trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain are highly prevalent comorbid conditions. Veterans dually burdened by PTSD and chronic pain experience more severe outcomes compared to either disorder alone. Few studies have enrolled enough women Veterans to test gender differences in pain outcomes [catastrophizing, intensity, interference] by the severity of PTSD symptoms. AIM: Examine gender differences in the association between PTSD symptoms and pain outcomes among Veterans enrolled in a chronic pain clinical trial. METHODS: Participants were 421 men and 386 women Veterans with chronic pain who provided complete data on PTSD symptoms and pain outcomes. We used hierarchical linear regression models to examine gender differences in pain outcomes by PTSD symptoms. RESULTS: Adjusted multivariable models indicated that PTSD symptoms were associated with higher levels of pain catastrophizing (0.57, 95% CI [0.51, 0.63]), pain intensity (0.30, 95% CI [0.24, 0.37]), and pain interference (0.46, 95% CI [0.39, 0.52]). No evidence suggesting gender differences in this association were found in either the crude or adjusted models (all interaction p-values<0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings may reflect the underlying mutual maintenance of these conditions whereby the sensation of pain could trigger PTSD symptoms, particularly if the trauma and pain are associated with the same event. Clinical implications and opportunities testing relevant treatments that may benefit both chronic pain and PTSD are discussed.

Causally interpretable meta-analysis: Clearly defined causal effects and two case studies.

Meta-analysis is commonly used to combine results from multiple clinical trials, but traditional meta-analysis methods do not refer explicitly to a population of individuals to whom the results apply and it is not clear how to use their results to assess a treatment's effect for a population of interest. We describe recently-introduced causally interpretable meta-analysis methods and apply their treatment effect estimators to two individual-participant data sets. These estimators transport estimated treatment effects from studies in the meta-analysis to a specified target population using the individuals' potentially effect-modifying covariates. We consider different regression and weighting methods within this approach and compare the results to traditional aggregated-data meta-analysis methods. In our applications, certain versions of the causally interpretable methods performed somewhat better than the traditional methods, but the latter generally did well. The causally interpretable methods offer the most promise when covariates modify treatment effects and our results suggest that traditional methods work well when there is little effect heterogeneity. The causally interpretable approach gives meta-analysis an appealing theoretical framework by relating an estimator directly to a specific population and lays a solid foundation for future developments.

Effectiveness of Spinal Manipulation and Biopsychosocial Self-Management compared to Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Study Protocol.

Background Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. Methods We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2x2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. Discussion By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Identifying body awareness-related brain network changes after Spring Forest Qigong™ practice or P.Volve low-intensity exercise in adults with chronic low back pain: a feasibility Phase I Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) affects the quality of life of 52 million Americans and leads to an enormous personal and economic burden. A multidisciplinary approach to cLBP management is recommended. Since medication has limited efficacy and there are mounting concerns about opioid addiction, the American College of Physicians and American Pain Society recommend non-pharmacological interventions, such as mind and body approaches (e.g., Qigong, yoga, Tai Chi) before prescribing medications. Of those, Qigong practice might be most accessible given its gentle movements and because it can be performed standing, sitting, or lying down. The three available Qigong studies in adults with cLBP showed that Qigong reduced pain more than waitlist and equally well than exercise. Yet, the duration and/or frequency of Qigong practice were low (<12 weeks or less than 3x/week). The objectives of this study were to investigate the feasibility of practicing Spring Forest Qigong™ or performing P.Volve low intensity exercises 3x/week for 12 weeks, feasibility of recruitment, data collection, delivery of the intervention as intended, as well as identify estimates of efficacy on brain function and behavioral outcomes after Qigong practice or exercise. To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the feasibility of the potential effect of Qigong on brain function in adults with cLBP. Methods: We conducted a feasibility Phase I Randomized Clinical Trial. Of the 36 adults with cLBP recruited between January 2020 and June 2021, 32 were enrolled and randomized to either 12 weeks of remote Spring Forest Qigong™ practice or remote P.Volve low-intensity exercises. Participants practiced at least 3x/week for 41min/session with online videos. Our main outcome measures were the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (highest, average, and lowest cLBP pain intensity levels in the prior week), assessed weekly and fMRI data (resting-state and task-based fMRI tasks: pain imagery, kinesthetic imagery of a Qigong movement, and robot-guided shape discrimination). We compared baseline resting-state connectivity and brain activation during fMRI tasks in adults with cLBP with data from a healthy control group (n=28) acquired in a prior study. Secondary outcomes included measures of function, disability, body awareness, kinesiophobia, balance, self-efficacy, core muscle strength, and ankle proprioceptive acuity with a custom-build device. Results: Feasibility of the study design and methods was demonstrated with 30 participants completing the study (94% retention) and reporting high satisfaction with the programs; 96% adherence to P.Volve low-intensity exercises, and 128% of the required practice intensity for Spring Forest Qigong™ practice. Both groups saw promising reductions in low back pain (effect sizes Cohen's d =1.01-2.22) and in most other outcomes ( d =0.90-2.33). Markers of ankle proprioception were not significantly elevated in the cLBP group after the interventions. Brain imaging analysis showed weaker parietal operculum and insula network connectivity in adults with cLBP (n=26), compared to data from a healthy control group (n=28). The pain imagery task elicited lower brain activation of insula, parietal operculum, angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus at baseline in adults with cLBP than in healthy adults. Adults with cLBP had lower precentral gyrus activation than healthy adults for the Qigong movement and robot task at baseline. Pre-post brain function changes showed individual variability: Six (out of 13) participants in the Qigong group showed increased activation in the parietal operculum, angular gyrus, supramarginal gyrus, and precentral gyrus during the Qigong fMRI task. Interpretation: Our data indicate the feasibility and acceptability of using Spring Forest Qigong™ practice or P.Volve low-intensity exercises for cLBP relief showing promising results in terms of pain relief and associated symptoms. Our brain imaging results indicated brain function improvements after 12 weeks of Qigong practice in some participants, pointing to the need for further investigation in larger studies. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04164225 .

Matching the Outcomes to Treatment Targets of Exercise for Low Back Pain: Does it Make a Difference? Results of Secondary Analyses From Individual Patient Data of Randomised Controlled Trials and Pooling of Results Across Trials in Comparative Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether using a single matched or composite outcome might affect the results of previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing exercise for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The first objective was to explore whether a single matched outcome generated greater standardized mean differences (SMDs) when compared with the original unmatched primary outcome SMD. The second objective was to explore whether a composite measure, composed of matched outcomes, generated a greater SMD when compared with the original primary outcome SMD. DESIGN: We conducted exploratory secondary analyses of data. SETTING: Seven RCTs were included, of which 2 were based in the USA (University research clinic, Veterans Affairs medical center) and the UK (primary care clinics, nonmedical centers). One each were based in Norway (clinics), Brazil (primary care), and Japan (outpatient clinics). PARTICIPANTS: The first analysis comprised 1) 5 RCTs (n=1033) that used an unmatched primary outcome but included (some) matched outcomes as secondary outcomes, and the second analysis comprised 2) 4 RCTs (n=864) that included multiple matched outcomes by developing composite outcomes (N=1897). INTERVENTION: Exercise compared with no exercise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The composite consisted of standardized averaged matched outcomes. All analyses replicated the RCTs' primary outcome analyses. RESULTS: Of 5 RCTs, 3 had greater SMDs with matched outcomes (pooled effect SMD 0.30 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.04, 0.56], P=.02) compared with an unmatched primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.19 [95% CI -0.03, 0.40] P=.09). Of 4 composite outcome analyses, 3 RCTs had greater SMDs in the composite outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.28 [95% CI 0.05, 0.51] P=.02) compared with the primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.24 [95% CI -0.04, 0.53] P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses suggest that using an outcome matched to exercise treatment targets in NSLBP RCTs may produce greater SMDs than an unmatched primary outcome. Composite outcomes could offer a meaningful way of investigating superiority of exercise than single domain outcomes.

Multidisciplinary integrative care versus chiropractic care for low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is influenced by interrelated biological, psychological, and social factors, however current back pain management is largely dominated by one-size fits all unimodal treatments. Team based models with multiple provider types from complementary professional disciplines is one way of integrating therapies to address patients' needs more comprehensively. METHODS: This parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2007 to August 2010 aimed to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness of 12 weeks of monodisciplinary chiropractic care (CC), versus multidisciplinary integrative care (IC), for adults with sub-acute and chronic LBP. The primary outcome was pain intensity and secondary outcomes were disability, improvement, medication use, quality of life, satisfaction, frequency of symptoms, missed work or reduced activities days, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, pain coping strategies and kinesiophobia measured at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. RESULTS: 201 participants were enrolled. The largest reductions in pain intensity occurred at the end of treatment and were 43% for CC and 47% for IC. The primary analysis found IC to be significantly superior to CC over the 1-year period (P = 0.02). The long-term profile for pain intensity which included data from weeks 4 through 52, showed a significant advantage of 0.5 for IC over CC (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; P = 0.02; 0 to 10 scale). The short-term profile (weeks 4 to 12) favored IC by 0.4, but was not statistically significant (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.9; P = 0.06). There was also a significant advantage over the long term for IC in some secondary measures (disability, improvement, satisfaction and low back symptom frequency), but not for others (medication use, quality of life, leg symptom frequency, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, active pain coping, and kinesiophobia). Importantly, no serious adverse events resulted from either of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the IC group tended to have better outcomes than the CC group, however the magnitude of the group differences was relatively small. Given the resources required to successfully implement multidisciplinary integrative care teams, they may not be worthwhile, compared to monodisciplinary approaches like chiropractic care, for treating LBP. Trial registration NCT00567333.

Treatment targets of exercise for persistent non-specific low back pain: a consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite several hundred previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the key treatment targets of exercise for persistent non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) remain unclear. This study aimed to generate consensus about the key treatment targets of exercise interventions for patients with NSLBP. DESIGN: Consensus was generated using modified nominal group technique in two, sequential, workshops. The results of a previous systematic review informed the first, national, workshop idea generation and the results of this workshop informed the second, international, workshop. The authors generated a starting list of 30 treatment targets from the systematic review. A pre-specified consensus threshold of 75% was used in the voting stage. PARTICIPANTS: Workshop participants included people with experience of using exercise to manage their persistent NSLBP, clinicians who prescribe exercise for persistent NSLBP, and researchers who design and evaluate exercise interventions in RCTs. All participants generated, voted and ranked the treatment targets in each workshop using an online platform. RESULTS: A total of 39 participants contributed to the consensus (15 in the national workshop and 24 in the international workshop), comprising two people with NSLBP, six clinicians and 31 researchers/clinicians. A total of 40 exercise treatment targets were generated, and 25 were retained after voting and ranking. The prioritised targets of exercise for persistent NSLBP were: improving function, improving quality of life, reducing pain, meeting patient-specific goals and reducing fear of movement. CONCLUSIONS: Future RCTs of exercise should specify the targets of their exercise intervention and consider assessing these treatment targets as well as including mediation analyses.

Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP): Design for a Pragmatic Clinical Trial of Two Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are evidence-based nonpharmacological treatments for treating chronic pain. However, the predominant MBI, mindfulness-based stress reduction, has features that pose significant implementation barriers. OBJECTIVES: This study will test two approaches to delivering MBIs for improving Veterans' chronic pain and mental health comorbidities. These two approaches address key implementation barriers. METHODS: We will conduct a four-site, three-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial, Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP), to test the effectiveness of two MBIs at improving pain and mental health comorbidities. Mobile+Group LAMP consists of prerecorded modules presented by a mindfulness instructor that are viewed in an online group setting and interspersed with discussions led by a facilitator. Mobile LAMP consists of the same prerecorded modules but does not include a group component. We will test whether either of these MBIs will be more effective than usual care at improving chronic pain and whether the Mobile+Group LAMP will be more effective than Mobile LAMP at improving chronic pain. Comparisons for the primary hypotheses will be conducted with continuous outcomes (Brief Pain Inventory interference score) repeated at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary hypotheses are that Mobile+Group LAMP and Mobile LAMP will be more effective than usual care at improving secondary outcomes (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression). We will also confirm the comparisons for the primary and secondary hypotheses in gender-specific strata. IMPLICATIONS: This trial is expected to result in two approaches for delivering MBIs that will optimize engagement, adherence, and sustainability and be able to reach large numbers of Veterans.

Spinal manipulative therapy and exercise for older adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common disabling condition in older adults which often limits physical function and diminishes quality of life. Two clinical trials in older adults have shown spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar or small improvements relative to medical care; however, the effectiveness of adding SMT or rehabilitative exercise to home exercise is unclear. Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial assessing the comparative effectiveness of adding SMT or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise in adults 65 or older with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Treatments were provided over 12-weeks and self-report outcomes were collected at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity. Secondary outcomes included back disability, health status, medication use, satisfaction with care, and global improvement. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. The primary analysis included longitudinal outcomes in the short (week 4-12) and long-term (week 4-52). An omnibus test assessing differences across all groups over the year was used to control for multiplicity. Secondary analyses included outcomes at each time point and responder analyses. This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. Results: 241 participants were randomized and 230 (95%) provided complete primary outcome data. The primary analysis showed group differences in pain over the one-year were small and not statistically significant. Pain severity was reduced by 30 to 40% after treatment in all 3 groups with the largest difference (eight percentage points) favoring SMT and home exercise over home exercise alone. Group differences at other time points ranged from 0 to 6 percentage points with no consistent pattern favoring one treatment. One-year post-treatment pain reductions diminished in all three groups. Secondary self-report outcomes followed a similar pattern with no important group differences, except satisfaction with care, where the two combination groups were consistently superior to home exercise alone. Conclusions: Adding spinal manipulation or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise alone does not appear to improve pain or disability in the short- or long-term for older adults with chronic low back pain, but did enhance satisfaction with care. Trial registration: NCT00269321.

Short- or Long-Term Treatment of Spinal Disability in Older Adults With Manipulation and Exercise.

OBJECTIVE: Back and neck pain are associated with disability and loss of independence in older adults. Whether long-term management using commonly recommended treatments is superior to shorter-term treatment is unknown. This randomized clinical trial compared short-term treatment (12 weeks) versus long-term management (36 weeks) of back- and neck-related disability in older adults using spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with supervised rehabilitative exercises (SRE). METHODS: Eligible participants were ages ≥65 years with back and neck disability for ≥12 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores after 36 weeks. An intent-to-treat approach used linear mixed-model analysis to detect between-group differences. Secondary analyses included other self-reported outcomes, adverse events, and objective functional measures. RESULTS: A total of 182 participants were randomized. The short-term and long-term groups demonstrated significant improvements in back disability (ODI score -3.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -5.8, -2.0] versus ODI score -6.3 [95% CI -8.2, -4.4]) and neck disability (NDI score -7.3 [95% CI -9.1, -5.5] versus NDI score -9.0 [95% CI -10.8, -7.2]) after 36 weeks, with no difference between groups (back ODI score 2.4 [95% CI -0.3, 5.1]; neck NDI score 1.7 [95% CI 0.8, 4.2]). The long-term management group experienced greater improvement in neck pain at week 36, in self-efficacy at weeks 36 and 52, and in functional ability, and balance. CONCLUSION: For older adults with chronic back and neck disability, extending management with SMT and SRE from 12 to 36 weeks did not result in any additional important reduction in disability.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach: a study protocol.

Background: Spinal pain is a common and disabling condition with considerable socioeconomic burden. Spine pain management in the United States has gathered increased scrutiny amidst concerns of overutilization of costly and potentially harmful interventions and diagnostic tests. Conservative interventions such as spinal manipulation, exercise and self-management may provide value for the care of spinal pain, but little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the U.S. Our primary objective for this project is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. Methods/design: We will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management using cost and clinical outcome data collected in eight randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both societal and healthcare perspectives using QALYs, pain intensity, and disability as effectiveness measures. The eight randomized clinical trials used similar methods and included different combinations of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, or self-management for spinal pain. They also collected similar clinical outcome, healthcare utilization, and work productivity data. A two-stage approach to individual patient data meta-analysis will be conducted. Discussion: This project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to combine clinical and economic data collected in a several clinical trials that used similar methods. The findings will provide important information on the value of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain management in the U.S.

Spinal manipulation and exercise for low back pain in adolescents: a randomized trial.

Low back pain (LBP) is common in adolescence, but there is a paucity of high-quality research to inform care. We conducted a multicenter randomized trial comparing 12 weeks of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with exercise therapy (ET) to ET alone. Participants were 185 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years with chronic LBP. The primary outcome was LBP severity at 12, 26, and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability, quality of life, medication use, patient- and caregiver-rated improvement, and satisfaction. Outcomes were analyzed using longitudinal linear mixed effect models. An omnibus test assessing differences in individual outcomes over the entire year controlled for multiplicity. Of the 185 enrolled patients, 179 (97%) provided data at 12 weeks and 174 (94%) at 26 and 52 weeks. Adding SMT to ET resulted in a larger reduction in LBP severity over the course of 1 year (P = 0.007). The group difference in LBP severity (0-10 scale) was small at the end of treatment (mean difference = 0.5; P = 0.08) but was larger at weeks 26 (mean difference = 1.1; P = 0.001) and 52 (mean difference = 0.8; P = 0.009). At 26 weeks, SMT with ET performed better than ET alone for disability (P = 0.04) and improvement (P = 0.02). The SMT with ET group reported significantly greater satisfaction with care at all time points (P ≤ 0.02). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. For adolescents with chronic LBP, spinal manipulation combined with exercise was more effective than exercise alone over a 1-year period, with the largest differences occurring at 6 months. These findings warrant replication and evaluation of cost effectiveness.

Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: a dual-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The optimal number of visits for the care of cervicogenic headache (CGH) with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is unknown. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify the dose-response relationship between visits for SMT and chronic CGH outcomes and to evaluate the efficacy of SMT by comparison with a light-massage control. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a two-site, open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Participants were 256 adults with chronic CGH. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days with CGH in the previous 4 weeks evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included CGH days at remaining end points, pain intensity, disability, perceived improvement, medication use, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Participants were randomized to four dose levels of chiropractic SMT: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions. They were treated three times per week for 6 weeks and received a focused light-massage control at sessions when SMT was not assigned. Linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. The present study was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006330) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01530321). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: A linear dose-response was observed for all follow-ups, a reduction of approximately 1 CGH day/4 weeks per additional 6 SMT visits (p<.05); a maximal effective dose could not be determined. Cervicogenic headache days/4 weeks were reduced from about 16 to 8 for the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits. Mean differences in CGH days/4 weeks between 18 SMT visits and control were -3.3 (p=.004) and -2.9 (p=.017) at the primary end points, and were similar in magnitude at the remaining end points (p<.05). Differences between other SMT doses and control were smaller in magnitude (p>.05). Cervicogenic headache intensity showed no important improvement nor differed by dose. Other secondary outcomes were generally supportive of the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There was a linear dose-response relationship between SMT visits and days with CGH. For the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits, CGH days were reduced by half and about 3 more days per month than for the light-massage control.

Accelerometer-Determined Physical Activity and Clinical Low Back Pain Measures in Adolescents With Chronic or Subacute Recurrent Low Back Pain.

Study Design Cross-sectional. Background Although low back pain (LBP) occurs commonly in adolescence, little is known about the relationship between objectively measured physical activity and chronic LBP. Objectives To assess the relationship between an objective physical activity measure (accelerometer) and standard clinical measures (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life) in a sample of adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. Methods The study included a subsample of 143 adolescents, 12 to 18 years of age, from a randomized clinical trial. Pearson correlations (r) and bivariate linear regression were used to assess the relationship between baseline measures of sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity using accelerometers and clinical measures of LBP (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life). Results Participants spent an average of 610.5 minutes in sedentary activity, 97.6 minutes in light physical activity, and 35.6 minutes in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Physical activity was very weakly associated with clinical measures of LBP (r<0.13). None of the assessed correlations were statistically significant, and bivariate regression models showed that physical activity measures explained very little of the variability for clinical measures of LBP (R2<0.02). Conclusion We found no important relationship between objectively measured physical activity and self-reported LBP intensity, disability, or quality of life in adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. The parent randomized clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01096628). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(10):769-774. Epub 12 Sep 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7345.

What do patients value about spinal manipulation and home exercise for back-related leg pain? A qualitative study within a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient perceptions may influence the effectiveness and utilization of healthcare interventions, particularly for complex health conditions such as sciatica or back-related leg pain (BRLP). OBJECTIVES: To explore BRLP patients' perceptions of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and home exercise with advice (HEA). DESIGN: Qualitative study in a controlled clinical trial. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews conducted after 12 weeks of treatment asked participants about satisfaction with care and whether treatment was worthwhile. An interdisciplinary research team conducted content analysis using qualitative data analysis software to identify and summarize themes. RESULTS: Of 192 trial participants, 174 (91%) completed interviews (66% female, age 57.0 ± 11.5 years). Participants identified interactions with providers and staff, perceived treatment effects, and information as key contributors to both their satisfaction and the worthwhile nature of treatment. HEA was liked for its convenience and ability to foster an exercise habit. SMT was liked for specific aspects of the modality (e.g. manipulation, stretching) and provider competency. Most participants reported no dislikes for SMT or HEA, but some noted the dose/time commitment for SMT and discipline of HEA as least liked aspects of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of patient-provider interactions, perceived treatment effects, and information sharing influenced BRLP patients' satisfaction with care. Qualitative research describing patients' preferences can facilitate translation of study findings into practice and allow clinicians to tailor treatments to facilitate compliance and satisfaction with care.

Dose-response of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is a prevalent and costly pain condition commonly treated by chiropractors. There is evidence to support the effectiveness for spinal manipulation, but the dose of treatment required to achieve maximal relief remains unknown. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the dose-response of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache in an adult population. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed-methods, two-site, prospective, parallel groups, observer-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at university-affiliated research clinics in the Portland, OR and Minneapolis, MN areas. The primary outcome is patient reported headache frequency. Other outcomes include self-reported headache intensity, disability, quality of life, improvement, neck pain intensity and frequency, satisfaction, medication use, outside care, cervical motion, pain pressure thresholds, health care utilization, health care costs, and lost productivity. Qualitative interviews are also conducted to evaluate patients' expectations of treatment. DISCUSSION: With growing concerns regarding the costs and side effects of commonly used conventional treatments, greater numbers of headache sufferers are seeking other approaches to care. This is the first full-scale randomized controlled trial assessing the dose-response of spinal manipulation therapy on outcomes for cervicogenic headache. The results of this study will provide important evidence for the management of cervicogenic headache in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01530321).

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy, supervised exercise, and home exercise for older adults with chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic neck pain is a prevalent and disabling condition among older adults. Despite the large burden of neck pain, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of home exercise and advice (HEA), spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus HEA, and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) plus HEA. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 241 older adults (≥65 years) with chronic mechanical neck pain comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were direct and indirect costs, neck pain, neck disability, SF-6D-derived quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 1-year time horizon. METHODS: This work was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (#F32AT007507), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (#P60AR062799), and Health Resources and Services Administration (#R18HP01425). The RCT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00269308). A societal perspective was adopted for the primary analysis. A healthcare perspective was adopted as a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectivenesswas a secondary aim of the RCT which was not powered for differences in costs or QALYs. Differences in costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Total costs for SMT+HEA were 5% lower than HEA (mean difference: -$111; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$1,354 to $899) and 47% lower than SRE+HEA (mean difference: -$1,932; 95% CI -$2,796 to -$1,097). SMT+HEA also resulted in a greater reduction of neck pain over the year relative to HEA (0.57; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92) and SRE+HEA (0.41; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Differences in disability and QALYs favored SMT+HEA. The probability that adding SMT to HEA is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY gained ranges from 0.75 to 0.81. If adopting a health-care perspective, costs for SMT+HEA were 66% higher than HEA (mean difference: $515; 95% CI $225 to $1,094), resulting in an ICER of $55,975 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: On average, SMT+HEA resulted in better clinical outcomes and lower total societal costs relative to SRE+HEA and HEA alone, with a 0.75 to 0.81 probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY.

Reliability and measurement error of frontal and horizontal 3D spinal motion parameters in 219 patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: In order for measurements to be clinically useful, data on psychometric conditions such as reliability should be available in the population for which the measurements are intended to be used. This study comprises a test-retest design separated by 7 to 14 days, and evaluates the intra and interrater reliability of regional frontal and horizontal spinal motion in 219 chronic LBP patients using the CA6000 Spine Motion Analyzer. In addition, it compares these results on the frontal and horizontal plane with previously published results on the sagittal plane. 219 individuals with chronic mechanical LBP, classified as either Quebec Task Force group 1, 2, 3 or 4 were included, and kinematics of the lumbar spine were sampled during standardized spinal lateral flexion and rotation motion using a 6-df instrumented spatial linkage system. Test-retest reliability and measurement error were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients ICC(1,1) and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOAs). RESULTS: The reliability analysis based on the whole study sample showed ICC(1,1) coefficients varying between 0.68 and 0.73 for the frontal plane and 0.33 and 0.49 for the horizontal plane. Relatively wide LOAs were observed for all parameters. Reliability measures in patient subgroups ICC(1,1) ranged between 0.55 and 0.81 for the frontal plane and 0.28 and 0.69 for the horizontal plane. Greater ICC(1,1) coefficients and smaller LOA were observed when patients were examined by the same examiner, had a stable pain level between tests, and were male. ROM measurements were more reliable in patients with a BMI higher than 30, and measurements on patients with LBP and leg pain showed higher reliability and smaller measurement error in all parameters except for the jerk index. CONCLUSION: Frontal plane measurements obtained using the CA6000 Spine Motion Analyzer are sufficiently reliable to be used for group comparisons but not individual comparisons. Measurements in the horizontal plane can be used for neither group nor individual comparisons.