The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions: Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results: We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

High-Dose Erythropoietin and Hypothermia for Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy: A Phase II Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if multiple doses of erythropoietin (Epo) administered with hypothermia improve neuroradiographic and short-term outcomes of newborns with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. METHODS: In a phase II double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomized newborns to receive Epo (1000 U/kg intravenously; n = 24) or placebo (n = 26) at 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 days of age. All infants had moderate/severe encephalopathy; perinatal depression (10 minute Apgar <5, pH <7.00 or base deficit ≥15, or resuscitation at 10 minutes); and received hypothermia. Primary outcome was neurodevelopment at 12 months assessed by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and Warner Initial Developmental Evaluation. Two independent observers rated MRI brain injury severity by using an established scoring system. RESULTS: The mean age at first study drug was 16.5 hours (SD, 5.9). Neonatal deaths did not significantly differ between Epo and placebo groups (8% vs 19%, P = .42). Brain MRI at mean 5.1 days (SD, 2.3) showed a lower global brain injury score in Epo-treated infants (median, 2 vs 11, P = .01). Moderate/severe brain injury (4% vs 44%, P = .002), subcortical (30% vs 68%, P = .02), and cerebellar injury (0% vs 20%, P = .05) were less frequent in the Epo than placebo group. At mean age 12.7 months (SD, 0.9), motor performance in Epo-treated (n = 21) versus placebo-treated (n = 20) infants were as follows: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (53.2 vs 42.8, P = .03); Warner Initial Developmental Evaluation (28.6 vs 23.8, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: High doses of Epo given with hypothermia for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy may result in less MRI brain injury and improved 1-year motor function.

Lumbar Imaging With Reporting Of Epidemiology (LIRE)--Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging is often the first step in evaluating patients with back pain and likely functions as a "gateway" to a subsequent cascade of interventions. However, lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals incidental findings among normal, pain-free individuals suggesting that treatment of these "abnormalities" may not be warranted. Our prior work suggested that inserting the prevalence of imaging findings in patients without back pain into spine imaging reports may reduce subsequent interventions. We are now conducting a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that inserting this prevalence data into lumbar spine imaging reports for studies ordered by primary care providers will reduce subsequent spine-related interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: We are using a stepped wedge design that sequentially randomizes 100 primary care clinics at four health systems to receive either standard lumbar spine imaging reports, or reports containing prevalence data for common imaging findings in patients without back pain. We capture all outcomes passively through the electronic medical record. Our primary outcome is spine-related intervention intensity based on Relative Value Units (RVUs) during the following year. Secondary outcomes include subsequent prescriptions for opioid analgesics and cross-sectional lumbar spine re-imaging. DISCUSSION: If our study shows that adding prevalence data to spine imaging reports decreases subsequent back-related RVUs, this intervention could be easily generalized and applied to other kinds of testing, as well as other conditions where incidental findings may be common. Our study also serves as a model for cluster randomized trials that are minimal risk and highly pragmatic.