Mortality with concurrent treatment with gabapentin and opioids among people with spine diagnoses in the U.S. Medicare population: a propensity-matched cohort study.

IMPORTANCE: Given the negative impact of opioid use on population health, prescriptions for alternative pain-relieving medications, including gabapentin, have increased. Concurrent gabapentin and opioid prescriptions are commonly reported in retrospective studies of opioid-related overdose deaths. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether people who filled gabapentin and opioid prescriptions concurrently ('gabapentin + opioids') had greater mortality than those who filled an active control medication (tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs] or duloxetine) and opioids concurrently ('TCAs/duloxetine + opioids'). We hypothesized that people treated with gabapentin + opioids would have higher mortality rates compared to people treated with TCAs/duloxetine + opioids. DESIGN: Propensity score-matched cohort study with an incident user, active control design. The median (maximum) follow-up was 45 (1093) days. SETTING: Population-based. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with spine-related diagnoses 2017-2019. The primary analysis included those who concurrently (within 30 days) filled at least 1 incident gabapentin + at least 1 opioid or at least 1 incident TCA/duloxetine + at least 1 opioid. EXPOSURES: People treated with gabapentin + opioids (n=67,133) were matched on demographic and clinical factors in a 1:1 ratio to people treated with TCAs/duloxetine + opioids (n=67,133). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was mortality at any time. A secondary outcome was occurrence of a major medical complication at any time. RESULTS: Among 134,266 participants (median age 73.4 years; 66.7% female), 2360 died before the end of follow-up. No difference in mortality was observed between groups (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for gabapentin + opioids was 0.98 (0.90, 1.06); p=0.63). However, people treated with gabapentin + opioids were at slightly increased risk of a major medical complication (1.02 (1.00, 1.04); p=0.03) compared to those treated with TCAs/duloxetine + opioids. Results were similar in analyses (a) restricted to less than or = 30-day follow-up and (b) that required at least 2 fills of each prescription. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: When treating pain in older adults taking opioids, the addition of gabapentin did not increase mortality risk relative to addition of TCAs or duloxetine. However, providers should be cognizant of a small increased risk of major medical complications among opioid users initiating gabapentin compared to those initiating TCAs or duloxetine.

STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE): results of a pragmatic randomized trial of pain coping skills training and opioid medication taper guidance for patients on long-term opioid therapy.

ABSTRACT: Because long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) for chronic pain has uncertain benefits and dose-dependent harms, safe and effective strategies for opioid tapering are needed. Adapting a promising pilot study intervention, we conducted the STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE) pragmatic clinical trial. Patients in integrated health system on moderate-to-high dose of LtOT for chronic noncancer pain were randomized individually to usual care plus intervention (n = 79) or usual care only (n = 74). The intervention included pain coping skills training and optional support for opioid taper, delivered in 18 telephone sessions over a year, with pharmacologic guidance provided to participants' primary care providers by a pain physician. Coprimary outcomes were daily opioid dose (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]), calculated using pharmacy dispensing data, and the self-reported Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity scale at 12 months (primary time point) and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included opioid misuse, opioid difficulties, opioid craving, pain self-efficacy, and global impression of change, depression, and anxiety. Only 41% randomized to the intervention completed all sessions. We did not observe significant differences between intervention and usual care for MME (adjusted mean difference: -2.3 MME; 95% confidence interval: -10.6, 5.9; P = 0.578), the Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity scale (0.0 [95% confidence interval: -0.5, 0.5], P = 0.985), or most secondary outcomes. The intervention did not lower opioid dose or improve pain or functioning. Other strategies are needed to reduce opioid doses while improving pain and function for patients who have been on LtOT for years with high levels of medical, mental health, and substance use comorbidity.

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.

Estimating individualized treatment effects using a risk-modeling approach: an application to epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis.

ABSTRACT: Conventional "1-variable-at-a-time" analyses to identify treatment effect modifiers are often underpowered and prone to false-positive results. This study used a "risk-modeling" approach guided by the Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement framework: (1) developing and validating a multivariable model to estimate predicted future back-related functional limitations as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and (2) stratifying patients from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESIs) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis into subgroups with different individualized treatment effects on RMDQ scores at the 3-week follow-up. Model development and validation were conducted in a cohort (n = 3259) randomly split into training and testing sets in a 4:1 ratio. The model was developed in the testing set using linear regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection regularization and 5-fold cross-validation. The model was then applied in the testing set and subsequently in patients receiving the control treatment in the RCT of LESI. R2 values in the training set, testing set, and RCT were 0.38, 0.32, and 0.34, respectively. There was statistically significant modification ( P = 0.03) of the LESI treatment effect according to predicted risk quartile, with clinically relevant LESI treatment effect point estimates in the 2 quartiles with greatest predicted risk (-3.7 and -3.3 RMDQ points) and no effect in the lowest 2 quartiles. A multivariable risk-modeling approach identified subgroups of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with a clinically relevant treatment effect of LESI on back-related functional limitations.

Moderators and Nonspecific Predictors of Treatment Benefits in a Randomized Trial of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy vs Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Both mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP), but little is known regarding who might benefit more from one than the other. Using data from a randomized trial comparing MBSR, CBT, and usual care (UC) for adults aged 20 to 70 years with CLBP (N = 297), we examined baseline characteristics that moderated treatment effects or were associated with improvement regardless of treatment. Outcomes included 8-week function (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire), pain bothersomeness (0-10 numerical rating scale), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). There were differences in the effects of CBT versus MBSR on pain based on participant gender (P = .03) and baseline depressive symptoms (P = .01), but the only statistically significant moderator after Bonferroni correction was the nonjudging dimension of mindfulness. Scores on this measure moderated the effects of CBT versus MBSR on both function (P = .001) and pain (P = .04). Pain control beliefs (P <.001) and lower anxiety (P < .001) predicted improvement regardless of treatment. Replication of these findings is needed to guide treatment decision-making for CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial and analysis plan were preregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01467843). PERSPECTIVE: Although few potential moderators and nonspecific predictors of benefits from CBT or MBSR for CLBP were statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons, these findings suggest potentially fruitful directions for confirmatory research while providing reassurance that patients could reasonably expect to benefit from either treatment.

Long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections after new episodes of low back pain in older adults.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESI) in older adults despite the high prevalence of back and leg pain in this age group. We tested the hypotheses that older adults undergoing ESI, compared to patients not receiving ESI: (1) have worse pain, disability and quality of life ('outcomes') pre-ESI, (2) have improved outcomes after ESI and (3) have improved outcomes due to a specific ESI effect. METHODS: We prospectively studied patients ≥65 years old presenting to primary care with new episodes of back pain in three US healthcare systems (BOLD registry). Outcomes were leg and back pain intensity, disability and quality of life, assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-ups. We categorized participants as: (1) ESI within 6 months from the index visit (n = 295); (2) no ESI within 6 months (n = 4809); (3) no ESI within 6 months, propensity-score matched to group 1 (n = 483). We analysed the data using linear regression and Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: Pain intensity, disability and quality of life at baseline were significantly worse at baseline in ESI patients (group 1) than in group 2. The improvement from baseline to 24 months in all outcomes was statistically significant for group 1. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between outcome trajectories for the propensity-score matched groups 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults treated with ESI have long-term improvement. However, the improvement is unlikely the result of a specific ESI effect. SIGNIFICANCE: In this large, two-year, prospective study in older adults with a new episode of low back pain, back pain, leg pain, disability and quality of life improved after epidural steroid injections; however, propensity-score matching revealed that the improvement was unlikely the result of a specific effect of the injections, indicating that epidural steroids are unlikely to provide long-term benefits in older adults with new episodes of back and leg pain.

Efectividad a largo plazo de las inyecciones epidurales de esteroides tras nuevos episodios de dolor lumbar en adultos mayores / Long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections after new episodes of low back pain in older adults

Antecedentes: Hay pocos estudios sobre la eficacia a largo plazo de las inyecciones epidurales de esteroides (IEE) en las personas mayores a pesar de la elevada prevalencia del dolor de espalda y de miembros inferiores en este grupo de edad. Probamos las hipótesis de que los adultos mayores que reciben IEE, frente a los que no: (1) tienen más dolor y discapacidad y peor calidad de vida (‘resultados’) antes de las IEE, (2) presentan mejores resultados después de las IEE y (3) tienen resultados mejores debido a un efecto específico de las IEE.Métodos: Estudiamos prospectivamente a pacientes de ≥ 65 años de edad que acudieron a la atención primaria con nuevos episodios de dolor de espalda en tres sistemas sanitarios estadounidenses (registro BOLD). Los resultados a evaluar fueron la intensidad del dolor de miembros inferiores y de espalda, la discapacidad y la calidad de vida, valorados en el momento basal y a los 3, 6, 12 y 24 meses de seguimiento. Clasificamos a los participantes en: (1) IEE en los 6 meses siguientes a la visita inicial (n = 295); (2) sin IEE en el plazo de 6 meses (n = 4809); (3) sin IEE en el plazo de 6 meses, puntuación de propensión equiparada a la del grupo 1 (n = 483). Analizamos los datos mediante regresión lineal y ecuaciones de estimación generalizadas.Resultados: La intensidad del dolor, la discapacidad y la calidad de vida basales fueron significativamente peores en los pacientes con IEE (grupo 1) que en los del grupo 2. La mejoría de todos los resultados evaluables desde el momento basal hasta los 24 meses fue estadísticamente significativa para el grupo 1. Sin embargo, no se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las evoluciones de los resultados en los grupos con puntuaciones de propensión equiparadas, 1 y 3.Conclusiones: Los adultos mayores tratados con IEE presentan mejorías a largo plazo. Sin embargo, es improbable que dicha mejoría se deba a un efecto específico de la IEE.(AU)

Background: There is limited research on the longterm effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESI) in older adults despite the high prevalence of back and leg pain in this age group. We tested the hypotheses that older adults undergoing ESI, compared to patients not receiving ESI: (1) have worse pain, disability and quality of life (‘outcomes’) pre-ESI, (2) have improved outcomes after ESI and (3) have improved outcomes due to a specific ESI effect.Methods: We prospectively studied patients ≥ 65 years old presenting to primary care with new episodes of back pain in three US healthcare systems (BOLD reg- istry). Outcomes were leg and back pain intensity, disability and quality of life, assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-ups. We categorized participants as: (1) ESI within 6 months from the index visit (n = 295); (2) no ESI within 6 months (n = 4809); (3) no ESI within 6 months, propensity-score matched to group 1 (n = 483). We analysed the data using linear regression and Generalized Estimating Equations.Results: Pain intensity, disability and quality of life at baseline were significantly worse at baseline in ESI patients (group 1) than in group 2. The improvement from baseline to 24 months in all outcomes was statistically significant for group 1. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between out- come trajectories for the propensity-score matched groups 1 and 3.Conclusions: Older adults treated with ESI have longterm improvement. However, the improvement is unlikely the result of a specific ESI effect.(AU)

Patient, Provider, and Clinic Characteristics Associated with Opioid and Non-Opioid Pain Prescriptions for Patients Receiving Low Back Imaging in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: To describe characteristics of patients, providers, and clinics associated with opioid or non-opioid pain medication prescribing patterns for patients who received lower spine imaging in primary care clinics. METHODS: In these secondary analyses of the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) study, a randomized controlled trial conducted in 4 health systems in the United States, we evaluated characteristics associated with receipt of pain medication prescriptions. The outcomes were receipt of prescriptions for opioid or, separately, non-opioid pain medications within 90 days after imaging. Among patients who received opioid or non-opioid prescriptions, we evaluated receipt of multiple prescriptions in the year following imaging. Mixed models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Compared with whites, patients identified as Asian (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.51-0.56), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83), multiracial (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98) or Black (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) had significantly reduced odds for receiving prescriptions for opioids within 90 days. Patients identified as Native American/Alaska Native had greater odds for receiving prescriptions for non-opioid pain medications within 90 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24). Receipt of pain prescriptions 120 days before imaging was strongly predictive of subsequent receipt of pain prescriptions across all categories. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for factors that could affect prescribing, the strongest differences observed in pain-medication prescribing were across racial categories and for patients with previous pain prescriptions. Further research is needed to understand these differences and to optimize prescribing.

Expected Organizational Costs for Inserting Prevalence Information Into Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports.

BACKGROUND: Modifying physician behavior to more closely align with guideline-based care can be challenging. Few effective strategies resulting in appropriate spine-related health care have been reported. The Lumbar Imaging With Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) intervention did not result in reductions in spine care but did in opioid prescriptions written. OBJECTIVES: To estimate organizational resource needs and costs associated with implementing a pragmatic, decision support-type intervention that inserted age- and modality-matched prevalence information for common lumbar spine imaging findings, using site-based resource use data from the LIRE trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Time and cost estimation associated with implementing the LIRE intervention in a health organization. SUBJECTS: Providers and patients assessed in the LIRE trial. MEASURES: Expected personnel costs required to implement the LIRE intervention. RESULTS: Annual salaries were converted to daily average per person costs, ranging from $400 to $2,200 per day (base case) for personnel (range: $300-$2,600). Estimated total average cost for implementing LIRE was $5,009 (range: $2,651-$12,020), including conducting pilot testing with providers. Costs associated with a small amount of time for a radiologist (6-12 hours) and imaging-ordering providers (1-8 hours each) account for approximately 75% of the estimated total cost. CONCLUSIONS: The process of implementing an intervention for lumbar spine imaging reports containing age- and modality-appropriate epidemiological benchmarks for common imaging findings required radiologists, imaging-ordering providers, information technology specialists, and limited testing and monitoring. The LIRE intervention seems to be a relatively low-cost, evidence-based, complementary tool that can be easily integrated into the reporting of spine imaging.

STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE): Protocol for a pragmatic randomized trial of pain coping skills training and opioid medication taper guidance for patients on long-term opioid therapy.

High-dose, long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) is associated with risk for serious harms. Rapid opioid discontinuation may lead to increased pain, psychological distress, and illicit opioid use, but gradual, supported opioid taper may reduce these risks. We previously demonstrated that an opioid taper support and pain coping skills training intervention reduced opioid dose more than usual care (43% vs 19% dose reduction from baseline), with no increase in pain intensity and a significant reduction in activity interference. We aim to adapt and test this intervention in the Kaiser Permanente Washington healthcare system with STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE, NCT03743402), a pragmatic, randomized trial. Our goal was to randomize 215 participants on moderate-high dose (≥40 morphine milligram equivalent/day) LtOT to either cognitive-behavioral therapy-based pain coping skills training involving 18 telephone sessions over 52 weeks with optional opioid taper support or usual care. Data are collected from electronic health records, claims, and self-report. The primary outcomes are mean daily opioid dose and the pain intensity, interference with enjoyment of life, and interference with general activity (PEG) score at 12 months (primary time point) and 6 months (secondary time point). Secondary outcomes include having ≥30% opioid dose reduction from baseline, and patient-reported problem opioid use, opioid-related difficulties, pain self-efficacy, opioid craving, global impression of change, and anxiety and depressive symptoms at 6 and 12 months. If effective, this treatment could reduce opioid exposure and associated risks to patients, families, and communities while offering patients an alternative for managing pain.

Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of inserting epidemiological information into lumbar spine imaging reports on subsequent nonsurgical and surgical procedures involving the thoracolumbosacral spine and sacroiliac joints. DESIGN: Analysis of secondary outcomes from the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) pragmatic stepped-wedge randomized trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics within four integrated health care systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: 238,886 patients ≥18 years of age who received lumbar diagnostic imaging between 2013 and 2016. METHODS: Clinics were randomized to receive text containing age- and modality-specific epidemiological benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common spine imaging findings in people without low back pain, inserted into lumbar spine imaging reports (the "LIRE intervention"). The study outcomes were receiving 1) any nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedure (lumbosacral epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, or facet joint radiofrequency ablation; or sacroiliac joint injection) or 2) any surgical procedure involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine (decompression surgery or spinal fusion or other spine surgery). RESULTS: The LIRE intervention was not significantly associated with subsequent utilization of nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedures (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.09; P = 0.79) or any surgical procedure (OR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.74) involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine. The intervention was also not significantly associated with any individual spine procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiological text into spine imaging reports had no effect on nonsurgical or surgical procedure utilization among patients receiving lumbar diagnostic imaging.

Effects of Including Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports on Prescribing Non-Opioid Medications for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Information on the prevalence of common imaging findings among patients without back pain in spine imaging reports might affect pain medication prescribing for patients with back pain. Prior research on inserting this text suggested a small reduction in opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of epidemiologic information in spine imaging reports on non-opioid pain medication prescribing for primary care patients with back pain. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology cluster-randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 170,680 patients aged ≥ 18 years from four healthcare systems who received thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging from 2013 to 2016 and had not received a prescription for non-opioid pain medication in the preceding 120 days. INTERVENTION: Text of age- and modality-specific epidemiologic benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common findings in people without back pain inserted into thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging reports at intervention clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: any non-opioid prescription within 90 days after index imaging, overall, and by sub-class (skeletal muscle relaxants, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, duloxetine). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: count of non-opioid prescriptions within 90 days, overall, and by sub-class. KEY RESULTS: The intervention was not associated with the likelihood of patients receiving at least one prescription for new non-opioid pain-related medications, overall (adjusted OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08) or by sub-class. The intervention was not associated with the number of prescriptions for any non-opioid medication (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04). However, the intervention was associated with more new prescriptions for NSAIDs (IRR, 1.12) and tricyclic antidepressants (IRR, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiologic text in spine imaging reports had no effect on whether new non-opioid pain-related medications were prescribed but was associated with the number of new prescriptions for certain non-opioid sub-classes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02015455.

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.

The Benefits of T'ai Chi for Older Adults with Chronic Back Pain: A Qualitative Study.

Objective: To determine the perceived benefits of t'ai chi in older adults with chronic low-back pain (cLBP). Design: A qualitative analysis from a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Subjects: Eighteen participants (65+ years old) with cLBP of at least moderate intensity. Intervention: A 36-week intervention beginning with twice weekly classes for 12 weeks, weekly classes for 6 weeks, biweekly classes for 6 weeks, and monthly classes for 12 weeks. Participants were asked to practice at home on nonclass days and videos were provided to assist in that process. Outcome Measures: Participants in the focus groups were asked to provide feedback on their experiences with the study as well as the benefits of their t'ai chi practice. We used demographic and class attendance data to describe the sample. Results: Regarding the benefits of t'ai chi practice, five major themes were identified: functional benefits, pain reduction/pain relief, psychospiritual benefits, the importance of social support in learning t'ai chi, and the integration of t'ai chi into daily activities. The most common functional benefits were improvements in balance, flexibility, leg strength, and posture. Some reported pain reduction or pain relief, but others did not. Increased relaxation, mindfulness, and a sense of connectedness were subthemes that emerged from psychospiritual benefits. Social support benefits included motivation to attend class and group support while learning a new skill. Finally, improved body awareness allowed participants to integrate t'ai chi skills into their daily activities. Conclusions: This qualitative analysis demonstrates the multifaceted benefits of t'ai chi for older adults living with cLBP.

T'ai Chi for Chronic Low Back Pain in Older Adults: A Feasibility Trial.

Objectives: T'ai chi (TC) has been found effective for improving chronic low back pain (cLBP). However, such studies did not include adults over 65 years of age. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of TC in this population compared with Health Education (HE) and with Usual Care (UC). Design: Feasibility randomized controlled trial. Settings/Location: Participants were recruited from Kaiser Permanente Washington and classes took place in a Kaiser facility. Patients: Adults 65 years of age and older with cLBP. Interventions: Twenty-eight participants were randomized to 12 weeks of TC followed by a 24-week tapered TC program, 12 were assigned to a 12-week HE intervention and 17 were assigned to UC only. Outcome Measures: Feasibility and acceptability were determined by recruitment, retention and 12-, 26-, and 52-week follow-up rates, instructor adherence to protocol, class attendance, TC home practice, class satisfaction, and adverse events. Results: Fifty-seven participants were enrolled in two cohorts of 28 and 29 during two 4-month recruitment periods. Questionnaire follow-up completion rates ranged between 88% and 93%. Two major class protocol deviations were noted in TC and none in HE. Sixty-two percent of TC participants versus 50% of HE participants attended at least 70% of the classes during the 12-week initial intervention period. Weekly rates of TC home practice were high among class attendees (median of 4.2 days) at 12 weeks, with fewer people practicing at 26 and 52 weeks. By 52 weeks, 70% of TC participants reported practicing the week before, with a median of 3 days per week and 15 min/session. TC participants rated the helpfulness of their classes significantly higher than did HE participants, but the groups were similarly likely to recommend the classes. Conclusion: The TC intervention is feasible in this population, while the HE group requires modifications in delivery.

Multi-site Pain Is Associated with Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Adults with Persistent Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of co-occurring pain sites among older adults with persistent back pain and associations of multisite pain with longitudinal outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: Eight hundred ninety-nine older adults with persistent back pain. METHODS: Participants reported pain in the following sites: stomach, arms/legs/joints, headaches, neck, pelvis/groin, and widespread pain. Over 18 months, we measured back-related disability (Roland Morris, scored 0-24), pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], utility from 0-1), and falls in the past three weeks. We used mixed-effects models to test the association of number and type of pain sites with each outcome. RESULTS: Nearly all (N = 839, 93%) respondents reported at least one additional pain site. There were 216 (24%) with one additional site and 623 (69%) with multiple additional sites. The most prevalent comorbid pain site was the arms/legs/joints (N = 801, 89.1%). Adjusted mixed-effects models showed that for every additional pain site, RMDQ worsened by 0.65 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43 to 0.86), back pain intensity increased by 0.14 points (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.22), EQ-5D worsened by 0.012 points (95% CI = -0.018 to -0.006), and the odds of falling increased by 27% (odds ratio = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.43). Some specific pain sites (extremity pain, widespread pain, and pelvis/groin pain) were associated with greater long-term disability. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite pain is common among older adults with persistent back pain. Number of pain sites was associated with all outcomes; individual pain sites were less consistently associated with outcomes.

Management of Pain in Elite Athletes: Identified Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Directions.

OBJECTIVE: For elite athletes to train and compete at peak performance levels, it is necessary to manage their pain efficiently and effectively. A recent consensus meeting on the management of pain in elite athletes concluded that there are many gaps in the current knowledge and that further information and research is required. This article presents the crystallization of these acknowledged gaps in knowledge. DATA SOURCES: Information was gathered from a wide variety of published scientific sources that were reviewed at the consensus meeting and the gaps in knowledge identified. MAIN RESULTS: Gaps have been identified in the epidemiology of analgesic use, the management of pain associated with minor injuries, and the field of play management of pain for athletes with major injuries. From a pharmacological perspective, there is a lack of information on the prescribing of opioid medications in elite athletes and more data are required on the use of local anesthetics injections, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during training and in competition. Pain management strategies for the general population are widely available, but there are few for the elite sporting population and virtually none for elite athletes with a disability. More research is also needed in assessing cognitive-behavior therapies in improving specific outcomes and also into the new process of psychologically informed physiotherapy. A key issue is the paucity of data relating to incidence or prevalence of persistent pain and how this relates to persistent dysfunction, exercise performance, and physiological function in later life. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of the gaps in knowledge in the management of pain in elite athletes will provide a unified direction for the retrieval of information and further research that will provide reassurance, speed return to active sport, and benefit performance.

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.

Long-term outcomes of a large, prospective observational cohort of older adults with back pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although back pain is common among older adults, there is relatively little research on the course of back pain in this age group. PURPOSE: Our primary goals were to report 2-year outcomes of older adults initiating primary care for back pain and to examine the relative importance of patient factors versus medical interventions in predicting 2-year disability and pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study used a predictive model using data from a prospective, observational cohort from a primary care setting. PATIENT SAMPLE: The study included patients aged ≥65 years at the time of new primary care visits for back pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported 2-year disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and back pain (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS]). METHODS: We developed our models using a machine learning least absolute shrinkage and selection operator approach. We evaluated the predictive value of baseline characteristics and the incremental value of interventions that occurred between 0 and 90 days, and the change in patient disability and pain from 0 to 90 days. Limitations included confounding by indication and unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Of 4,665 patients (89%) with follow-up, both RDQ (from mean 9.6 [95% confidence interval {CI} 9.4-9.7] to mean 8.3 [95% CI 8.0-8.5]) and back pain NRS (from mean 5.0 [95% CI 4.9-5.1] to mean 3.5 [95% CI 3.4-3.6]) scores improved slightly. Only 16% (15%-18%) reported no back pain-related disability or back pain at 2 years after initial visits. Regression model parameters explained 40% of the variation (R2) in 2-year RDQ scores, and the addition of 0- to 3-month change in RDQ score and pain improved prediction (R2=51%). The most consistent predictors of 2-year RDQ scores and back pain NRS scores were 0- to 90-day change in each respective outcome and patient confidence in improvement. Patients experienced 50% and 43% improvement in back pain and disability, respectively, 2 years after their initial visit. However, fewer than 20% of patients had complete resolution of their back pain and disability at that time. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline patient factors were more important than early interventions in explaining disability and pain after 2 years.