The effects of telehealth-delivered mindfulness meditation, cognitive therapy, and behavioral activation for chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a significant problem affecting millions of people worldwide. Three widely implemented psychological techniques used for CLBP management are cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and behavioral activation (BA). This study aimed to evaluate the relative immediate (pre- to post-treatment) and longer term (pre-treatment to 3- and 6-month follow-ups) effects of group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM for CLBP. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a three-arm, randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of three active treatments-CT, BA, and MM-with no inert control condition. Participants were N = 302 adults with CLBP, who were randomized to condition. The primary outcome was pain interference, and other secondary outcomes were also examined. The primary study end-point was post-treatment. Intent-to-treat analyses were undertaken for each time point, with the means of the changes in outcomes compared among the three groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Effect sizes and confidence intervals are also reported. RESULTS: Medium-to-large effect size reductions in pain interference were found within BA, CT, and MM (ds from - .71 to - 1.00), with gains maintained at both follow-up time points. Effect sizes were generally small to medium for secondary outcomes for all three conditions (ds from - .20 to - .71). No significant between-group differences in means or changes in outcomes were found at any time point, except for change in sleep disturbance from pre- to post-treatment, improving more in BA than MM (d = - .49). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this trial, one of the largest telehealth trials of psychological treatments to date, critically determined that group, videoconference-delivered CT, BA, and MM are effective for CLBP and can be implemented in clinical practice to improve treatment access. The pattern of results demonstrated similar improvements across treatments and outcome domains, with effect sizes consistent with those observed in prior research testing in-person delivered and multi-modal psychological pain treatments. Thus, internet treatment delivery represents a tool to scale up access to evidence-based chronic pain treatments and to overcome widespread disparities in healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03687762.

Predicting decompression surgery by applying multimodal deep learning to patients' structured and unstructured health data.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition made up of a variety of anatomic and clinical subtypes. Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are two subtypes highly associated with LBP. Patients with LDH/LSS are often started with non-surgical treatments and if those are not effective then go on to have decompression surgery. However, recommendation of surgery is complicated as the outcome may depend on the patient's health characteristics. We developed a deep learning (DL) model to predict decompression surgery for patients with LDH/LSS. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We used datasets of 8387 and 8620 patients from a prospective study that collected data from four healthcare systems to predict early (within 2 months) and late surgery (within 12 months after a 2 month gap), respectively. We developed a DL model to use patients' demographics, diagnosis and procedure codes, drug names, and diagnostic imaging reports to predict surgery. For each prediction task, we evaluated the model's performance using classical and generalizability evaluation. For classical evaluation, we split the data into training (80%) and testing (20%). For generalizability evaluation, we split the data based on the healthcare system. We used the area under the curve (AUC) to assess performance for each evaluation. We compared results to a benchmark model (i.e. LASSO logistic regression). RESULTS: For classical performance, the DL model outperformed the benchmark model for early surgery with an AUC of 0.725 compared to 0.597. For late surgery, the DL model outperformed the benchmark model with an AUC of 0.655 compared to 0.635. For generalizability performance, the DL model outperformed the benchmark model for early surgery. For late surgery, the benchmark model outperformed the DL model. CONCLUSIONS: For early surgery, the DL model was preferred for classical and generalizability evaluation. However, for late surgery, the benchmark and DL model had comparable performance. Depending on the prediction task, the balance of performance may shift between DL and a conventional ML method. As a result, thorough assessment is needed to quantify the value of DL, a relatively computationally expensive, time-consuming and less interpretable method.

The Flares of Low back pain with Activity Research Study (FLAReS): study protocol for a case-crossover study nested within a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although it is generally accepted that physical activity and flares of low back pain (LBP) are related, evidence for the directionality of this association is mixed. The Flares of Low back pain with Activity Research Study (FLAReS) takes a novel approach to distinguish the short-term effects of specific physical activities on LBP flares from the cumulative effects of such activities, by conducting a longitudinal case-crossover study nested within a cohort study. The first aim is to estimate the short-term effects (≤ 24 h) of specific physical activities on LBP flares among Veterans in primary care in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. The second aim is to estimate the cumulative effects of specific activities on LBP-related functional limitations at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Up to 550 adults of working age (18-65 years) seen for LBP in primary care complete up to 36 "Scheduled" surveys over 1-year follow-up, and also complete unscheduled "Flare Window" surveys after the onset of new flares. Each survey asks about current flares and other factors associated with LBP. Surveys also inquire about activity exposures over the 24 h, and 2 h, prior to the time of survey completion (during non-flare periods) or prior to the time of flare onset (during flares). Other questions evaluate the number, intensity, duration, and/or other characteristics of activity exposures. Other exposures include factors related to mood, lifestyle, exercise, concurrent treatments, and injuries. Some participants wear actigraphy devices for weeks 1-4 of the study. The first aim will examine associations between 10 specific activity categories and participant-reported flares over 1-year follow-up. The second aim will examine associations between the frequency of exposure to 10 activity categories over weeks 1-4 of follow-up and long-term functional limitations at 12 months. All analyses will use a biopsychosocial framework accounting for potential confounders and effect modifiers. DISCUSSION: FLAReS will provide empirically derived estimates of both the short-term and cumulative effects of specific physical activities for Veterans with LBP, helping to better understand the role of physical activities in those with LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04828330 , registered April 2, 2021.

The Lumbar Stenosis Prognostic Subgroups for Personalizing Care and Treatment (PROSPECTS) study: protocol for an inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition that contributes to back and back-related leg pain in older adults. Most patients with symptomatic LSS initially receive non-operative care before surgical consultation. However, there is a scarcity of data regarding prognosis for patients seeking non-surgical care. The overall goal of this project is to develop and evaluate a clinically useful model to predict long-term physical function of patients initiating non-surgical care for symptomatic LSS. METHODS: This is a protocol for an inception cohort study of adults 50 years and older who are initiating non-surgical care for symptomatic LSS in a secondary care setting. We plan to recruit up to 625 patients at two study sites. We exclude patients with prior lumbar spine surgeries or those who are planning on lumbar spine surgery. We also exclude patients with serious medical conditions that have back pain as a symptom or limit walking. We are using weekly, automated data pulls from the electronic health records to identify potential participants. We then contact patients by email and telephone within 21 days of a new visit to determine eligibility, obtain consent, and enroll participants. We collect data using telephone interviews, web-based surveys, and queries of electronic health records. Participants are followed for 12 months, with surveys completed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the 8-item PROMIS Physical Function (PF) Short Form. We will identify distinct phenotypes using PROMIS PF scores at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months using group-based trajectory modeling. We will develop and evaluate the performance of a multivariable prognostic model to predict 12-month physical function using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and will compare performance to other machine learning methods. Internal validation will be conducted using k-folds cross-validation. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the largest cohorts of individuals with symptomatic LSS initiating new episodes of non-surgical care. The successful completion of this project will produce a cross-validated prognostic model for LSS that can be used to tailor treatment approaches for patient care and clinical trials.

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.

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.

Optical coherence tomography for the investigation of skin adaptation in lower limb prosthesis users.

Introduction: Mechanically induced skin breakdown is a significant problem for many lower-limb prosthesis users. It is known that skin can adapt to the mechanical stresses of prosthesis use thereby reducing the risk of breakdown, yet little is understood about the biology behind skin adaptation. This is a proof-of-concept study for the use of novel, noninvasive optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging techniques to investigate skin adaptation. Methods: Two OCT imaging-based tests were used to evaluate features of the skin that may be involved in adaptation to limb-socket interface stresses. The tests were used to assess the function and structure of the cutaneous microvasculature, respectively. Epidermal thickness was also quantified. Tests were run on three lower-limb prosthesis users in a region of the residual limb believed to be highly stressed within the prosthetic socket. The measurements were compared with measurements taken at a location-matched site on the contralateral limb. Results: Two of three participants demonstrated a faster time-to-peak and larger peakmagnitude reactive hyperemia response in their residual limb compared with their contralateral limb. Two of three participants also demonstrated a larger magnitude vessel density at maximum dilation in their residual limb versus contralateral limb. The epidermal thickness was greater in the residual limb versus contralateral limb for all participants. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the utility of two novel OCT imaging techniques for investigating skin adaptation in users of lower-limb prostheses. If we are able to confirm these findings on a larger subject population, we will better understand the biology behind mechanically induced skin adaptation. These findings, along with the noninvasive OCT imaging methods introduced here, would have the potential to improve clinical practice by enabling the development of rehabilitation techniques and therapeutics to better strengthen skin, thereby reducing the incidence of harmful skin breakdown.

Optical coherence tomography for the investigation of skin adaptation to mechanical stress.

BACKGROUND: Skin breakdown due to limb-socket interface stress is a significant problem for lower limb prosthesis users. While it is known that skin can adapt to stress to become more resistant to breakdown, little is understood about skin adaptation and few methods exist to noninvasively investigate it. In this study, we present novel, noninvasive imaging methods using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) to assess key features of the cutaneous microvasculature that may be involved in skin adaptation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight able-bodied participants wore a modified below-knee prosthetic socket for two weeks to stress the skin of their lower limb. Two OCT-based imaging tests were used to assess the function and structure, respectively, of the cutaneous microvasculature at multiple time points throughout the socket wear protocol. RESULTS: A measurable reactive hyperemia response was reliably induced in the skin of study participants in the vascular function assessment test. The vascular structure assessment demonstrated excellent field-of-view repeatability, providing rich data sets of vessel structure. No statistically significant differences were found in any of the measurements when compared between time points of the adaptation protocol. The participants' limbs were likely not stressed enough by the able-bodied socket to induce measurable skin adaptation. CONCLUSION: This study introduced new techniques to investigate skin adaptation to mechanical stress. If the key limitations are addressed, these methods have the potential to provide insight into the function and structure of the cutaneous microvasculature that previously could not be attained noninvasively.

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.

Intense Focused Ultrasound Preferentially Stimulates Transected Nerves Within Residual Limbs: Pilot Study.

Objective: Identifying pain generators in tissue deep in the skin can require uncomfortable, complicated, and invasive tests. We describe pilot studies testing the hypothesis that ultrasound image-guided, intense focused ultrasound (ig-iFU) can noninvasively and differentially stimulate the end of transected nerves in the residual limbs of amputee patients. Design: We applied iFU to the transected nerve ending as individual pulses with a length of 0.1 seconds using a carrier frequency of 2.0 MHz. After targeting, we gradually increased the iFU intensity to reach consistent patient-reported stimulation of the transected nerve ending. We also stimulated the proximal nerve, tissue near the nerve ending, and the intact contralateral nerve. We described the resulting sensations and correlated the results of the study participant's pre-iFU study responses to phantom and residual limb pain questionnaires. Results: iFU spatial and temporal average intensity values between 16 W/cm2 and 433 W/cm2 that were applied to the transected nerve ending and proximal nerve elicited sensations, including phantom limb sensations, while the same intensity applied to control tissue centimeters away from the nerve ending, or to the intact nerve on the contralateral limb, did not. Two out of 11 study participants reported only mild and transient pain created by iFU stimulation. Successful iFU intensity values correlated with neither phantom nor residual limb pain scores. Conclusions: Transected nerves had greater sensitivity to iFU stimulation than ipsilateral and contralateral control tissue, including intact nerve. These results support the view that ig-iFU may one day help physicians identify deep, tender tissue in patients who report experiencing pain.

Systemic Pharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available. PURPOSE: To review the current evidence on systemic pharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through November 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials that reported pain, function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second verified accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of trials ranged from 9 (benzodiazepines) to 70 (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). New evidence found that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for radiculopathy. For opioids, evidence remains limited to short-term trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess serious harms. Skeletal muscle relaxants are effective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation. Systemic corticosteroids do not seem to be effective. For effective interventions, pain relief was small to moderate and generally short-term; improvements in function were generally smaller. Evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of antiseizure medications. LIMITATIONS: Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses. Only English-language studies were included, many of which had methodological shortcomings. Medications injected for local effects were not addressed. CONCLUSION: Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, primarily short-term effects on pain. New evidence suggests that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).

Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed nonpharmacologic treatment options for low back pain. New evidence is now available. PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence on nonpharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through February 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of 9 nonpharmacologic options versus sham treatment, wait list, or usual care, or of 1 nonpharmacologic option versus another. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second checked abstractions for accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of trials evaluating nonpharmacologic therapies ranged from 2 (tai chi) to 121 (exercise). New evidence indicates that tai chi (strength of evidence [SOE], low) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (SOE, moderate) are effective for chronic low back pain and strengthens previous findings regarding the effectiveness of yoga (SOE, moderate). Evidence continues to support the effectiveness of exercise, psychological therapies, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, spinal manipulation, massage, and acupuncture for chronic low back pain (SOE, low to moderate). Limited evidence shows that acupuncture is modestly effective for acute low back pain (SOE, low). The magnitude of pain benefits was small to moderate and generally short term; effects on function generally were smaller than effects on pain. LIMITATION: Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses, restricted to English-language studies; heterogeneity in treatment techniques; and inability to exclude placebo effects. CONCLUSION: Several nonpharmacologic therapies for primarily chronic low back pain are associated with small to moderate, usually short-term effects on pain; findings include new evidence on mind-body interventions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).

A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients who had lumbar central spinal stenosis and moderate-to-severe leg pain and disability to receive epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone. The patients received one or two injections before the primary outcome evaluation, performed 6 weeks after randomization and the first injection. The primary outcomes were the score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, in which scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater physical disability) and the rating of the intensity of leg pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating "pain as bad as you can imagine"). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in the RMDQ score (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect between the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group, -1.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.1; P=0.07) or the intensity of leg pain (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect, -0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.4; P=0.48). A prespecified secondary subgroup analysis with stratification according to type of injection (interlaminar vs. transforaminal) likewise showed no significant differences at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238536.).

Physical, Emotional, and Social Impacts of Restricting Back Pain in Older Adults: A Qualitative Study.

Objective: Back pain is the most common type of pain reported by older adults, yet current management strategies often do not address the multi-dimensional impacts on older adults who face unique challenges as compared with younger populations. The objective of this qualitative study was to assess the physical, psychological, and social impacts of back pain (severe enough to restrict activity, hereafter referred to as restricting back pain) on older adults. Design: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Setting and Patients: This study was comprised of a diverse sample of 93 community-living older adults (median age 83) with restricting back pain. Methods: We used a semi-structured guide in 23 interviews and 16 focus groups to discuss the various ways that restricting back pain impacted participants. Transcripts were analyzed in an iterative process to develop thematic categories. Results: Restricting back pain affected participants physically (inability to execute routine tasks, disruption of sleep and exercise), psychologically (feelings of sadness and irritability, fears about worsening health, loss of hope towards recovery or pain relief), and socially (experiences of isolation, inability to pursue hobbies). Conclusions: These data inform which outcomes should be measured in studies evaluating treatments for older adults with restricting back pain.

Cross-Sectional Assessment of Factors Related to Pain Intensity and Pain Interference in Lower Limb Prosthesis Users.

OBJECTIVE: To determine relationships between pain sites and pain intensity/interference in people with lower limb amputations (LLAs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Lower limb prosthesis users with unilateral or bilateral amputations (N=1296; mean time since amputation, 14.1y). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain intensity (1 item to assess average pain), PROMIS pain interference (4-item short form to assess the consequences of pain in desired activities), and questions that asked participants to rate the extent to which each of the following were a problem: residual limb pain (RLP), phantom limb pain (PLP), knee pain on the nonamputated side, back pain, and shoulder pain. RESULTS: Nearly three quarters (72.1%) of participants reported problematic pain in 1 or more of the listed sites. Problematic PLP, back pain, and RLP were reported by 48.1%, 39.2%, and 35.1% of participants, respectively. Knee pain and shoulder pain were less commonly identified as problems (27.9% and 21.7%, respectively). Participants also reported significantly (P<.0001) higher pain interference (T-score ± SD, 54.7±9.0) than the normative sample based on the U.S. population (T-score ± SD, 50.0±10.0). Participants with LLAs rated their pain intensity on average ± SD at 3.3±2.4 on a 0-to-10 scale. Pain interference (ρ=.564, P<.0001) and intensity (ρ=.603, P<.0001) were positively and significantly correlated with number of pain sites reported. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic pain symptoms, especially RLP, PLP, and back pain, affect most prosthetic limb users and have the potential to greatly restrict participation in life activities.

Effect of Comorbid Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis on Longitudinal Clinical and Health Care Use Outcomes in Older Adults With New Visits for Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if a comorbid diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in older adults with new back pain visits is associated with long-term patient-reported outcomes and back-related health care use. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems forming the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=5155) were older adults (≥65y) with a new visit for back pain and a complete electronic health record data. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable; we obtained OA diagnoses using diagnostic codes in the electronic health record 12 months prior to the new back pain visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were key patient-reported outcomes. Health care use, measured by relative-value units (RVUs), was summed for the 12 months after the initial visit. We used linear mixed-effects models to model patient-reported outcomes. We also used generalized linear models to test the association between comorbid knee or hip OA and total back-related RVUs. RESULTS: Of the 5155 participants, 368 (7.1%) had a comorbid knee OA diagnosis, and 94 (1.8%) had a hip OA diagnosis. Of the participants, 4711 (91.4%) had neither knee nor hip OA. In adjusted models, the 12-month RDQ score was 1.23 points higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.74) for patients with knee OA and 1.26 points higher (95% CI, 0.24-2.27) for those with hip OA than those without knee or hip OA, respectively. A lower EQ-5D score was found among participants with knee OA (.02 lower; 95% CI, -.04 to -.01) and hip OA diagnoses (.03 lower; 95% CI, -.05 to -.01) compared with those without knee or hip OA, respectively. Comorbid knee or hip OA was not significantly associated with total 12-month back-related resource use. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid knee or hip OA in older adults with a new back pain visit was associated with modestly worse long-term disability and health-related quality of life.

Long-Term Effects of Repeated Injections of Local Anesthetic With or Without Corticosteroid for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall long-term effectiveness of treatment with epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis and the effect of repeat injections, including crossover injections, on outcomes through 12 months. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. SETTING: Sixteen clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with imaging-confirmed lumbar central spinal stenosis (N=400). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone with the option of blinded crossover after 6 weeks to receive the alternate treatment. Participants could receive 1 to 2 injections from 0 to 6 weeks and up to 2 injections from 6 to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, participants received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (range, 0-24, where higher scores indicate greater disability) and leg pain intensity (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [pain as bad as you can imagine]). Secondary outcomes included opioid use, spine surgery, and crossover rates. RESULTS: At 12 months, both treatment groups maintained initial observed improvements, with no significant differences between groups on the RDQ (adjusted mean difference, -0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 0.9; P=.55), leg pain (adjusted mean difference, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7; P=.75), opioid use (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 41.4% vs lidocaine alone: 36.3%; P=.41), or spine surgery (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 16.8% vs lidocaine alone: 11.8%; P=.22). Fewer participants randomized to corticosteroid plus lidocaine (30%, n=60) versus lidocaine alone (45%, n=90) crossed over after 6 weeks (P=.003). Among participants who crossed over at 6 weeks, the 6- to 12-week RDQ change did not differ between the 2 randomized treatment groups (adjusted mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.7; P=.24). In both groups, participants crossing over at 6 weeks had worse 12-month trajectories compared with participants who did not choose to crossover. CONCLUSIONS: For lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine offered no benefits from 6 weeks to 12 months beyond that of injections of lidocaine alone in terms of self-reported pain and function or reduction in use of opioids and spine surgery. In patients with improved pain and function 6 weeks after initial injection, these outcomes were maintained at 12 months. However, the trajectories of pain and function outcomes after 3 weeks did not differ by injectate type. Repeated injections of either type offered no additional long-term benefit if injections in the first 6 weeks did not improve pain.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Radiculopathy and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Use of epidural corticosteroid injections is increasing. PURPOSE: To review evidence on the benefits and harms of epidural corticosteroid injections in adults with radicular low back pain or spinal stenosis of any duration. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (through May 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of epidural corticosteroid injections versus placebo interventions, or that compared epidural injection techniques, corticosteroids, or doses. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies, which were used to determine the overall strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: 30 placebo-controlled trials evaluated epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy, and 8 trials were done for spinal stenosis. For radiculopathy, epidural corticosteroids were associated with greater immediate-term reduction in pain (weighted mean difference on a scale of 0 to 100, -7.55 [95% CI, -11.4 to -3.74]; SOE, moderate), function (standardized mean difference after exclusion of an outlier trial, -0.33 [CI, -0.56 to -0.09]; SOE, low), and short-term surgery risk (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.41 to 0.92]; SOE, low). Effects were below predefined minimum clinically important difference thresholds, and there were no longer-term benefits. Limited evidence showed no clear effects of technical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates. There were no clear effects of epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (SOE, low to moderate). Serious harms were rare, but harms reporting was suboptimal (SOE, low). LIMITATIONS: The review was restricted to English-language studies. Some meta-analyses were based on small numbers of trials (particularly for spinal stenosis), and most trials had methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSION: Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy were associated with immediate reductions in pain and function. However, benefits were small and not sustained, and there was no effect on long-term surgery risk. Limited evidence suggested no effectiveness for spinal stenosis.

Association of early imaging for back pain with clinical outcomes in older adults.

IMPORTANCE: In contrast to the recommendations for younger adults, many guidelines allow for older adults with back pain to undergo imaging without waiting 4 to 6 weeks. However, early imaging may precipitate interventions that do not improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare function and pain at the 12-month follow-up visit among older adults who received early imaging with those who did not receive early imaging after a new primary care visit for back pain without radiculopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of 5239 patients 65 years or older with a new primary care visit for back pain (2011-2013) in 3 US health care systems. We matched controls 1:1 using propensity score matching of demographic and clinical characteristics, including diagnosis, pain severity, pain duration, functional status, and prior resource use. EXPOSURES: Diagnostic imaging (plain films, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of the lumbar or thoracic spine within 6 weeks of the index visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: back or leg pain-related disability measured by the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (score range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater disability) 12 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Among the 5239 patients, 1174 had early radiographs and 349 had early MRI/CT. At 12 months, neither the early radiograph group nor the early MRI/CT group differed significantly from controls on the disability questionnaire. The mean score for patients who underwent early radiography was 8.54 vs 8.74 among the control group (difference, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.50]; mixed model, P = .36). The mean score for the early MRI/CT group was 9.81 vs 10.50 for the control group (difference,-0.51 [-1.62 to 0.60]; mixed model, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain, early imaging was not associated with better 1-year outcomes. The value of early diagnostic imaging in older adults for back pain without radiculopathy is uncertain.