Evaluation of "appropriate use criteria" for surgical decision-making in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. A controlled, multicentre, prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) for surgery is difficult. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to clarify the indications for LDS surgery but have not been evaluated in controlled studies. METHODS: This prospective, controlled, multicentre study involved 908 patients (561 surgical and 347 non-surgical controls; 69.5 ± 9.7y; 69% female), treated as per normal clinical practice. Their appropriateness for surgery was afterwards determined using the AUC. They completed the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) at baseline and 12 months' follow-up. Multiple regression adjusting for confounders evaluated the influence of appropriateness designation and treatment received on the 12-month COMI and achievement of MCIC (≥ 2.2-point-reduction). RESULTS: As per convention, appropriate (A) and uncertain (U) groups were combined for comparison with the inappropriate (I) group. For the adjusted 12-month COMI, the benefit of surgery relative to non-surgical care was not significantly greater for the A/U than the I group (p = 0.189). There was, however, a greater treatment effect of surgery for those with higher baseline COMI (p = 0.035). The groups' adjusted probabilities of achieving MCIC were: 83% (A/U, receiving surgery), 71% (I, receiving surgery), 50% (A/U, receiving non-surgical care), and 32% (I, receiving non-surgical care). CONCLUSIONS: A/U patients receiving surgery had the highest chances of achieving MCIC, but the AUC were not able to identify which patients had a greater treatment effect of surgery relative to non-surgical care. The identification of other characteristics that predict a greater treatment effect of surgery, in addition to baseline COMI, is required to improve decision-making.

The association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulation among US adults.

PURPOSE: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD), which includes both vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and carotid artery dissection (CAD), is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation (CSM). We evaluated the association between CSM and CeAD among US adults. METHODS: Through analysis of health claims data, we employed a case-control study with matched controls, a case-control design in which controls were diagnosed with ischemic stroke, and a case-crossover design in which recent exposures were compared to exposures in the same case that occurred 6-7 months earlier. We evaluated the association between CeAD and the 3-level exposure, CSM versus office visit for medical evaluation and management (E&M) versus neither, with E&M set as the referent group. RESULTS: We identified 2337 VAD cases and 2916 CAD cases. Compared to population controls, VAD cases were 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.32) times as likely to have received CSM in the previous week as compared to E&M. In other words, E&M was about 5 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. CSM was 2.53 (95% CI 1.71 to 3.68) times as likely as E&M in the previous week among individuals with VAD than among individuals experiencing a stroke without CeAD. In the case-crossover study, CSM was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.91) times as likely as E&M in the week before a VAD, relative to 6 months earlier. In other words, E&M was approximately 3 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. Results for the 14-day and 30-day timeframes were similar to those at one week. CONCLUSION: Among privately insured US adults, the overall risk of CeAD is very low. Prior receipt of CSM was more likely than E&M among VAD patients as compared to stroke patients. However, for CAD patients as compared to stroke patients, as well as for both VAD and CAD patients in comparison with population controls and in case-crossover analysis, prior receipt of E&M was more likely than CSM.

Association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulative therapy -a medicare claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artery dissection and subsequent ischemic stroke is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation. METHODS: We evaluated the association between cervical spinal manipulation and cervical artery dissection among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. We employed case-control and case-crossover designs in the analysis of claims data for individuals aged 65+, continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A (covering hospitalizations) and Part B (covering outpatient encounters) for at least two consecutive years during 2007-2015. The primary exposure was cervical spinal manipulation; the secondary exposure was a clinical encounter for evaluation and management for neck pain or headache. We created a 3-level categorical variable, (1) any cervical spinal manipulation, 2) evaluation and management but no cervical spinal manipulation and (3) neither cervical spinal manipulation nor evaluation and management. The primary outcomes were occurrence of cervical artery dissection, either (1) vertebral artery dissection or (2) carotid artery dissection. The cases had a new primary diagnosis on at least one inpatient hospital claim or primary/secondary diagnosis for outpatient claims on at least two separate days. Cases were compared to 3 different control groups: (1) matched population controls having at least one claim in the same year as the case; (2) ischemic stroke controls without cervical artery dissection; and (3) case-crossover analysis comparing cases to themselves in the time period 6-7 months prior to their cervical artery dissection. We made each comparison across three different time frames: up to (1) 7 days; (2) 14 days; and (3) 30 days prior to index event. RESULTS: The odds of cervical spinal manipulation versus evaluation and management did not significantly differ between vertebral artery dissection cases and any of the control groups at any of the timepoints (ORs 0.84 to 1.88; p > 0.05). Results for carotid artery dissection cases were similar. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who received cervical spinal manipulation, the risk of cervical artery dissection is no greater than that among control groups.

Temporal Trends and Geographic Variations in the Supply of Clinicians Who Provide Spinal Manipulation to Medicare Beneficiaries: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for first-line treatment of patients with low back pain. Inadequate access to SM may result in inequitable spine care for older US adults, but the supply of clinicians who provide SM under Medicare is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to measure temporal trends and geographic variations in the supply of clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Medicare is a US government-administered health insurance program that provides coverage primarily for older adults and people with disabilities. We used a serial cross-sectional design to examine Medicare administrative data from 2007 to 2015 for SM services identified by procedure code. We identified unique providers by National Provider Identifier and distinguished between chiropractors and other specialties by Physician Specialty Code. We calculated supply as the number of providers per 100 000 beneficiaries, stratified by geographic location and year. RESULTS: Of all clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries, 97% to 98% are doctors of chiropractic. The geographic supply of doctors of chiropractic providing SM services in 2015 ranged from 20/100 000 in the District of Columbia to 260/100 000 in North Dakota. The supply of other specialists performing the same services ranged from fewer than 1/100 000 in 11 states to 8/100 000 in Colorado. Nationally, the number of Medicare-active chiropractors declined from 47 102 in 2007 to 45 543 in 2015. The count of other clinicians providing SM rose from 700 in 2007 to 1441 in 2015. CONCLUSION: Chiropractors constitute the vast majority of clinicians who bill for SM services to Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of Medicare-active SM providers varies widely by state. The overall supply of SM providers under Medicare is declining, while the supply of nonchiropractors who provide SM is growing.

Long-Term Medicare Costs Associated With Opioid Analgesic Therapy vs Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Cohort of Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias. RESULTS: The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

Veteran Response to Dosage in Chiropractic Therapy (VERDICT): Study Protocol of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a leading cause of disability in veterans. Chiropractic care is a well-integrated, nonpharmacological therapy in Veterans Affairs health care facilities, where doctors of chiropractic provide therapeutic interventions focused on the management of low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions. However, important knowledge gaps remain regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic care in terms of the number and frequency of treatment visits needed for optimal outcomes in veterans with low back pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic, parallel-group randomized trial at four Veterans Affairs sites will include 766 veterans with chronic low back pain who are randomly allocated to a course of low-dose (one to five visits) or higher-dose (eight to 12 visits) chiropractic care for 10 weeks (Phase 1). After Phase 1, participants within each treatment arm will again be randomly allocated to receive either monthly chiropractic chronic pain management for 10 months or no scheduled chiropractic visits (Phase 2). Assessments will be collected electronically. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire will be the primary outcome for Phase 1 at week 10 and Phase 2 at week 52. SUMMARY: This trial will provide evidence to guide the chiropractic dose in an initial course of care and an extended-care approach for veterans with chronic low back pain. Accurate information on the effectiveness of different dosing regimens of chiropractic care can greatly assist health care facilities, including Veterans Affairs, in modeling the number of doctors of chiropractic that will best meet the needs of patients with chronic low back pain.

Characteristics and Service Use of Medicare Beneficiaries Using Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide primary care for millions of Americans, but little is known about Medicare beneficiaries who use FQHCs. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient characteristics and health care service use among Medicare beneficiaries stratified by FQHC use. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2011 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. SUBJECTS: Subjects included beneficiaries with at least 1 evaluation and management (E&M) visit in 2011, categorized as FQHC users (≥1 E&M visit to FQHCs) or nonusers living in the same primary care service areas as FQHC users. Users were subclassified as predominant if the majority of their E&M visits were to FQHCs. MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, physician visits, and inpatient care use. RESULTS: Most FQHC users (56.6%) were predominant users. Predominant and nonpredominant users, compared with nonusers, markedly differed by prevalence of multiple chronic conditions (18.2%, 31.7% vs. 22.7%) and annual mortality (2.8%, 3.8% vs. 4.0%; all P<0.05). In adjusted analyses (reference: nonusers), predominant users had fewer physician visits (RR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.81) and fewer hospitalizations (RR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.84-0.85), whereas nonpredominant users had higher use of both types of service (RR=1.18, 95% CI, 1.18-1.18; RR=1.09, 95% CI, 1.08-1.10, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Even controlling for primary care delivery markets, nonpredominant FQHC users had a higher burden of chronic illness and service use than predominant FQHC users. It will be important to monitor Medicare beneficiaries using FQHCs to understand whether primary care only payment incentives for FQHCs could induce fragmented care.

Does Surgical Approach Affect Patient-reported Function After Primary THA?

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) relieves pain and improves physical function in patients with hip osteoarthritis, but requires a year or more for full postoperative recovery. Proponents of intermuscular surgical approaches believe that the direct-anterior approach may restore physical function more quickly than transgluteal approaches, perhaps because of diminished muscle trauma. To evaluate this, we compared patient-reported physical function and other outcome metrics during the first year after surgery between groups of patients who underwent primary THA either through the direct-anterior approach or posterior approach. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Is a primary THA using a direct-anterior approach associated with better patient-reported physical function at early postoperative times (1 and 3 months) compared with a THA performed through the posterior approach? (2) Is the direct-anterior approach THA associated with shorter operative times and higher rates of noninstitutional discharge than a posterior approach THA? METHODS: Between October 2008 and February 2010, an arthroplasty fellowship-trained surgeon performed 135 THAs. All 135 were performed using the posterior approach. During that period, we used this approach when patients had any moderate to severe degenerative joint disease of the hip attributable to any type of arthritis refractory to nonoperative treatment measures. Of the patients who were treated with this approach, 21 (17%; 23 hips) were lost to followup, whereas 109 (83%; 112 hips) were available for followup at 1 year. Between February and September 2011, the same surgeon performed 86 THAs. All 86 were performed using the direct-anterior approach. During that period, we used this approach when patients with all types of moderate to severe degenerative joint disease had nonoperative treatment measures fail. Of the patients who were treated with this approach, 35 (41%; 35 hips) were lost to followup, whereas 51 (59%; 51 hips) were available for followup at 1 year. THAs during the surgeon's direct-anterior approach learning period (February 2010 through January 2011) were excluded because both approaches were being used selectively depending on patient characteristics. Clinical outcomes included operative blood loss; allogeneic transfusion; adverse events; patient-reported Veterans RAND-12 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scores at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery. Resource utilization outcomes included operative time, length of stay, and discharge disposition (home versus institution). Outcomes were compared using logistic and linear regression techniques. RESULTS: After controlling for relevant confounding variables including age, sex, and BMI, the direct-anterior approach was associated with worse adjusted MCS changes 1 and 3 months after surgery (1-month score change, -9; 95% CI, -13 to -5; standard error, 2), compared with the posterior approach (3-month score change, -9; 95% CI, -14 to -3; standard error, 3) (both p < 0.001), while the direct-anterior approach was associated with greater PCS improvement at 3 months compared with the posterior approach (score change, 6; 95% CI, 2-10; standard error, 2; p = 0.008). There were no differences in adjusted PCS at either 1 month or 12 months, and no clinically important differences in UCLA scores. Although the PCS score differences are greater than the minimum clinically important difference of 5 points for this endpoint, the clinical importance of such a small effect is questionable. At 1 year after THA, there were no intergroup differences in self-reported physical function, although both groups had significant loss-to-followup at that time. Operative time (skin incision to skin closure) between the two groups did not differ (81 versus 79 minutes; p = 0.411). Mean surgical blood loss (403 versus 293 mL; p < 0.001; adjusted, 119 more mL; 95% CI, 79-160; p < 0.001) and in-hospital transfusion rates (direct-anterior approach, 20% [17/86] versus posterior approach, 10% [14/135], p = 0.050; adjusted odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.3-10.1; p = 0.016) were higher in the direct-anterior approach group. With the numbers available, there was no difference in the frequency of adverse events between groups when comparing intraoperative complications, perioperative Technical Expert Panel complications, and other non-Technical Expert Panel complications within 1 year of surgery, although this study was not adequately powered to detect differences in rare adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: With suitable experience, the direct-anterior approach can be performed with expected results similar to those of the posterior approach. There may be transient and small benefits to the direct-anterior approach, including improved physical function at 3 months after surgery. However, the greater operative blood loss and greater likelihood of blood transfusions, even when the surgeon is experienced, may be a disadvantage. Given some of the kinds of bias present that we found, including loss to followup, the conclusions we present should be considered preliminary, but it appears that any benefits that accrue to the patients who had the direct-anterior approach would be transient and modest. Prospective randomized studies on the topic are needed to address the differences between surgical approaches more definitively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The Association Between Use of Chiropractic Care and Costs of Care Among Older Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multiple Comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether use of chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) was associated with lower healthcare costs among multiply-comorbid Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of chronic low back pain (cLBP). METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective study of 2006 to 2012 Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements for 72326 multiply-comorbid patients aged 66 and older with cLBP episodes and 1 of 4 treatment exposures: chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) alone, CMT followed or preceded by conventional medical care, or conventional medical care alone. We used propensity score weighting to address selection bias. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, total and per-episode day Part A, Part B, and Part D Medicare reimbursements during the cLBP treatment episode were lowest for patients who used CMT alone; these patients had higher rates of healthcare use for low back pain but lower rates of back surgery in the year following the treatment episode. Expenditures were greatest for patients receiving medical care alone; order was irrelevant when both CMT and medical treatment were provided. Patients who used only CMT had the lowest annual growth rates in almost all Medicare expenditure categories. While patients who used only CMT had the lowest Part A and Part B expenditures per episode day, we found no indication of lower psychiatric or pain medication expenditures associated with CMT. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that older multiply-comorbid patients who used only CMT during their cLBP episodes had lower overall costs of care, shorter episodes, and lower cost of care per episode day than patients in the other treatment groups. Further, costs of care for the episode and per episode day were lower for patients who used a combination of CMT and conventional medical care than for patients who did not use any CMT. These findings support initial CMT use in the treatment of, and possibly broader chiropractic management of, older multiply-comorbid cLBP patients.

What Are Long-term Predictors of Outcomes for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Randomized and Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have illustrated improvements in surgical cohorts for patients with intervertebral disc herniation, there are limited data on predictors of long-term outcomes comparing surgical and nonsurgical outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for patients with intervertebral disc herniation and symptomatic radiculopathy at 8 years from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. We specifically examined subgroups to determine whether certain populations had a better long-term outcome with surgery or nonoperative treatment. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic lumbar radiculopathy for at least 6 weeks associated with nerve root irritation or neurologic deficit on examination and a confirmed disc herniation on cross-sectional imaging were enrolled at 13 different clinical sites. Patients consenting to participate in the randomized cohort were assigned to surgical or nonoperative treatment using variable permuted block randomization stratified by site. Those who declined randomization entered the observational cohort group based on treatment preference but were otherwise treated and followed identically to the randomized cohort. Of those in the randomized cohort, 309 of 501 (62%) provided 8-year data and in the observational group 469 of 743 (63%). Patients were treated with either surgical discectomy or usual nonoperative care. By 8 years, only 148 of 245 (60%) of those randomized to surgery had undergone surgery, whereas 122 of 256 (48%) of those randomized to nonoperative treatment had undergone surgery. The primary outcome measures were SF-36 bodily pain, SF-36 physical function, and Oswestry Disability Index collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. Further analysis studied the following factors to determine if any were predictive of long-term outcomes: sex, herniation location, depression, smoking, work status, other joint problems, herniation level, herniation type, and duration of symptoms. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort at 8 years showed no difference between surgical and nonoperative treatment for the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures of sciatica bothersomeness, leg pain, satisfaction with symptoms, and self-rated improvement showed greater improvement in the group randomized to surgery despite high levels of crossover. The as-treated analysis of the combined randomized and observational cohorts, adjusted for potential confounders, showed advantages for surgery for all primary outcome measures; however, this has the potential for confounding from other unrecognized variables. Smokers and patients with depression or comorbid joint problems had worse functional outcomes overall (with surgery and nonoperative care) but similar surgical treatment effects. Patients with sequestered fragments, symptom duration greater than 6 months, those with higher levels of low back pain, or who were neither working nor disabled at baseline showed greater surgical treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: The intent-to-treat analysis, which is complicated by high rates of crossover, showed no difference over 8 years for primary outcomes of overall pain, physical function, and back-related disability but did show small advantages for secondary outcomes of sciatica bothersomeness, satisfaction with symptoms, and self-rated improvement. Subgroup analyses identified those groups with sequestered fragments on MRI, higher levels of baseline back pain accompanying radiculopathy, a longer duration of symptoms, and those who were neither working nor disabled at baseline with a greater relative advantage from surgery at 8 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation in medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation, as compared to evaluation by a primary care physician, for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of a 100% sample of annualized Medicare claims data on 1 157 475 beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with an office visit to either a chiropractor or primary care physician for neck pain. We compared hazard of vertebrobasilar stroke and any stroke at 7 and 30 days after office visit using a Cox proportional hazards model. We used direct adjusted survival curves to estimate cumulative probability of stroke up to 30 days for the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects with stroke of any type in the chiropractic cohort was 1.2 per 1000 at 7 days and 5.1 per 1000 at 30 days. In the primary care cohort, the proportion of subjects with stroke of any type was 1.4 per 1000 at 7 days and 2.8 per 1000 at 30 days. In the chiropractic cohort, the adjusted risk of stroke was significantly lower at 7 days as compared to the primary care cohort (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.45), but at 30 days, a slight elevation in risk was observed for the chiropractic cohort (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain, incidence of vertebrobasilar stroke was extremely low. Small differences in risk between patients who saw a chiropractor and those who saw a primary care physician are probably not clinically significant.

Comparing Propensity Score Methods for Creating Comparable Cohorts of Chiropractic Users and Nonusers in Older, Multiply Comorbid Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who use complementary and integrative health services like chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) often have different characteristics than do patients who do not, and these differences can confound attempts to compare outcomes across treatment groups, particularly in observational studies when selection bias may occur. The purposes of this study were to provide an overview on how propensity scoring methods can be used to address selection bias by balancing treatment groups on key variables and to use Medicare data to compare different methods for doing so. METHODS: We described 2 propensity score methods (matching and weighting). Then we used Medicare data from 2006 to 2012 on older, multiply comorbid patients who had a chronic low back pain episode to demonstrate the impact of applying methods on the balance of demographics of patients between 2 treatment groups (those who received only CMT and those who received no CMT during their episodes). RESULTS: Before application of propensity score methods, patients who used only CMT had different characteristics from those who did not. Propensity score matching diminished observed differences across the treatment groups at the expense of reduced sample size. However, propensity score weighting achieved balance in patient characteristics between the groups and allowed us to keep the entire sample. CONCLUSIONS: Although propensity score matching and weighting have similar effects in terms of balancing covariates, weighting has the advantage of maintaining sample size, preserving external validity, and generalizing more naturally to comparisons of 3 or more treatment groups. Researchers should carefully consider which propensity score method to use, as using different methods can generate different results.

The SPORT value compass: do the extra costs of undergoing spine surgery produce better health benefits?

BACKGROUND: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of surgical care versus nonoperative care by measuring longitudinal values: outcomes, satisfaction, and costs. METHODS: This paper aims to summarize available evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial by addressing 2 important questions about outcomes and costs for 3 types of spine problem: (1) how do outcomes and costs of spine patients differ depending on whether they are treated surgically compared with nonoperative care? (2) What is the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year for surgical care over nonoperative care? RESULTS: After 4 years of follow-up, patients with 3 spine conditions that may be treated surgically or nonoperatively have systematic differences in value endpoints. The average surgical patient enjoys better health outcomes and higher treatment satisfaction but incurs higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: Spine care is preference sensitive and because outcomes, satisfaction, and costs vary over time and between patients, data on value can help patients make better-informed decisions and help payers know what their dollars are buying.

A Regional Analysis of Low Back Pain Treatments in the Military Health System.

STUDY DESIGN: Claims-based analysis of cohorts of TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of utilization of 5 low back pain (LBP) treatments (physical therapy (PT), manual therapy, behavioral therapies, opioid, and benzodiazepine prescription) across catchment areas and assess their association with the resolution of LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: Guidelines support focusing on nonpharmacologic management for LBP and reducing opioid use. Little is known about patterns of care for LBP across the Military Health System. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Incident LBP diagnoses were identified data using the International Classification of Diseases ninth revision before October 2015 and 10th revision after October 2015; beneficiaries with "red flag" diagnoses and those stationed overseas, eligible for Medicare, or having other health insurance were excluded. After exclusions, there were 159,027 patients remained in the final analytic cohort across 73 catchment areas. Treatment was defined by catchment-level rates of treatment to avoid confounding by indication at the individual level; the primary outcome was the resolution of LBP defined as an absence of administrative claims for LBP during a 6 to 12-month period after the index diagnosis. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of opioid prescribing across catchment areas ranged from 15% to 28%, physical therapy from 17% to 39%, and manual therapy from 5% to 26%. Multivariate logistic regression models showed a negative and marginally significant association between opioid prescriptions and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.93-1.00; P = 0.051) but no significant association with physical therapy, manual therapy, benzodiazepine prescription, or behavioral therapies. When the analysis was restricted to the subset of only active-duty beneficiaries, there was a stronger negative association between opioid prescription and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variability across catchment areas within TRICARE for the treatment of LBP. Higher rates of opioid prescription were associated with worse outcomes.

Public versus Private Care in the Military Health System: Evidence From Low Back Pain Patients.

INTRODUCTION: There is a longstanding debate about whether health care is more efficiently provided by the public or private sector. The debate is particularly relevant to the Military Health System (MHS), which delivers care through a combination of publicly funded federal facilities and privately contracted providers. This study compares outcomes, treatments, and costs for MHS patients obtaining care for low back pain (LBP) from public versus private providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was completed using TRICARE Prime claims data from April 2015 to December 2018. The cohort was identified using International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision diagnostic codes and then followed for 12 months after the index diagnosis to assess treatments, outcomes, and costs. Claims were classified as originating from either public or private providers. The primary outcome measure was resolution of LBP, defined as an absence of LBP diagnoses during the 6-to-12-month window following the index event. Instrumental variable models were used to assess the impact of care setting (i.e., private versus public), conditioning on the covariates. A regional measure of the fraction of private care was used as an instrument. RESULTS: Resolution of LBP was achieved for 79.7% of 144,866 patients in the cohort. No significant association was found between resolution of LBP and fraction of privately provided care. Higher fraction of private care was associated with a greater likelihood of opioid treatments (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) and a lower likelihood of benzodiazepine (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70) and physical therapy (odds ratio 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.74) treatments; manual therapy was not significantly associated with the fraction of private care. There was a significant negative association between the fraction of private care and cost (coefficient -0.27; 95% CI, -0.44, -0.10). CONCLUSION: This study found that privately provided care was associated with significantly higher opioid prescribing, less use of benzodiazepines and physical therapy, and lower costs. No systematic differences in outcomes (as measured by resolved cases) were identified. The findings suggest that publicly funded health care within the MHS context can attain quality comparable to privately provided care, although differences in treatment choices and costs point to possibilities for improved care within both systems.

Pilot comparative effectiveness study of surface perturbation treadmill training to prevent falls in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of fatal and non-fatal injuries among older adults. Exercise programs appear to reduce fall risk, but the optimal type, frequency, and duration of exercise is unknown. External perturbations such as tripping and slipping are a major contributor to falls, and task-specific perturbation training to enhance dynamic stability has emerged as a promising approach to modifying fall risk. The purpose of this pilot study was 1) to determine the feasibility of conducting a large pragmatic randomized trial comparing a multidimensional exercise program inclusive of the surface perturbation treadmill training (SPTT) to multidimensional exercise alone (Standard PT); and 2) to assess fall outcomes between the two groups to determine whether an effect size large enough to warrant further study might be present. METHODS: A randomized pilot study at two outpatient physical therapy clinics. Participants were over age 64 and referred for gait and balance training. Feasibility for a larger randomized trial was assessed based on the ability of therapists to incorporate the SPTT into their clinical practice and acceptance of study participation by eligible patients. Falls were assessed by telephone interview 3 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Of 83 patients who were screened, 73 met inclusion criteria. SPTT was successfully adapted into clinical practice and 88% of eligible subjects were willing to be randomized, although 10% of the SPTT cohort dropped out prior to treatment. The SPTT group showed fewer subjects having any fall (19.23% vs. 33.33% Standard PT; p < 0.227) and fewer having an injurious fall (7.69% vs. 18.18%; p < 0.243). These results were not statistically significant but this pilot study was not powered for hypothesis testing. CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapy inclusive of surface perturbation treadmill training appears clinically feasible, and randomization between these two PT interventions is acceptable to the majority of patients. These results appear to merit longer-term study in an adequately powered trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01006967.

Acceptability and Feasibility of Delivering Decision Aids to Veterans for Management of Knee Osteoarthritis - A Pilot Study.

Introduction: Decision aids are effective tools in facilitating patient-centered care and patient involvement in the decision-making process. Given unique barriers to providing patient-centered care for Veterans, implementation of decision aids may improve overall quality of care. We aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of video-based and pamphlet-based decision aid use in Veterans with knee osteoarthritis. Materials and Methods: Veterans considering treatment for knee osteoarthritis received either an online video-based aid, pamphlet-based aid, or both before their surgical consult. At their visit, patients completed written pre-visit and post-visit questionnaires. The pre-visit questionnaire included questions about the patient's demographics, decision-making preferences, experiences using the assigned decision aids, and the Hip-Knee Decision Quality Instrument. The post-visit questionnaire assessed the patient's overall experience with the decision-making process and how use of the decision aid influenced their discussion with the physician. Results: All 16 patients who received the pamphlet-based aid reviewed the decision aid before their visit, compared to only five of the 12 patients who received the video-based aid. Thirteen of 20 patients indicated that they preferred to share treatment decision-making with their physician. Seventeen of 20 patients believed they would feel comfortable questioning the treatment recommendation of their surgeon after decision aid use. Most patients reported a positive experience using their decision aid, regardless of modality, and found it easily comprehensible and useful in visit preparation. A preference for a pamphlet-based aid was expressed by the majority of patients. Conclusion: Veterans considering treatment for knee osteoarthritis are well prepared to engage in a patient-centered care experience. Most patients preferred sharing the decision-making process with their physician and felt comfortable questioning them about treatment recommendations. Decision aids helped Veterans feel more informed about their treatment options and improved engagement and discussion with their physician. Pamphlet-based aids were utilized more reliably than video-based aids.

Evaluation of the Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system as a guide to surgical technique selection.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The role of fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is controversial. The Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system was developed to assist surgeons in surgical technique selection based on individual patient characteristics. This system has not been clinically validated as a guide to surgical technique selection. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if outcomes vary with different surgical techniques across the CARDS categories. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort study performed at one Swiss and one American spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE: Five hundred eight patients with DS undergoing surgical treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Core Outcomes Measure Index (COMI) at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for DS were enrolled at 2 institutions and classified according to the CARDS system using dynamic radiographs. The Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) was completed preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Surgical technique was classified as uninstrumented (decompression alone or decompression with uninstrumented fusion) or instrumented (decompression with pedicle screw instrumentation with or without interbody fusion). Unadjusted analyses and mixed effect models compared COMI scores between the two surgery technique groups (uninstrumented vs instrumented), stratified by CARDS category over time. Reoperation rates were also compared between the surgery technique groups stratified by CARDS category. Partial funding was given through NASS grant for clinical research. RESULTS: Five hundred five out of 508 patients enrolled in the study had sufficient data to be classified according to CARDS. Seven percent were classified as CARDS A, 28% as CARDS B, 48% as CARDS C, and 17% as CARDS D (CARDS A most "stable," CARDS D least "stable"). One hundred and thirty-three patients (26%) underwent decompression alone, 30 (6%) underwent decompression and uninstrumented fusion, 42 (8%) underwent decompression and posterolateral instrumented fusion, and 303 (60%) underwent decompression with posterolateral and interbody instrumented fusion. Patients in the least "stable" categories tended to be less likely to be treated with an uninstrumented technique (CARDS D 19% vs 32% for the other categories, p=.10). There were no significant differences in 3 or 12-month COMI scores between surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category in the unadjusted or adjusted analyses. In the unadjusted analyses, there was a trend towards less improvement in 12-month COMI change score in the CARDS D patients in the uninstrumented group compared to the instrumented group (-2.7 vs -4.1, p=.10). Reoperation rates were not significantly different between the surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category. CONCLUSIONS: In general, outcomes for uninstrumented and instrumented surgical techniques were similar across the CARDS categories. Surgeons likely took factors included in CARDS into account during surgical technique selection. This resulted in a low number of CARDS D (n=15) patients being treated with uninstrumented techniques, which limited the statistical power of this analysis. As such, this study does not validate CARDS as a useful classification system for surgical technique selection in DS.

Initial Choice of Spinal Manipulation Reduces Escalation of Care for Chronic Low Back Pain Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries.

STUDY DESIGN: We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare longterm outcomes for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain. METHODS: We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP. RESULTS: SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 2.64-2.69, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3.