Initial Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Responses from Brief Interviews of Primary Care Providers

Fidelity to the acupuncture intervention protocol in the ACUpuncture In The EmergencY department for pain management (ACUITY) trial: Expanding the gold standard of STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines

Background

Acupuncture shows promise as an effective nonpharmacologic option for reduction of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). Following CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generally report intervention details and acupoint options, but fidelity to acupuncture interventions, critical to reliability in intervention research, is rarely reported.

Methods

ACUITY is an NCCIH-funded, multi-site feasibility RCT of acupuncture in 3 EDs (Cleveland, Nashville, and San Diego). ACUITY acupuncturists were trained in study design, responsive acupuncture manualization protocol, logistics and real-time recording of session details via REDCap forms created to track fidelity.

Results

Across 3 recruiting sites, 79 participants received acupuncture: 51 % women, 43 % Black/African American, with heterogeneous acute pain sites at baseline: 32 % low back, 22 % extremity, 20 % abdominal, 10 % head. Pragmatically, participants were treated in ED common areas (52 %), private rooms (39 %), and semi-private rooms (9 %). Objective tracking found 98 % adherence to the six components of the acupuncture manualization protocol: staging, number of insertion points (M = 13.2, range 2-22), needle retention time (M = 23.5 min, range 4-52), session length (M = 40.3 min, range 20-66), whether general recommendations were provided and completion of the session form.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT to assess and report fidelity to an acupuncture protocol. Fidelity monitoring will be fundamental for ACUITY2, which would be a future definitive, multi-site RCT. Furthermore, we recommend that fidelity to acupuncture interventions be added to CONSORT and STRICTA reporting guidelines in future RCTs.

Protocol registration

The protocol of this study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04880733.

Trends in Chiropractic Care and Physical Rehabilitation Use Among Adults with Low Back Pain in the United States, 2002 to 2018

BACKGROUND

While nonpharmacologic treatments are increasingly endorsed as first-line therapy for low back pain (LBP) in clinical practice guidelines, it is unclear if use of these treatments is increasing or equitable.

OBJECTIVE

Examine national trends in chiropractic care and physical rehabilitation (occupational/physical therapy (OT/PT)) use among adults with LBP.

DESIGN/SETTING

Serial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2002 to 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

146,087 adults reporting LBP in prior 3 months.

METHODS

We evaluated the association of survey year with chiropractic care or OT/PT use in prior 12 months. Logistic regression with multilevel linear splines was used to determine if chiropractic care or OT/PT use increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines. We also examined trends in use by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. When trends were similar over time, we present differences by these demographic characteristics as unadjusted ORs using data from all respondents.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2018, less than one-third of adults with LBP reported use of either chiropractic care or OT/PT. Rates did not change until 2016 when uptake increased with the introduction of clinical guidelines (2016-2018 vs 2002-2015, OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.19). Trends did not differ significantly by sex, race, or ethnicity (p for interactions > 0.05). Racial and ethnic disparities in chiropractic care or OT/PT use were identified and persisted over time. For example, compared to non-Hispanic adults, either chiropractic care or OT/PT use was lower among Hispanic adults (combined OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.65-0.73). By contrast, compared to White adults, Black adults had similar OT/PT use (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.94-1.03) but lower for chiropractic care use (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.47-0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of chiropractic care or OT/PT for LBP increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines in 2016, only about a third of US adults with LBP reported using these services between 2016 and 2018 and disparities in use have not improved.

Management of Neck or Back Pain in Ambulatory Care: Did Visit Mode or the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Provider Practice or Patient Adherence?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

In recent years, 2 circumstances have changed provider-patient interactions in ambulatory care: (1) the replacement of virtual for in-person visits and (2) the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the potential impact of each event on provider practice and patient adherence by comparing the frequency of the association of provider orders, and patient fulfillment of those orders, by visit mode and pandemic period, for incident neck or back pain (NBP) visits in ambulatory care.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the electronic health records of 3 Kaiser Permanente regions (Colorado, Georgia, and Mid-Atlantic States) from January 2017 to June 2021. Incident NBP visits were defined from ICD-10 coded as primary or first listed diagnoses on adult, family medicine, or urgent care visits separated by at least 180 days. Visit modes were classified as virtual or in-person. Periods were classified as prepandemic (before April 2020 or the beginning of the national emergency) or recovery (after June 2020). Percentages of provider orders for, and patient fulfillment of orders, were measured for 5 service classes and compared on: virtual versus in-person visits, and prepandemic versus recovery periods. Comparisons were balanced on patient case-mix using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Ancillary services in all 5 categories at each of the 3 Kaiser Permanente regions were substantially ordered less frequently on virtual compared with in-person visits in both the prepandemic and recovery periods (both P ≤ 0.001). Conditional on an order, patient fulfillment within 30 days was high (typically ≥70%) and not likely meaningfully different between visit modes or pandemic periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Ancillary services for incident NBP visits were ordered less frequently during virtual than in-person visits in both prepandemic and recovery periods. Patient fulfillment of orders was high, and not significantly different by mode or period.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Receiving Physical Therapy for Low Back Pain with a Nociplastic Pain Presentation: A Secondary Analysis

Introduction

Individuals with low back pain (LBP) may be classified based on mechanistic descriptors, such as a nociplastic pain presentation (NPP). The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine the frequency and characteristics of patients with a NPP referred to physical therapy with LBP. Additionally, we characterized patients with LBP meeting the criteria for NPP by demographic, clinical, psychological, and pain sensitivity variables. Finally, we examined short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with a NPP compared to those without a NPP.

Materials and Methods

Patients referred to physical therapy for LBP completed the Patient Self-report Survey for the Assessment of Fibromyalgia. Participants were categorized as "LBP with NPP" or "LBP without NPP" based on the threshold established in this measure. A rank sum test examined for differences in pain-related psychological factors and pressure-pain threshold between groups. Next, a Friedman test examined if LBP intensity and disability trajectories differed by groups at one and six months after initiation of physical therapy.

Results

22.2% of patients referred to physical therapy for LBP met the criteria for a NPP. Patients with a NPP reported significantly greater disability, pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and somatization compared to individuals without a NPP (p < 0.05). Pressure-pain threshold did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). Individuals with LBP with a NPP demonstrated nonsignificant, small to medium reductions in pain and disability at one and six months. Individuals experiencing LBP without a NPP demonstrated significant reductions in pain and disability in the short- and long term.

Conclusion

Patients with LBP with a NPP displayed greater negative pain-related psychological factors but similar pain sensitivity compared to LBP without NPP.

Three Patterns of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Back Pain and Their Association With Imaging Studies, Injection Procedures, and Surgery: A Cohort Study of Insurance Claims

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care.

RESULTS

There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group.

CONCLUSION

For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.

Systematic review of guideline-recommended medications prescribed for treatment of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.

RESULTS

316 citations were identified, 50 full-text articles were assessed, and nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGS focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.

Implementation of Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy for Low Back Pain: Where Do We Stand, Where Do We Go?

Low back pain continues to be a leading cause of disability and cost throughout the world. Evidence-based guidelines recommend use of non-pharmacological interventions to address decreases in physical function due to low back pain. Psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT) is one way to effectively and efficiently address the need for non-pharmacological approaches. However, adoption of psychologically informed practice (PiP) by physical therapists has shown mixed results due to implementation challenges. In this perspective, we discuss the current state of PIPT training and implementation. We also propose a conceptual roadmap for future implementation needs related to increasing delivery of PIPT-informed approaches.

Doctors of chiropractic working with or within integrated healthcare delivery systems: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Back and neck pain are the leading causes of disability worldwide. Doctors of chiropractic (DCs) are trained to manage these common conditions and can provide non-pharmacological treatment aligned with international clinical practice guidelines. Although DCs practice in over 90 countries, chiropractic care is rarely available within integrated healthcare delivery systems. A lack of DCs in private practice, particularly in low-income communities, may also limit access to chiropractic care. Improving collaboration between medical providers and community-based DCs, or embedding DCs in medical settings such as hospitals or community health centres, will improve access to evidence-based care for musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

This scoping review will map studies of DCs working with or within integrated healthcare delivery systems. We will use the recommended six-step approach for scoping reviews. We will search three electronic data bases including Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Two investigators will independently review all titles and abstracts to identify relevant records, screen the full-text articles of potentially admissible records, and systematically extract data from selected articles. We will include studies published in English from 1998 to 2020 describing medical settings that have established formal relationships with community-based DCs (eg, shared medical record) or where DCs practice in medical settings. Data extraction and reporting will be guided by the Proctor Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, which has three domains: clinical intervention, implementation strategies and outcome measurement. Stakeholders from diverse clinical fields will offer feedback on the implications of our findings via a web-based survey.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval will not be obtained for this review of published and publicly accessible data, but will be obtained for the web-based survey. Our results will be disseminated through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Our findings will inform implementation strategies that support the adoption of chiropractic care within integrated healthcare delivery systems.