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

Modic changes as seen on MRI are associated with nonspecific chronic lower back pain and disability

BACKGROUND

Estimating the contribution of endplate oedema known as Modic changes to lower back pain (LBP) has been the subject of multiple observational studies and reviews, some of which conclude that the evidence for an association of Modic change with LBP is uncertain while others demonstrate a clear link. The clinical trials demonstrating the benefit of basivertebral nerve ablation, a therapeutic intervention, in a tightly defined homogenous patient group with chronic LBP and Modic changes type 1 or type 2, provides further evidence for the contribution of Modic changes to LBP and shows that in these subjects, nerve ablation substantially reduces pain and disability. These interventional studies provide direct evidence that Modic changes can be associated with lower back pain and disability. This review set out to explore why the literature to date has been conflicting.

METHODS

A narrative, forensic, non-systematic literature review of selected articles to investigate why the published literature investigating the association between Modic imaging changes and chronic low back pain is inconsistent.

RESULTS

This review found that previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses included both heterogeneous study designs and diverse patient syndromes resulting in an inconsistent association between Modic changes and nonspecific chronic lower back pain. Re-analysis of literature data focussing on more homogenous patient populations provides clearer evidence that Modic changes are associated with nonspecific chronic lower back pain and that type 1 Modic changes are more painful than type 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies using tightly defined homogenous patient groups may provide the best test for association between MRI-findings and pain and disability. Clinical benefit of basivertebral nerve ablation observed in randomised controlled trials further supports the association between type 1 and type 2 Modic changes with pain and disability.

Characteristics and Effectiveness of Interventions That Target the Reporting, Communication, or Clinical Interpretation of Lumbar Imaging Findings: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians may misinterpret the clinical importance of imaging findings in patients with low back pain, leading to potential harm related to overdiagnosis.

PURPOSE

Our aims were to qualitatively summarize the characteristics of tested interventions that target the reporting, communication, or clinical interpretation of lumbar imaging findings and determine whether interventions are effective in improving low back pain-related health outcomes, health care use, or health care costs.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 20, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

The search retrieved 4394 articles, nine articles (seven studies) met the inclusion criteria to summarize intervention characteristics. Five of these studies had an adequate design for evaluating intervention effectiveness.

DATA ANALYSES

Intervention characteristics were summarized using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Effectiveness data were extracted from short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up points. Studies were assessed for risk of bias, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to determine the certainty of the evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four studies investigated the insertion of prevalence information into imaging reports. Single studies investigated withholding diagnostic information, education, and reassurance. Moderate-quality evidence (from 1 study) suggests that inserting prevalence information into imaging reports probably does not change the overall health care use in the long-term but may reduce opioid prescribing.

LIMITATIONS

The available evidence is limited, and a meta-analysis was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Further work is required to develop and test interventions that target the reporting, communication, and clinical interpretation of lumbar imaging findings that may reduce overdiagnosis and improve the management of low back pain.

Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care

OBJECTIVES

The largest proportion of general practitioner (GP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is musculoskeletal (MSK), with consistent annual growth. With limited supporting evidence and potential harms from early imaging overuse, we evaluated practice to improve pathways and patient safety.

METHODS

Cohort evaluation of routinely collected diagnostic and general practice data across a UK metropolitan primary care population. We reviewed patient characteristics, results and healthcare utilisation.

RESULTS

Of 306 MSK-MRIs requested by 107 clinicians across 29 practices, only 4.9% (95% CI ±2.4%) appeared clearly indicated and only 16.0% (95% CI ±4.1%) received appropriate prior therapy. 37.0% (95% CI ±5.5%) documented patient imaging request. Most had chronic symptoms and half had psychosocial flags. Mental health was addressed in only 11.8% (95% CI ±6.3%) of chronic sufferers with psychiatric illness, suggesting a solely pathoanatomical approach to MSK care. Only 7.8% (95% CI ±3.0%) of all patients were appropriately managed without additional referral. 1.3% (95% CI ±1.3%) of scans revealed diagnoses leading to change in treatment (therapeutic yield). Most imaged patients received pathoanatomical explanations to their symptoms, often based on expected age or activity-related changes. Only 16.7% (95% CI ±4.2%) of results appeared correctly interpreted by GPs, with spurious overperception of surgical targets in 65.4% (95% CI ±5.3%) who suffered 'low-value' (ineffective, harmful or wasteful) post-MRI referral cascades due to misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Typically, 20%-30% of GP specialist referrals convert to a procedure, whereas MRI-triggered referrals showed near-zero conversion rate. Imaged patients experienced considerable delay to appropriate care. Cascade costs exceeded direct-MRI costs and GP-MSK-MRI potentially more than doubles expenditure compared with physiotherapist-led assessment services, for little-to-no added therapeutic yield, unjustifiable by cost-consequence or cost-utility analysis.

CONCLUSION

Unfettered GP-MSK-MRI use has reached unaccceptable indication creep and disutility. Considerable avoidable harm occurs through ubiquitous misinterpretation and salient low-value referral cascades for two-thirds of imaged patients, for almost no change in treatment. Any marginally earlier procedural intervention for a tiny fraction of patients is eclipsed by negative consequences for the vast majority. Only 1-2 patients need to be scanned for one to suffer mismanagement. Direct-access imaging is neither clinically, nor cost-effective and deimplementation could be considered in this setting. GP-MSK-MRI fuels unnecessary healthcare utilisation, generating nocebic patient beliefs and expectations, whilst appropriate care is delayed and a high burden of psychosocial barriers to recovery appear neglected.