OSTEOPAThic Health outcomes in chronic low back pain: The OSTEOPATHIC Trial

Effect of spinal manipulative treatment on cardiovascular autonomic control in patients with acute low back pain

Background

This study aimed to quantify the effect of spinal manipulative treatment (SMT) from an analysis of baroreflex, systolic blood pressure and heart rate variability (HRV) on patients with acute back pain. It was hypothesized that SMT would increase the parasympathetic cardiovascular autonomic control.

Methods

Twenty-two patients with acute back pain were randomly divided into two groups: one receiving sham treatment (Sham) and the other receiving SMT. Recordings were completed during the first day and the seventh day, immediately before and after treatment on both days. ECG and systolic blood pressure were continuously recorded to compute cardiovascular variability and baroreflex sensitivity components. The perceived level of pain was measured with the numeric pain scale (NPS) 48 h before, just before and just after each treatment. The NPS ranged from 0 to 100% (peak of pain before treatment). ECG and systolic blood pressure recordings were analyzed in time frequency domain using the Smoothed pseudo Wigner-Ville distribution.

Results

Root mean square of the successive differences, high frequency power of the heart rate variability, and high frequency baroreflex sensitivity differences between post and pre tests were higher in the SMT group than in the Sham group (p < 0.01), whereas no differences were observed with the other heart rate variability components. Also, no differences were observed with the systolic blood pressure components. Although the estimated pain scale values decreased over time, no difference was observed between the SMT and Sham groups.

Conclusions

This seems to be the first study to assess the effect of SMT on both heart rate variability and baroreflex sensitivity in patients with acute back pain. SMT can be seen to provoke an increase in parasympathetic control known to relate to a person's healthy state. Thus, cardiovascular variability analysis may be a useful tool for clinicians to quantify and objectify the beneficial effects of spinal manipulation treatment.

Post-sternotomy pain syndrome following cardiac surgery: case report

Over 2 million people undergo sternotomy worldwide for heart surgery each year, and many develop post-sternotomy pain syndrome (PSPS) which persists in the anterior thorax. In some patients, PSPS lasts for many years or suddenly reappears a long time after the sternotomy. The exact etiology of PSPS is unknown. This article presents a case report of a patient with a diagnosis of PSPS (after cardiac surgery 4 years prior) for whom an osteopathic approach was used, which successfully eliminated the pain. In a previous study, we demonstrated that this osteopathic procedure could reduce sternal pain associated with a recent surgical wound. Further efforts are needed to understand the reasons for PSPS. In light of new scientific data, these osteopathic techniques could contribute to a multidisciplinary approach to solve the problem.

Clinical response and relapse in patients with chronic low back pain following osteopathic manual treatment: results from the OSTEOPATHIC Trial

Clinical response and relapse following a regimen of osteopathic manual treatment (OMT) were assessed in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) within the OSTEOPATHIC Trial, a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study. Initial clinical response and subsequent stability of response, including final response and relapse status at week 12, were determined in 186 patients with high baseline pain severity (≥50 mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale). Substantial improvement in LBP, defined as 50% or greater pain reduction relative to baseline, was used to assess clinical response at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12. Sixty-two (65%) patients in the OMT group attained an initial clinical response vs. 41 (45%) patients in the sham OMT group (risk ratio [RR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.90). The median time to initial clinical response to OMT in these patients was 4 weeks. Among patients with an initial clinical response prior to week 12, 13 (24%) patients in the OMT group vs. 18 (51%) patients in the sham OMT group relapsed (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.83). Overall, 49 (52%) patients in the OMT group attained or maintained a clinical response at week 12 vs. 23 (25%) patients in the sham OMT group (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.36-3.05). The large effect size for short-term efficacy of OMT was driven by stable responders who did not relapse.

Outcomes of osteopathic manual treatment for chronic low back pain according to baseline pain severity: results from the OSTEOPATHIC Trial

PURPOSE

To assess response to osteopathic manual treatment (OMT) according to baseline severity of chronic low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

The OSTEOPATHIC Trial used a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, 2×2 factorial design to study OMT for chronic LBP. A total of 269 (59%) patients reported low baseline pain severity (LBPS) (<50 mm/100 mm), whereas 186 (41%) patients reported high baseline pain severity (HBPS) (≥50 mm/100 mm). Six OMT sessions were provided over eight weeks and outcomes were assessed at week 12. The primary outcome was substantial LBP improvement (≥50% pain reduction). The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and eight other secondary outcomes were also studied. Response ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used in conjunction with Cochrane Back Review Group criteria to determine OMT effects.

RESULTS

There was a large effect size for OMT in providing substantial LBP improvement in patients with HBPS (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.36-3.05; P<0.001). This was accompanied by clinically important improvement in back-specific functioning on the RMDQ (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.08-3.01; P=0.02). Both RRs were significantly greater than those observed in patients with LBPS. Osteopathic manual treatment was consistently associated with benefits in all other secondary outcomes in patients with HBPS, although the statistical significance and clinical relevance of results varied.

CONCLUSIONS

The large effect size for OMT in providing substantial pain reduction in patients with chronic LBP of high severity was associated with clinically important improvement in back-specific functioning. Thus, OMT may be an attractive option in such patients before proceeding to more invasive and costly treatments.

Osteopathic manual treatment and ultrasound therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We studied the efficacy of osteopathic manual treatment (OMT) and ultrasound therapy (UST) for chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial design was used to study OMT and UST for short-term relief of nonspecific chronic low back pain. The 455 patients were randomized to OMT (n = 230) or sham OMT (n = 225) main effects groups, and to UST (n = 233) or sham UST (n = 222) main effects groups. Six treatment sessions were provided over 8 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to measure moderate and substantial improvements in low back pain at week 12 (30% or greater and 50% or greater pain reductions from baseline, respectively). Five secondary outcomes, safety, and treatment adherence were also assessed.

RESULTS

There was no statistical interaction between OMT and UST. Patients receiving OMT were more likely than patients receiving sham OMT to achieve moderate (response ratio [RR] = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P <.001) and substantial (RR = 1.41, 95% CI, 1.13-1.76; P = .002) improvements in low back pain at week 12. These improvements met the Cochrane Back Review Group criterion for a medium effect size. Back-specific functioning, general health, work disability specific to low back pain, safety outcomes, and treatment adherence did not differ between patients receiving OMT and sham OMT. Nevertheless, patients in the OMT group were more likely to be very satisfied with their back care throughout the study (P <.001). Patients receiving OMT used prescription drugs for low back pain less frequently during the 12 weeks than did patients in the sham OMT group (use ratio = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.43-1.00; P = .048). Ultrasound therapy was not efficacious.

CONCLUSIONS

The OMT regimen met or exceeded the Cochrane Back Review Group criterion for a medium effect size in relieving chronic low back pain. It was safe, parsimonious, and well accepted by patients.

Associations of Cytokine Concentrations With Key Osteopathic Lesions and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: Results From the OSTEOPATHIC Trial

Context: Little is known about the role that cytokines play in osteopathic manual treatment (OMT) of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).

Objective: To measure the baseline concentrations of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in patients with chronic LBP; the correlations of these cytokine concentrations with clinical measures, including the number of key osteopathic lesions; the changes in cytokine concentrations with OMT; and the association of such changes with clinical outcomes.

Design: Substudy nested within a randomized controlled trial of OMT for nonspecific chronic LBP.

Setting: University-based study in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas.

Patients: Seventy adult research patients with nonspecific chronic LBP.

Main Outcome Measures: A 10-cm visual analog scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey were used to measure LBP severity, back-specific functioning, and general health, respectively.

Results:At baseline, IL-1β (ρ=0.33; P=.005) and IL-6 (ρ=0.32; P=.006) were each correlated with the number of key osteopathic lesions; however, only IL-6 was correlated with LBP severity (ρ=0.28; P=.02). There was a significantly greater reduction of TNF-α concentration after 12 weeks in patients who received OMT compared with patients who received sham OMT (Mann-Whitney U=251.5; P=.03). Significant associations were found between OMT and a reduced TNF-α concentration response at week 12 among patients who achieved moderate (response ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.06; P=.006) and substantial (response ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.07-4.25; P=.01) LBP improvements, and improvement in back-specific functioning (response ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.71; P=.03).

Conclusions: This study found associations between IL-1β and IL-6 concentrations and the number of key osteopathic lesions and between IL-6 and LBP severity at baseline. However, only TNF-α concentration changed significantly after 12 weeks in response to OMT. These discordant findings indicate that additional research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of action of OMT in patients with nonspecific chronic LBP.

A randomized, controlled trial of osteopathic manipulative treatment for acute low back pain in active duty military personnel

OBJECTIVE

Acute low back pain (ALBP) may limit mobility and impose functional limitations in active duty military personnel. Although some manual therapies have been reported effective for ALBP in military personnel, there have been no published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in the military. Furthermore, current military ALBP guidelines do not specifically include OMT.

METHODS

This RCT examined the efficacy of OMT in relieving ALBP and improving functioning in military personnel at Fort Lewis, Washington. Sixty-three male and female soldiers ages 18 to 35 were randomly assigned to a group receiving OMT plus usual care or a group receiving usual care only (UCO).

RESULTS

The primary outcome measures were pain on the quadruple visual analog scale, and functioning on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Outcomes were measured immediately preceding each of four treatment sessions and at four weeks post-trial. Intention to treat analysis found significantly greater post-trial improvement in 'Pain Now' for OMT compared to UCO (P = 0·026). Furthermore, the OMT group reported less 'Pain Now' and 'Pain Typical' at all visits (P = 0·025 and P = 0·020 respectively). Osteopathic manipulative treatment subjects also tended to achieve a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline on 'Pain at Best' sooner than the UCO subjects. With similar baseline expectations, OMT subjects reported significantly greater satisfaction with treatment and overall self-reported improvement (P<0·01).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the effectiveness of OMT in reducing ALBP pain in active duty military personnel.

Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care: one journal, two audiences

Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care (OMPC) enters its fourth year of operation in 2010 under the umbrella of BioMed Central. Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care strives to promote and advance research and scholarly work within the fields of osteopathic medicine and primary care. In so doing, OMPC welcomes submissions from clinicians within both the osteopathic and allopathic medical professions, and from other professionals having interests in primary care, including health care delivery, public health, and evidence-based medicine. Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care offers fair and expeditious peer review (mean time from submission to publication, 118 days), retention of copyright for authors, unlimited online distribution and access without charge to readers, indexing in PubMed, and archiving in PubMed Central. In 2010, there will be an increased availability of waivers or discounts of article processing charges via several mechanisms for eligible authors who submit qualified manuscripts, especially in the field of primary care.

Time for the osteopathic profession to take the lead in musculoskeletal research

Musculoskeletal conditions, such as low back pain, are prevalent in the United States. These conditions exact an enormous toll on society, both in terms of their detrimental impact on quality of life and on the costs of treatment and lost productivity. Osteopathic physicians, as common providers of primary care services and spinal manipulation, are ideally positioned to lead future research efforts in this field. The emergence of data and standards relevant to osteopathic manipulative treatment outcomes, refinement of research methodologies to enhance evidence-based medicine, and investments in developing osteopathic research infrastructure are all critical elements in moving this field of research forward.

Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care looks forward to 2009

Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care, which enters its third year of operation in 2009 under the umbrella of BioMed Central, continues to promote and advance open access publishing through universal online access without charge, indexing in PubMed and archiving in PubMed Central, retention of authors' copyright, and expeditious peer review. Notable accomplishments during 2008 included a median lag time of four months from initial manuscript submission to publication, designation of eight articles as "highly accessed," and achievement of a balanced proportion of publications in our core topic areas of osteopathic medicine and primary care. In October 2008, Springer Science+Business Media, a major publisher of journals in science, technology, and medicine, acquired the BioMed Central Group. Our 2009 Editorial Board is presented herein, as well as a new mechanism for posting book reviews on the Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care website. We continue to encourage manuscript submissions and reader comments on our articles. Waivers or discounts of article processing charges are available via several mechanisms for eligible authors who submit qualified manuscripts.