Subgrouping patients with sciatica in primary care for matched care pathways: development of a subgrouping algorithm

Pinprick and Light Touch Are Adequate to Establish Sensory Dysfunction in Patients with Lumbar Radicular Pain and Disc Herniation

BACKGROUND

The frequency with which sensory disturbances occur in patients with radicular leg pain and disc herniation is not well known, and the efficacy of tests to identify such changes are not firmly established. The presence of sensory disturbances is a key sign of nerve root involvement and may contribute to the diagnosis of a lumbar disc herniation, identify patients for referral to spinal imaging and surgery, and improve disease classification.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this study, we sought: (1) to determine the frequency with which abnormal sensory findings occur in patients with lumbar disc herniation-related radicular pain, using a standard neurological sensory examination; (2) to determine what particular standard sensory test or combination of tests is most effective in establishing sensory dysfunction; and (3) to determine whether a more detailed in-depth sensory examination results in more patients being identified as having abnormal sensory findings.

METHODS

Between October 2013 and April 2016, 115 patients aged 18 to 65 years referred to secondary health care with radicular leg pain and disc herniation were considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the study. Based on these inclusion criteria, 79% (91) were found eligible. Ten percent (11) were excluded because of other illness that interfered with the study purpose, 3% (3) because of cauda equina syndrome, 2% (2) because of spinal stenosis, 2% (2) because of prior surgery at the same disc level, and 2% (2) because of poor Norwegian language skills. Three percent (4) of the patients did not want to participate in the study. Of the 91 eligible patients, 56% (51) consented to undergo a comprehensive clinical examination and were used for analysis here. The sample for the purposes of the present study was predetermined at 50. These patients were first examined by a standard procedure, including sensory assessment of light touch, pinprick, vibration, and warmth and cold over the back and legs. Second, an in-depth semiquantitative sensory testing procedure was performed in the main pain area to assess sensory dysfunction and improve the detection of potential positive sensory signs, or sensory gain of function more precisely. Sensory loss was defined as sensations experienced as distinctly reduced in the painful side compared with the contralateral reference side. In contrast, sensory gain was defined as sensations experienced as abnormally strong, unpleasant, or painful and distinctly stronger than the contralateral side. Ambiguous test results were coded as a normal response to avoid inflating the findings. The proportions of abnormal findings were calculated for each sensory modality and for all combinations of the standard examination tests.

RESULTS

The standard examination identified at least one abnormal finding in 88% (45 of 51) of patients. Sensory loss was present in 80% (41), while sensory gain was present in 35% (18). The combination of pinprick and light touch identified all patients who were classified as having abnormal findings by the full standard examination. The semiquantitative procedure identified an additional three patients with an abnormal finding.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that the combination of pinprick and light touch assessment is an adequate minimal approach for diagnostic and classification purposes in patients with lumbar radicular pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, diagnostic study.

Physical Therapy Referral From Primary Care for Acute Back Pain With Sciatica : A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined primary care management for acute sciatica, including referral to physical therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether early referral to physical therapy reduced disability more than usual care (UC) alone for patients with acute sciatica.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02391350).

SETTING

2 health care systems in Salt Lake City, Utah.

PATIENTS

220 adults aged 18 to 60 years with sciatica of less than 90 days' duration who were making an initial primary care consultation.

INTERVENTION

All participants received imaging and medication at the discretion of the primary care provider before enrollment. A total of 110 participants randomly assigned to UC were provided 1 session of education, and 110 participants randomly assigned to early physical therapy (EPT) were provided 1 education session and then referred for 4 weeks of physical therapy, including exercise and manual therapy.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (OSW) score after 6 months. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, patient-reported treatment success, health care use, and missed workdays.

RESULTS

Participants in the EPT group had greater improvement from baseline to 6 months for the primary outcome (relative difference, -5.4 points [95% CI, -9.4 to -1.3 points]; P = 0.009). The OSW and several secondary outcomes favored EPT after 4 weeks. After 1 year, between-group differences favored EPT for the OSW (relative difference, -4.8 points [CI, -8.9 to -0.7 points]) and back pain intensity (relative difference, -1.0 points [CI, -1.6 to -0.4 points]). The EPT group was more likely to self-report treatment success after 1 year (45.2%) than the UC group (27.6%) (relative risk, 1.6 [CI, 1.1 to 2.4]). There were no significant differences in health care use or missed workdays.

LIMITATION

The patients and providers were unblinded, and specific physical therapy interventions responsible for effects could not be determined.

CONCLUSION

Referral from primary care to physical therapy for recent-onset sciatica improved disability and other outcomes compared with UC.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT

BACKGROUND

Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care.

DESIGN

This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist.

RESULTS

A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration.

LIMITATIONS

Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results.

FUTURE WORK

Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on a 'fast-track' pathway for patients with sciatica in primary care: qualitative findings from the SCOPiC stratified care trial

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) (trial registration: ISRCTN75449581 ) tested stratified primary care for sciatica by subgrouping patients into one of three groups based on prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one group were 'fast-tracked' for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and spinal specialist opinion. This paper reports qualitative research exploring patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the acceptability of this 'fast-track' pathway.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients and 20 clinicians (general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists, spinal surgeons). Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and 'boundary objects' concept.

RESULTS

Whilst the 'fast-track' pathway achieved a degree of 'coherence' (i.e. made sense) to both patients and clinicians, particularly in relation to providing early reassurance based on MRI scan findings, it was less 'meaningful' to some clinicians for managing patients with acute symptoms, reflecting a reluctance to move away from the usual 'stepped care' approach. Both groups felt a key limitation of the pathway was that it did not shorten patient waiting times between their spinal specialist consultation and further treatments.

CONCLUSION

Findings contribute new knowledge about patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the role of imaging and spinal specialist opinion in the management of sciatica, and provide important insights for understanding the 'fast-track' pathway, as part of the stratified care model tested in the RCT. Future research into the early referral of patients with sciatica for investigation and specialist opinion should include strategies to support clinician behaviour change; as well as take into account the role of imaging in providing reassurance to patients with severe symptoms in cases where imaging reveals a clear explanation for the patient's pain, and where this is accompanied by a thorough explanation from a trusted clinical expert.

Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial

Background

Sciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care.

Methods

We did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as “completely recovered” or “much better” on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581.

Findings

Between May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10 601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4–13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4–14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89–1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care.

Interpretation

The stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.