Can patient-reported profiles avoid unnecessary referral to a spine surgeon? An observational study to further develop the Nijmegen Decision Tool for Chronic Low Back Pain

Development and Feasibility Study of a Triage Tool for Early Referral to Spinal Cord Stimulation for Patients With Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain

BACKGROUND

In recent years, delayed elective care and growing waiting lists increasingly resulted in postponed surgeries for patients with chronic back and leg pain.

OBJECTIVE

To develop, implement, and evaluate the feasibility of a triage tool for patients with chronic back and/or leg pain to identify those eligible for referral to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) consultation.

METHODS

A triage tool was developed, based on Dutch SCS guidelines, literature review and expert panel consultation. The triage process was detected and implemented in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team, prior to first orthopaedic consultation. Feasibility, reliability and predictive accuracy were analysed as part of the evaluation of the triage tool.

RESULTS

The triage indicators included: Pain location (leg/mixed), DN4 > 3, pain duration ≥ 3 months, leg pain ≥ back pain and NPRS leg pain ≥ 5. The triage tool was applied on patients on the orthopaedic waiting list, followed by a full orthopaedic review if they were not excluded. A total of 1025 orthopaedic patients with chronic back and leg pain were assessed with the triage tool. The triage tool was evaluated as feasible (mean System Usability Score 74.2 [SD 11.5]), reliable (inter-rater reliability [Fleiss' Kappa 0.79], intra-rater reliability [Cohen's Kappa 0.89]) and accurate (sensitivity [100%], specificity [98.8%], positive predictive value [40%] and negative predictive value [100%]).

CONCLUSION

Early triage of potential SCS candidates potentially supports rapid and appropriate care allocation, shortens waiting list time and improves clinical outcomes. Future research should explore strategies to optimise the tool's performance in identifying patients most likely to benefit from SCS therapy.

SIGNIFICANCE

A novel triage tool was developed to identify patients with chronic back and leg pain for an early referral to SCS. This tool, evaluated for feasibility, reliability, and predictive accuracy, shows promise in reducing waiting times and improving patient selection. It can be a prelude to the further development of decision support for SCS and an acceleration in the care process for SCS candidates.

Prognostic Factors for Outcome of Fusion Surgery in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain - A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify prognostic factors, encompassing biomedical and psychosocial variables, linked to outcome of fusion surgery for chronic low back pain (CLBP) in single or two-level lumbar degenerative spinal disorders. Identifying these factors is crucial for decision making and therefore long-term treatment outcome.

METHODS

A systematic search (PROSPERO ID: CRD4202018927) from January 2010 to October 2022 was conducted, utilizing Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, CENTRAL). Prognostic factors associated with various outcomes, including functional status, back and leg pain, health-related quality of life, complications, return to work, and analgesic use, were assessed. Risk of bias was determined using QUIPS, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Of the 9852 initially screened studies, eleven studies (n = 16,482) were included in the analysis. In total, 161 associations were identified, with 67 prognostic factors showing statistical significance (P < 0.05). Thirty associations were supported by two or more studies, and only eight associations were eligible for meta-analyses: female gender remained statistically significant associated with decreased postoperative back pain, but negatively associated with complication rates and functional status, and smoking with increased postoperative back pain.

CONCLUSION

Only female gender and smoking were consistently associated with outcome of fusion for CLBP. Most of the included studies exhibited low to moderate methodological quality, which may explain the relatively weak associations identified for the assessed prognostic factors.

Development of an International AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Fusion and Decompression (AO-GO)

STUDY DESIGN

Methodological study for guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

AO Spine Guideline for Using Osteobiologics (AO-GO) project for spine degenerative pathologies was an international, multidisciplinary collaborative initiative to identify and evaluate evidence on existing use of osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Fusion and Decompression (ACDF). The aim was to formulate precisely defined, clinically relevant and internationally applicable guidelines ensuring evidence-based, safe and effective use of osteobiologics, considering regional preferences and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Guideline was completed in two phases: Phase 1- evidence synthesis; Phase 2- recommendation development based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. In Phase 1, key questions identified by a panel of experts were addressed in a series of systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized studies. In Phase 2, the GRADE approach was used to formulate a series of recommendations, including expert panel discussions via web calls and face-to-face meetings.

DISCUSSION

AO-GO aims to bridge an important gap between evidence and use of osteobiologics in spine fusion surgeries. Owing to differences in osteobiologics preparation and functional characteristics, regulatory requirements for approval may vary, therefore it is highly likely that these products enter market without quality clinical trials. With a holistic approach the guideline aims to facilitate evidence-based, patient-oriented decision-making processes in clinical practice, thus stimulating further evidence-based studies regarding osteobiologics usage in spine surgeries. In Phase 3, the guideline will be disseminated and validated using prospectively collected clinical data in a separate effort of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative in a global multicenter clinical study.

Appropriateness of specialized care referrals for LBP: a cross-sectional analysis

Background

Low back pain (LBP) accounts for a significant proportion of primary care visits. Despite the development of evidence-based guidelines, studies point to the inefficient use of healthcare resources, resulting in over 60.0% of patients with LBP being referred to spine surgeons without any surgical indication. Centralized waiting lists (CWLs) have been implemented to improve access to specialized care by managing asymmetry between supply and demands. To date, no study has provided data on patients' clinical profiles and referral patterns to medical specialists for LBP in the context of a publicly funded healthcare system operating a prioritization model. The objective of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of specialized care referrals for LBP after the implementation of a CWL.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 500 randomly selected electronic health records of patients who attended the outpatient neurosurgery clinic of the administrative Mauricie-et-Centre-du-Québec region was performed. Inclusion criteria were neurosurgery consultation referrals for adults ≥18 years suffering from a primary complaint of LBP, and performed between September 1st, 2018, and September 1st, 2021. Data relevant for drawing a comprehensive portrait of patients referred to the neurosurgery service and for judging referrals appropriateness were manually extracted.

Results

Of the 500 cases analyzed, only 112 (22.4%) were surgical candidates, while 221 (44.2%) were discharge from the neurosurgery service upon initial assessment. Key information was inconsistently documented in medical files, thus preventing the establishment of a comprehensive portrait of patients referred to the neurosurgery service for LBP. Nevertheless, over 80.0% of referrals made during the study period were deemed inappropriate. Inappropriate referrals were characterized by higher proportion of patients symptomatically improved, presenting a back-dominant chief complaint, exhibiting no objective neurological symptoms, and diagnosed with non-specific LBP.

Conclusion

This study reveals a significant proportion of inappropriate referrals to specialized care for LBP. Further research is needed to better understand the factors that prompt referrals to medical specialists for LBP, and the criteria considered by neurosurgeons when selecting the appropriate management strategy. Recent studies suggest that triaging approaches led by musculoskeletal experts may improve referral appropriateness to specialized care.

Factors Predicting Clinically Relevant Pain Relief After Spinal Cord Stimulation for Patients With Chronic Low Back and/or Leg Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

RATIONALE

To optimize results with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or leg pain, including persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS), careful patient selection based on proved predictive factors is essential. Unfortunately, the necessary selection process required to optimize outcomes of SCS remains challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to evaluate predictive factors of clinically relevant pain relief after SCS for patients with CLBP and/or radicular leg pain, including PSPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In August 2023, PubMed, Cinahl, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies published between January 2010 and August 2023. Studies reporting the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain relief after SCS in patients with CLBP and leg pain, including PSPS at 12 or 24 months, were included. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool results for back, leg, and general pain relief. Predictive factors for pain relief after 12 months were examined using univariable and multivariable meta-regression.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies (2220 patients) were included for further analysis. The mean percentages of patients with substantial pain relief were 68% for leg pain, 63% for back pain, and 73% for general pain at 12 months follow-up, and 63% for leg pain, 59% for back pain, and 71% for general pain at 24 months follow-up assessment. The implantation method and baseline Oswestry Disability Index made the multivariable meta-regression model for ≥50% back pain relief. Sex and pain duration made the final model for ≥50% leg pain relief. Variable stimulation and implantation method made the final model for general pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports SCS as an effective pain-relieving treatment for CLBP and/or leg pain, and models were developed to predict substantial back and leg pain relief. To provide high-grade evidence for predictive factors, SCS studies of high quality are needed in which standardized factors predictive of SCS success, based on in-patient improvements, are monitored and reported.

Patient profiling and outcome assessment in spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and/or leg pain (the PROSTIM study): a study protocol

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment option in the multidisciplinary approach to chronic back and leg pain. Nevertheless, careful patient selection remains crucial to provide the most optimal treatment and prevent treatment failure. We report the protocol for the PROSTIM study, an ongoing prospective, multicentric and observational clinical study (NCT05349695) that aims to identify different patient clusters and their outcomes after SCS. Patients are recruited in different centers in Europe. Analysis focuses on identifying significant patient clusters based on different health domains and the changes in biopsychosocial variables 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months after implantation. This study is the first to include a biopsychosocial cluster analysis to identify significant patient groups and their response to treatment with SCS.

Assessing Serious Spinal Pathology Using Bayesian Network Decision Support: Development and Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Identifying and managing serious spinal pathology (SSP) such as cauda equina syndrome or spinal infection in patients presenting with low back pain is challenging. Traditional red flag questioning is increasingly criticized, and previous studies show that many clinicians lack confidence in managing patients presenting with red flags. Improving decision-making and reducing the variability of care for these patients is a key priority for clinicians and researchers.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to improve SSP identification by constructing and validating a decision support tool using a Bayesian network (BN), which is an artificial intelligence technique that combines current evidence and expert knowledge.

METHODS

A modified RAND appropriateness procedure was undertaken with 16 experts over 3 rounds, designed to elicit the variables, structure, and conditional probabilities necessary to build a causal BN. The BN predicts the likelihood of a patient with a particular presentation having an SSP. The second part of this study used an established framework to direct a 4-part validation that included comparison of the BN with consensus statements, practice guidelines, and recent research. Clinical cases were entered into the model and the results were compared with clinical judgment from spinal experts who were not involved in the elicitation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curve were calculated for accuracy statistics.

RESULTS

The RAND appropriateness procedure elicited a model including 38 variables in 3 domains: risk factors (10 variables), signs and symptoms (17 variables), and judgment factors (11 variables). Clear consensus was found in the risk factors and signs and symptoms for SSP conditions. The 4-part BN validation demonstrated good performance overall and identified areas for further development. Comparison with available clinical literature showed good overall agreement but suggested certain improvements required to, for example, 2 of the 11 judgment factors. Case analysis showed that cauda equina syndrome, space-occupying lesion/cancer, and inflammatory condition identification performed well across the validation domains. Fracture identification performed less well, but the reasons for the erroneous results are well understood. A review of the content by independent spinal experts backed up the issues with the fracture node, but the BN was otherwise deemed acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAND appropriateness procedure and validation framework were successfully implemented to develop the BN for SSP. In comparison with other expert-elicited BN studies, this work goes a step further in validating the output before attempting implementation. Using a framework for model validation, the BN showed encouraging validity and has provided avenues for further developing the outputs that demonstrated poor accuracy. This study provides the vital first step of improving our ability to predict outcomes in low back pain by first considering the problem of SSP.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/21804.

Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models.

METHODS

Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R²), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations.

RESULTS

The Non-p performed the best (R² = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = -0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R² = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = -0.15; 95% LA = -0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R² = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = -0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients' 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and-depending on the approach-may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations.

Reflection Machines: Supporting Effective Human Oversight Over Medical Decision Support Systems

Human decisions are increasingly supported by decision support systems (DSS). Humans are required to remain "on the loop," by monitoring and approving/rejecting machine recommendations. However, use of DSS can lead to overreliance on machines, reducing human oversight. This paper proposes "reflection machines" (RM) to increase meaningful human control. An RM provides a medical expert not with suggestions for a decision, but with questions that stimulate reflection about decisions. It can refer to data points or suggest counterarguments that are less compatible with the planned decision. RMs think against the proposed decision in order to increase human resistance against automation complacency. Building on preliminary research, this paper will (1) make a case for deriving a set of design requirements for RMs from EU regulations, (2) suggest a way how RMs could support decision-making, (3) describe the possibility of how a prototype of an RM could apply to the medical domain of chronic low back pain, and (4) highlight the importance of exploring an RM's functionality and the experiences of users working with it.

An exploration of low back pain beliefs in a Northern America based general population

BACKGROUND

Prior research has demonstrated that people across different populations hold beliefs about low back pain (LBP) that are inconsistent with current evidence. Qualitative research is needed to explore current LBP beliefs in Northern America (NA).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a primarily qualitative cross-sectional online survey to assess LBP beliefs in a NA population (USA and Canada).

METHODS

Participants were recruited online using social media advertisements targeting individuals in NA over the age of 18 with English speaking and reading comprehension. Participants answered questions regarding the cause of LBP, reasons for reoccurrence or persistence of LBP, and sources of these beliefs. Responses were analyzed using conventional (inductive) content analysis.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

62 participants were included with a mean age of 47.6 years. Most participants reported multiple causes for LBP as well as its persistence and reoccurrence, however, these were biomedically focused with minimal to no regard for psychological or environmental influences. The primary cited source of participants' beliefs was healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings align with prior research from other regions, demonstrating a need for updating clinical education and public messaging about the biopsychosocial nature of LBP.

Non-surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity: results of an intensive combined physical and psychological programme for patients with adult spinal deformity and chronic low back pain-a treatment-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

No evidence-based treatment exists for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

AIM OF THIS STUDY

evaluate a combined physical and psychological programme (CPPP) for ASD patients with CLBP and to compare this with a non-ASD-cohort with CLBP.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the database of CLBP-patients for whom surgery is not an option and completed CPPP. Two cohorts were selected: an ASD-cohort (n = 80) based on a Cobb angle of > 10° and a consecutive age- and gender-matched non-ASD-cohort (n = 240).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

functional status (Oswestry Disability Index; ODI).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

pain intensity, self-efficacy and quality of life.

ASSESSMENTS

pre and post treatment, one-month and one-year follow-up (FU).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

minimal important clinical change (MCIC; ODI 10 points), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS; ODI ≤ 22).

RESULTS

Demographics ASD-cohort: 79% female, mean age 50.9 (± 14.1) years, mean CLBP duration 15.5 (± 12.5) years, mean Cobb angle 21.4 (± 9.4)°. Non-ASD-cohort: not significantly different. Both cohorts improved in functional status (F[1,318] = 142.982, p < .001; r = 0.31). The ASD-cohort improved from mean ODI 39.5(± 12.0) at baseline to mean ODI 31.8(± 16.5) at one-year FU.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

51% of the ASD patients reached MCIC and 33% reached a PASS. An interaction effect is shown between time and both cohorts (F[1,318] = 8.2, p = .004; r = 0.03); however, not clinically relevant. All secondary outcomes: improvement at one-year FU.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study showing beneficial outcomes of a non-surgical treatment in selected ASD patients with longstanding CLBP. Improvement is shown in functional status, and appeared equivalent to the non-ASD cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 1: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Clinical outcome analysis in surgical patients enrolled in a Second Opinion Program in spine surgery

Objective

To analyze pain, functional capacity, quality of life, anxiety and depression outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery following use of the Second Opinion Program, and to present disagreements regarding diagnoses and therapeutic indications between the first and second opinions.

Methods

A prospective, observational cohort study with 100 patients enrolled in the Second Opinion Program who underwent lumbar spine surgery. Questionnaires addressing pain intensity, level of disability, quality of life, anxiety and depression were applied prior to and within 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of surgery. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed. The following clinical outcomes were analyzed: pain intensity, level of disability, quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

Results

In this sample, 88% and 12% out of 100 patients were submitted to lumbar decompression and arthrodesis, respectively. Patients reported improvements in function, pain intensity, and quality of life factors following surgery and were able to attain the minimal clinically important difference relative to the preoperative period. Agreement between the first and second opinions was observed in 44% of diagnoses, and in 27% of therapeutic indications.

Conclusion

Patients had favorable postoperative outcomes regarding pain, disability, and quality of life. These findings and the high rates of diagnostic and therapeutic indication disagreements corroborate the need of a second opinion in cases of spine disease with surgical indications.

Can EQ-5D-3L utility values of low back pain patients be validly predicted by the Oswestry Disability Index for use in cost-effectiveness analyses?

Purpose

To assess whether regression modeling can be used to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in low back pain (LBP) patients for use in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

EQ-5D-3L utility values of LBP patients were estimated using their ODI scores as independent variables using regression analyses, while adjusting for case-mix variables. Six different models were estimated: (1) Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, with total ODI score, (2) OLS, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, (3) OLS, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables, (4) Tobit model, with total ODI score, (5) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, and (6) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables. The models’ performance was assessed using explained variance (R²) and root mean squared error (RMSE). The potential impact of using predicted instead of observed EQ-5D-3L utility values on cost-effectiveness outcomes was evaluated in two empirical cost-effectiveness analysis.

Results

Complete individual patient data of 18,692 low back pain patients were analyzed. All models had a more or less similar R² (range 45–52%) and RMSE (range 0.21–0.22). The two best performing models produced similar probabilities of cost-effectiveness for a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values compared to those based on the observed EQ-5D-3L values. For example, the difference in probabilities ranged from 2 to 5% at a WTP of 50,000 €/QALY gained.

Conclusion

Results suggest that the ODI can be validly used to predict low back pain patients’ EQ-5D-3L utility values and QALYs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03082-6.

AI MSK clinical applications: spine imaging

Recent investigations have focused on the clinical application of artificial intelligence (AI) for tasks specifically addressing the musculoskeletal imaging routine. Several AI applications have been dedicated to optimizing the radiology value chain in spine imaging, independent from modality or specific application. This review aims to summarize the status quo and future perspective regarding utilization of AI for spine imaging. First, the basics of AI concepts are clarified. Second, the different tasks and use cases for AI applications in spine imaging are discussed and illustrated by examples. Finally, the authors of this review present their personal perception of AI in daily imaging and discuss future chances and challenges that come along with AI-based solutions.

A Bayesian Network Decision Support Tool for Low Back Pain Using a RAND Appropriateness Procedure: Proposal and Internal Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is an increasingly burdensome condition for patients and health professionals alike, with consistent demonstration of increasing persistent pain and disability. Previous decision support tools for LBP management have focused on a subset of factors owing to time constraints and ease of use for the clinician. With the explosion of interest in machine learning tools and the commitment from Western governments to introduce this technology, there are opportunities to develop intelligent decision support tools. We will do this for LBP using a Bayesian network, which will entail constructing a clinical reasoning model elicited from experts.

OBJECTIVE

This paper proposes a method for conducting a modified RAND appropriateness procedure to elicit the knowledge required to construct a Bayesian network from a group of domain experts in LBP, and reports the lessons learned from the internal pilot of the procedure.

METHODS

We propose to recruit expert clinicians with a special interest in LBP from across a range of medical specialties, such as orthopedics, rheumatology, and sports medicine. The procedure will consist of four stages. Stage 1 is an online elicitation of variables to be considered by the model, followed by a face-to-face workshop. Stage 2 is an online elicitation of the structure of the model, followed by a face-to-face workshop. Stage 3 consists of an online phase to elicit probabilities to populate the Bayesian network. Stage 4 is a rudimentary validation of the Bayesian network.

RESULTS

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Research Ethics Committee at Queen Mary University of London. An internal pilot of the procedure has been run with clinical colleagues from the research team. This showed that an alternating process of three remote activities and two in-person meetings was required to complete the elicitation without overburdening participants. Lessons learned have included the need for a bespoke online elicitation tool to run between face-to-face meetings and for careful operational definition of descriptive terms, even if widely clinically used. Further, tools are required to remotely deliver training about self-identification of various forms of cognitive bias and explain the underlying principles of a Bayesian network. The use of the internal pilot was recognized as being a methodological necessity.

CONCLUSIONS

We have proposed a method to construct Bayesian networks that are representative of expert clinical reasoning for a musculoskeletal condition in this case. We have tested the method with an internal pilot to refine the process prior to deployment, which indicates the process can be successful. The internal pilot has also revealed the software support requirements for the elicitation process to model clinical reasoning for a range of conditions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/21804.

Expenditures and Health Care Utilization Among Adults With Newly Diagnosed Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain

IMPORTANCE

Low back pain (LBP) with or without lower extremity pain (LEP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Previous studies investigating costs in this population targeted patients receiving surgery. Little is known about health care utilization among patients who do not undergo surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess use of health care resources for LBP and LEP management and analyze associated costs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used a retrospective analysis of a commercial database containing inpatient and outpatient data for more than 75 million individuals. Participants were US adults who were newly diagnosed with LBP or LEP between 2008 and 2015, did not have a red-flag diagnosis, and were opiate naive prior to diagnosis. Dates of analysis were October 6, 2018, to March 7, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Newly diagnosed LBP or LEP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was total cost of care within the first 6 and 12 months following diagnosis, stratified by whether patients received spinal surgery. An assessment was performed to determine whether patients who did not undergo surgery received care in accordance with proposed guidelines for conservative LBP and LEP management. Costs resulting from use of different health care services were estimated.

RESULTS

A total of 2 498 013 adult patients with a new LBP or LEP diagnosis (median [interquartile range] age, 47 [36-58] years; 1 373 076 [55.0%] female) were identified. More than half (55.7%) received no intervention. Only 1.2% of patients received surgery, but they accounted for 29.3% of total 12-month costs ($784 million). Total costs of care among the 98.8% of patients who did not receive surgery were $1.8 billion. Patients who did not undergo surgery frequently received care that was inconsistent with clinical guidelines for LBP and LEP: 32.3% of these patients received imaging within 30 days of diagnosis and 35.3% received imaging without a trial of physical therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that surgery is rare among patients with newly diagnosed LBP and LEP but remains a significant driver of spending. Early imaging in patients who do not undergo surgery was also a major driver of increased health care expenditures. Avoidable costs among patients with typically self-limited conditions result in considerable economic burden to the US health care system.