Treatment of Lower Back Pain-The Gap between Guideline-Based Treatment and Medical Care Reality

Mobility Analysis of the Lumbar Spine with a Dynamic Spine-Correction Device

According to data, 60-70% of the world's population experience low-back pain (LBP) at least once during their lifetime, often at a young or middle age. Those affected are at risk of having worse quality of life, more missed days at work, and higher medical care costs. We present a new rehabilitation method that helps collect and analyze data on an ongoing basis and offers a more personalized therapeutic approach. This method involves assessing lumbar spine rotation (L1-L5) during torso movement using an innovative dynamic spine correction (DSC) device designed for postural neuromuscular reeducation in LBP. Spinal mobility was tested in 54 patients (aged 18 to 40 years) without LBP. Measurements were made with 12-bit rotary position sensors (AS5304) of the DSC device. During exercise, the mean lumbar spine rotation to the right was greater (4.78° ± 2.24°) than that to the left (2.99° ± 1.44°; p < 0.001). Similarly, the maximum rotation to the right was greater (11.35° ± 3.33°) than that to the left (7.42° ± 1.44°; p < 0.0001). The measurements obtained in the study can serve as a reference for future therapeutic use of the device.

Effectiveness of Local Cryotherapy Treatment with the Use of Carbon Dioxide and Liquid Nitrogen Among Patients with Low Back Pain Syndrome

Introduction: Low back pain syndromes (LBPS) are common. One of the methods of treating LBPS is local cryotherapy, which can be based on various cooling substances. In the available literature, it is suggested that effective cold treatment may depend on the type and temperature of the cooling substance used. Research objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 local cryotherapy (Carbon Dioxide and Liquid Nitrogen) types among patients with low back pain syndrome (LBPS). Materials and methods: The study included 60 patients diagnosed with chronic LBPS of discopathic origin. Patients were randomised into 2 study groups. Local cryotherapy treatment with Carbon Dioxide was used in the 1st group (G1), while in the 2nd (G2), cryotherapy treatment with applied Liquid Nitrogen. Two measurements were taken, before and after 2 weeks treatment. The following were used for assessment: centralisation of symptoms (Pain Drawings), pain intensity (Numeral Rating Scale), duration of the current pain episode (Quebec Task Force Classification), level of disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), quality and intensity of subjective pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire), patients’ emotional state (Adjectival Scale for Testing Emotions) and self-efficacy related to pain (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire). Statistical analysis was performed via the Student’s t-test for dependent and independent samples. Results: In both study groups, the perceived pain was either completely eliminated or centralised to the spine, hip joint and buttock. The level of pain, disability and pain-related self-efficacy decreased significantly, regardless of the therapy used. In terms of these variables, no greater therapeutic efficacy was demonstrated with either cryostimulation treatment. Qualitative assessment of pain and emotions (especially anxiety and anger) decreased significantly in G1 and G2. However, in the nitrogen-treated group, a significantly greater improvement was noted for WOB:OC, anger and anxiety scores (for these variables, the G2 group started from a higher level prior to therapy). Conclusions: Both analysed treatments are equally effective in terms of variables such as: centralisation of symptoms, level of pain intensity, disability, joy, self-efficacy related to pain, as well as the majority of the analysed MPQ indicators. Cryostimulation with liquid nitrogen may be more effective, but only in improving the WOB: OC index of the MPQ questionnaire and the level of anger and anxiety. Nonetheless, the obtained results do not allow for definitive confirmation of these results. The use of both cryostimulation treatment methods may assist in the treatment process of LBPS.

Differences in opioid prescription rates between patients with musculoskeletal disorders enrolled in coordinated ambulatory healthcare and patients receiving usual care: a retrospective observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To compare opioid prescription rates between patients enrolled in coordinated ambulatory care and patients receiving usual care.

DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed claims data for insured patients with non-specific/specific back pain or osteoarthritis of hip or knee from 2014 to 2017.

SETTING

The study was based on administrative data provided by the statutory health insurance fund 'Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse', in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

The intervention group consisted of patients enrolled in a coordinated ambulatory healthcare model; the control group included patients receiving usual care. Outcomes were overall strong and weak opioid prescriptions. Generalised linear regression models were used to analyse the effect of the intervention.

RESULTS

Overall, 46 001 (non-specific 18 787/specific 27 214) patients with back pain and 19 366 patients with osteoarthritis belonged to the intervention group, and 7038 (2803/4235) and 963 patients to the control group, respectively. No significant difference in opioid prescriptions existed between the groups. However, the chance of being prescribed strong opioids was significantly lower in the intervention group (non-specific back pain: Odds Ratio (OR) 0.735, 95% Confidential Interval (CI) 0.563 to 0.960; specific back pain: OR 0.702, 95% CI 0.577 to 0.852; osteoarthritis: OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.464 to 0.892). The chance of being prescribed weak opioids was significantly higher in patients with specific back pain (OR 1.243, 95% CI 1.032 to 1.497) and osteoarthritis (OR 1.493, 95% CI 1.037 to 2.149) in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

Coordinated ambulatory healthcare appears to be associated with a lower prescription rate for strong opioids in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017548).

Digital Therapeutic Care Apps With Decision-Support Interventions for People With Low Back Pain in Germany: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Digital therapeutic care apps provide a new effective and scalable approach for people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Digital therapeutic care apps are also driven by personalized decision-support interventions that support the user in self-managing LBP, and may induce prolonged behavior change to reduce the frequency and intensity of pain episodes. However, these therapeutic apps are associated with high attrition rates, and the initial prescription cost is higher than that of face-to-face physiotherapy. In Germany, digital therapeutic care apps are now being reimbursed by statutory health insurance; however, price targets and cost-driving factors for the formation of the reimbursement rate remain unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a digital therapeutic care app compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in Germany. We further aimed to explore under which circumstances the reimbursement rate could be modified to consider value-based pricing.

METHODS

We developed a state-transition Markov model based on a best-practice analysis of prior LBP-related decision-analytic models, and evaluated the cost utility of a digital therapeutic care app compared to TAU in Germany. Based on a 3-year time horizon, we simulated the incremental cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for people with nonacute LBP from the societal perspective. In the deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses, we focused on diverging attrition rates and app cost to assess our model's robustness and conditions for changing the reimbursement rate. All costs are reported in Euro (€1=US $1.12).

RESULTS

Our base case results indicated that the digital therapeutic care strategy led to an incremental cost of €121.59, but also generated 0.0221 additional QALYs compared to the TAU strategy, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5486 per QALY. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the reimbursement rate and the capability of digital therapeutic care to prevent reoccurring LBP episodes have a significant impact on the ICER. At the same time, the other parameters remained unaffected and thus supported the robustness of our model. In the scenario analysis, the different model time horizons and attrition rates strongly influenced the economic outcome. Reducing the cost of the app to €99 per 3 months or decreasing the app's attrition rate resulted in digital therapeutic care being significantly less costly with more generated QALYs, and is thus considered to be the dominant strategy over TAU.

CONCLUSIONS

The current reimbursement rate for a digital therapeutic care app in the statutory health insurance can be considered a cost-effective measure compared to TAU. The app's attrition rate and effect on the patient's prolonged behavior change essentially influence the settlement of an appropriate reimbursement rate. Future value-based pricing targets should focus on additional outcome parameters besides pain intensity and functional disability by including attrition rates and the app's long-term effect on quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a chronic back pain multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) compared to standard care for privately insured in Germany

Background

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) is highly recommended for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) treatment, but its economic benefit remains to be clearly demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of a 12-month MBR programme of behavioural change coaching and device-supported exercise on direct medical costs, sick leave and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 24 months.

Methods

An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Germany from a private health insurance perspective using data from a multi-centre, two-arm randomised controlled trial with parallel-group Zelen's randomisation and 24-month follow-up. After removing dissimilarities in characteristics between MBR and usual care (control) via propensity score matching, treatment effects were calculated using a difference-in-difference approach.

Results

Base-case analysis of the MBR (n=112) and usual care group (n=111) showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8,296 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Compared to the controls, MBR reduced economically unaccounted sick leave due to back pain in the last six months by 17.5 days (p = 0.001) and had a positive effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (0.046, p=0.026). Subgroup analysis of participants with major impairment demonstrated that a dominant intervention was possible, as reflected by an ICER of - €7,302 per QALY. Savings were driven by a - €1,824 reduction in back pain-specific costs. Moreover, sick leave was 27 days (p = 0.006) less in the MBR group.

Conclusions

This first cost-effectiveness study with combined data from a private health insurer and a controlled trial in Germany demonstrated that long term MBR for the treatment of CLBP is cost-effective. Subgroups with major impairment from back pain benefitted more from the intervention than those with minor impairment. MBR significantly reduced sick leave in all participants. Hence, it is a profitable intervention from a societal point of view.

Trial registration

The trial of the evaluation study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under trial number DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).

Patients' Views on the Implementation Potential of a Stratified Treatment Approach for Low Back Pain in Germany: A Qualitative Study

Stratified care for low back pain (LBP) has been shown to be clinically- and cost-effective in the UK, but its transferability to the German healthcare system is unknown. This study explores LBP patients’ perspectives regarding future implementation of stratified care, through in-depth interviews (n = 12). The STarT-Back-Tool was completed by participants prior to interviews. Interview data were analysed using Grounded Theory. The overarching theme identified from the data was ‘treatment-success’, with subthemes of ‘assessment and treatment planning’, ‘acceptance of the questionnaire’ and ‘contextual factors’. Patients identified the underlying cause of pain as being of great importance (whereas STarT-Back allocates treatment based on prognosis). The integration of the STarT-Back-Tool in consultations was considered helpful as long as it does not disrupt the therapeutic relationship, and was acceptable if tool results are handled confidentially. Results indicate that for patients to find STarT-Back acceptable, the shift from a focus on identifying a cause of pain and subsequent diagnosis, to prediction-orientated treatment planning, must be made clear. Patient ‘buy in’ is important for successful uptake of clinical interventions, and findings can help to inform future strategies for implementing STarT-Back in the Germany, as well as having potential implications for transferability to other similar healthcare systems.

Prescribing Analgesics to Older People: A Challenge for GPs

Background: Due to population aging, there is an increase in the prevalence of chronic diseases, and in particular musculoskeletal diseases. These trends are associated with an increased demand for prescription analgesics and an increased risk of polypharmacy and adverse medication reactions, which constitutes a challenge, especially for general practitioners (GPs), as the providers who are most responsible for the prescription policy. Objectives: To identify patterns of analgesics prescription for older people in the study area and explore associations between a long-term analgesic prescription and comorbidity patterns, as well as the prescription of psychotropic and other common medications in a continuous use. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in 2015 in eastern Croatia. Patients were GP attenders ≥40 years old (N = 675), who were recruited during their appointments (consecutive patients). They were divided into two groups: those who have been continuously prescribed analgesics (N = 432) and those who have not (N = 243). Data from electronic health records were used to provide information about diagnoses of musculoskeletal and other chronic diseases, as well as prescription rates for analgesics and other medications. Exploratory methods and logistic regression models were used to analyse the data. Results: Analgesics have been continuously prescribed to 64% of the patients, mostly to those in the older age groups (50–79 years) and females, and they were indicated mainly for dorsalgia symptoms and arthrosis. Non-opioid analgesics were most common, with an increasing tendency to prescribe opioid analgesics to older patient groups aged 60–79 years. The study results indicate that there is a high rate of simultaneous prescription of analgesics and psychotropic medications, despite the intention of GPs to avoid prescribing psychotropic medications to patients who use any option with opioid analgesics. In general, receiving prescription analgesics does not exceed the prescription for chronic diseases over the rates that can be found in patients who do not receive prescription analgesics. Conclusion: Based on the analysis of comorbidities and parallel prescribing, the results of this study can improve GPs’ prescription and treatment strategies for musculoskeletal diseases and chronic pain conditions.

Feasibility and long-term efficacy of a proactive health program in the treatment of chronic back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To facilitate access to evidence-based care for back pain, a German private medical insurance offered a health program proactively to their members. Feasibility and long-term efficacy of this approach were evaluated.

METHODS

Using Zelen's design, adult members of the health insurance with chronic back pain according to billing data were randomized to the intervention (IG) or the control group (CG). Participants allocated to the IG were invited to participate in the comprehensive health program comprising medical exercise therapy and life style coaching, and those allocated to the CG to a longitudinal back pain survey. Primary outcomes were back pain severity (Korff's Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire) as well as health-related quality of life (SF-12) assessed by identical online questionnaires at baseline and 2-year follow-up in both study arms. In addition to analyses of covariance, a subgroup analysis explored the heterogeneity of treatment effects among different risks of back pain chronification (STarT Back Tool).

RESULTS

Out of 3462 persons selected, randomized and thereafter contacted, 552 agreed to participate. At the 24-month follow-up, data on 189 of 258 (73.3%) of the IG were available, in the CG on 255 of 294 (86.7%). Significant, small beneficial effects were seen in primary outcomes: Compared to the CG, the IG reported less disability (1.6 vs 2.0; p = 0.025; d = 0.24) and scored better at the SF-12 physical health scale (43.3 vs 41.0; p < 0.007; d = 0.26). No effect was seen in back pain intensity and in the SF-12 mental health scale. Persons with medium or high risk of back pain chronification at baseline responded better to the health program in all primary outcomes than the subgroup with low risk at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2 years, the proactive health program resulted in small positive long-term improvements. Using risk screening prior to inclusion in the health program might increase the percentage of participants deriving benefits from it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register under DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).

App-based multidisciplinary back pain treatment versus combined physiotherapy plus online education: a randomized controlled trial

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of global disability. Multidisciplinary pain treatment (MPT) programs comprising educational, physical, and psychological interventions have shown positive treatment effects on LBP. Nonetheless, such programs are costly and treatment opportunities are often limited to specialized medical centers. mHealth and other digital interventions may be a promising method to successfully support patient self-management in LBP. To address these issues, we investigated the clinical effects of a multidisciplinary mHealth back pain App (Kaia App) in a randomized controlled trial (registered at German Clinical Trials Register under DRKS00016329). One-hundred one adult patients with non-specific LBP from 6 weeks to 1 year were randomly assigned to an intervention group or a control group. In the intervention group, the Kaia App was provided for 3 months. Control treatment consisted of six individual physiotherapy sessions over 6 weeks and high-quality online education. The primary outcome, pain intensity, was assessed at 12-week follow-up on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Our per-protocol analysis showed no significant differences between the groups at baseline (Kaia App group: M = 5.10 (SD = 1.07) vs. control group: M = 5.41 (SD = 1.15). At 12-week follow-up the Kaia App group reported significantly lower pain intensity (M = 2.70 (SD = 1.51)) compared to the control group (M = 3.40 (SD = 1.63)). Our results indicate that the Kaia App as a multidisciplinary back pain app is an effective treatment in LBP patients and is superior to physiotherapy in combination with online education.

Physical therapy clinical specialization and management of red and yellow flags in patients with low back pain in the United States

Objectives

Physical therapists (PTs) may practice in direct access or act as primary care practitioners, which necessitate patients' screening and management for red, orange and yellow flags. The objective of the project was to assess the American PT's ability to manage red, orange and yellow flags in patients with low back pain (LBP), and to compare this ability among PTs with different qualifications.

Methods

The project was an electronic cross-sectional survey. The investigators contacted 2,861 PTs. Participants made clinical decisions for three vignettes: LBP with red flag for ectopic pregnancy, with orange flag for depression and with yellow flag for fear avoidance behaviour (FAB). The investigators used logistic regression to compare management of warning flags among PTs with distinct qualifications: orthopaedic clinical specialists (PTOs), fellows of the AAOMPT (PTFs), PTOs and PTFs (PTFOs), and PTs without clinical specialization (PTMSs).

Results

A total of 410 PTs completed all sections of the survey (142 PTOs, 110 PTFOs, 74 PTFs and 84 PTMSs). Two hundred and seventeen PTs (53%) managed the patient with LBP and symptoms of ectopic pregnancy correctly, 115 PTs (28.5%) of them managed the patient with LBP and symptoms of depression correctly, and 177 (43.2%) managed the patient with LBP and FAB correctly.

Discussion

In general, PTs with specialization performed significantly better than PTMSs in all three clinical vignettes. PTs ability to manage patients with warning flags was relatively low. Based on our results, further education on patients with LBP and warning flags is needed. The survey had the potential for non-response and self-selection bias.

Level of Evidence

3b.

Physiotherapists' views of implementing a stratified treatment approach for patients with low back pain in Germany: a qualitative study

Background

The STarT-Back-Approach (STarT: Subgroups for Targeted Treatment) was developed in the UK and has demonstrated clinical and cost effectiveness. Based on the results of a brief questionnaire, patients with low back pain are stratified into three treatment groups. Since the organisation of physiotherapy differs between Germany and the UK, the aim of this study is to explore German physiotherapists’ views and perceptions about implementing the STarT-Back-Approach.

Methods

Three two-hour think-tank workshops with physiotherapists were conducted. Focus groups, using a semi-structured interview guideline, followed a presentation of the STarT-Back-Approach, with discussions audio recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analysed using content analysis.

Results

Nineteen physiotherapists participated (15 female, mean age 41.2 (SD 8.6) years). Three main themes emerged, each with multiple subthemes: 1) the intervention (15 subthemes), 2) the healthcare context (26 subthemes) and 3) individual characteristics (8 subthemes). Therapists’ perceptions of the extent to which the STarT-Back intervention would require changes to their normal clinical practice varied considerably. They felt that within their current healthcare context, there were significant financial disincentives that would discourage German physiotherapists from providing the STarT-Back treatment pathways, such as the early discharge of low-risk patients with supported self-management materials. They also discussed the need for appropriate standardised graduate and post-graduate skills training for German physiotherapists to treat high-risk patients with a combined physical and psychological approach (e.g., communication skills).

Conclusions

Whilst many German physiotherapists are positive about the STarT-Back-Approach, there are a number of substantial barriers to implementing the matched treatment pathways in Germany. These include financial disincentives within the healthcare system to early discharge of low-risk patients. Therapists also highlighted the need for solutions in respect of scalable physiotherapy training to gain skills in combined physical and psychological approaches.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2991-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment of Low Back Pain with a Digital Multidisciplinary Pain Treatment App: Short-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Even though modern concepts of disease management of unspecific low back pain (LBP) postulate active participation of patients, this strategy is difficult to adapt unless multidisciplinary pain therapy is applied. Recently, mobile health solutions have proven to be effective aides to foster self-management of many diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to report on the retrospective short-term results of a digital multidisciplinary pain app for the treatment of LBP.

METHODS

Kaia is a mobile app that digitalizes multidisciplinary pain treatment and is in the market as a medical product class I. For the current study, the data of anonymized Kaia users was retrospectively analyzed. User data were evaluated for 12 weeks regarding duration of use and effect on in-app user reported pain levels, using the numerical rating scale (NRS), depending on whether LBP was classified as acute, subacute, or chronic back pain according to current guidelines.

RESULTS

Data of 180 users were available. The mean age of the users was 33.9 years (SD 10.9). Pain levels decreased from baseline NRS 4.8 to 3.75 for all users at the end of the observation period. Users who completed 4, 8, or 12 weeks showed an even more pronounced decrease in pain level NRS (baseline 4.9 [SD 1.7] versus 3.6 [SD 1.5] at 4 weeks; baseline 4.7 [SD 1.8] versus 3.2 [SD [2.0] at 8 weeks; baseline 4.6 [SD 2.2] versus 2.6 [SD 2.0] at 12 weeks). In addition, subgroup analysis of acute, subacute, or chronic classification revealed no significant main effect of group (P>.30) on the reduction of pain. Conclusions: This retrospective study showed that in a pre-selected population of app users, an app digitalizing multidisciplinary rehabilitation for the self-management of LBP reduced user-reported pain levels significantly. The observed effect size was clinically relevant. Ongoing prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will adjust for potential bias and selection effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study showed that in a pre-selected population of app users, an app digitalizing multidisciplinary rehabilitation for the self-management of LBP reduced user-reported pain levels significantly. The observed effect size was clinically relevant. Ongoing prospective RCTs will adjust for potential bias and selection effects.