Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Development of a low back pain care pathway in an academic hospital system: results of a consensus process

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant component of healthcare expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been highlighted as a key resource to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to develop a clinical pathway for LBP based on CPGs in an academic health system.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi study of clinicians caring for patients with LBP who were asked to rate 21 CPG-informed seed statements through an online survey. The goal was to identify statements that achieved a minimum of 80% consensus among panelists.

RESULTS

Thirty-five healthcare providers participated as panelists. The majority of participants were male (68.6%), had MD or DO (62.9%) degrees, and were clinicians (73.8%) working in neurosurgery (36.1%), orthopedics (25.7%), emergency medicine (14.3%), or physical therapy (11.4%). Initially, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 seed statements. One statement did not reach consensus in the initial round and was revised into two separate statements based on feedback from panelists. One of these statements achieved consensus in the second review round. All statements reaching consensus were incorporated into a care pathway consisting of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for LBP.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare providers across various disciplines supported statements interpreting current CPGs related to care for LBP. This study represents a step toward supporting guideline-concordant care for LBP. Additional research is needed to assess how such pathways impact actual clinical care.

Chiropractic Day 2023: A Report and Qualitative Analysis of How Thought Leaders Celebrate the Present and Envision the Future of Chiropractic

Objective

This study aimed to (1) collect and analyze statements about how to celebrate chiropractic in the present and roles that chiropractors may fulfill in the future, (2) identify if there was congruence among the themes between present and future statements, and (3) offer a model about the chiropractic profession that captures its complex relationships that encompass its interactions within microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem levels.

Methods

For this qualitative analysis, we used pattern and grounded theory approaches. A purposive sample of thought leaders in the chiropractic profession were invited to answer the following 2 open-ended questions: (1) envision the chiropractor of the future, and (2) recommendations on how to celebrate chiropractic. Information was collected during April 2023 using Survey Monkey. The information was entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed for topic clusters, which resulted in matching concepts with social-ecological themes. The themes between the responses to the 2 questions were analyzed for congruence. We used the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research to report our findings.

Results

Of the 54 experts invited, 32 (59%) participated. Authors represented 7 countries and have a median of 32 years of chiropractic experience, with a range of 5 to 51 years. Nineteen major topics in the future statements and 23 major topics in statements about celebrating chiropractic were combined in a model. The topics were presented using the 4 levels of the social-ecological framework. Individual (microsystem): chiropractors are competent, well-educated experts in spine and musculoskeletal care who apply evidence-based practices, which is a combination of the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. Interpersonal relationships (mesosystem): chiropractors serve the best interests of their patients, provide person-centered care, embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion, consider specific health needs and the health of the whole person. Community (exosystem): chiropractors provide care within integrated health care environments and in private practices, serve the best interests of the public through participation in their communities, participate through multidisciplinary collaboration with and within the health care system, and work together as a profession with a strong professional identity. Societal (macrosystem): chiropractors contribute to the greater good of society and participate on a global level in policy, leadership, and research. There was concordance between both the future envisioning statements and the present celebration recommendations, which suggest logical validity based on the congruence of these concepts.

Conclusion

A sample of independent views, including the perceptions from a broad range of chiropractic thought leaders from various backgrounds, philosophies, diversity characteristics, and world regions, were assembled to create a comprehensive model of the chiropractic profession. The resulting model shows an array of intrinsic values and provides the roles that chiropractors may provide to serve patients and the public. This study offers insights into the roles that future chiropractors may fulfill and how these are congruent with present-day values. These core concepts and this novel model may have utility during dialogs about identity, applications regarding chiropractic in policy, practice, education, and research, and building positive relationships and collaborations.

Overcoming Barriers to the Implementation of Integrated Musculoskeletal Pain Management Programs: A Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Study

Integrated pain management (IPM) programs can help to reduce the substantial population health burden of musculoskeletal pain, but are poorly implemented. Lessons learned from existing programs can inform efforts to expand IPM implementation. This qualitative study describes how health care systems, payers, providers, health policy researchers, and other stakeholders are overcoming barriers to developing and sustaining IPM programs in real-world settings. Primary data were collected February 2020 through September 2021 from a multi-sector expert panel of 25 stakeholders, 53 expert interviews representing 30 distinct IPM programs across the United States, and 4 original case studies of exemplar IPM programs. We use a consensual team-based approach to systematically analyze qualitative findings. We identified 4 major themes around challenges and potential solutions for implementing IPM programs: navigating coverage, payment, and reimbursement; enacting organizational change; making a business case to stakeholders; and overcoming regulatory hurdles. Strategies to address payment challenges included use of group visits, linked visits between billable and nonbillable providers, and development of value-based payment models. Organizational change strategies included engagement of clinical and administrative champions and co-location of services. Business case strategies involved demonstrating the ability to initially break even and potential to reduce downstream costs, while improving nonfinancial outcomes like patient satisfaction and provider burnout. Regulatory hurdles were overcome with innovative credentialing methods by leveraging available waivers and managed care contracting to expand access to IPM services. Lessons from existing programs provide direction on to grow and support such IPM delivery models across a variety of settings. PERSPECTIVE: Integrated pain management (IPM) programs face numerous implementation challenges related to payment, organizational change, care coordination, and regulatory requirements. Drawing on real-world experiences of existing programs and from diverse IPM stakeholders, we outline actionable strategies that health care systems, providers, and payers can use to expand implementation of these programs.

Optimizing the Impact of Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Veteran and Military Populations: Lessons From the Pain Management Collaboratory

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are well-suited to address unmet healthcare needs, such as those arising from the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid misuse, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These overlapping epidemics have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and PCTs can be used to investigate the effectiveness of integrated therapies that are currently available but underused. Yet individual pragmatic studies can be limited in their reach because of existing structural and cultural barriers to dissemination and implementation. The National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs formed an interagency research partnership, the Pain Management Collaboratory. The partnership combines pragmatic trial design with collaborative tools and relationship building within a large network to advance the science and impact of nonpharmacological approaches and integrated models of care for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. The Pain Management Collaboratory team supports 11 large-scale, multisite PCTs in veteran and military health systems with a focus on team science with the shared aim that the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts." Herein, we describe this integrated approach and lessons learned, including incentivizing all parties; proactively offering frequent opportunities for problem-solving; engaging stakeholders during all stages of research; and navigating competing research priorities. We also articulate several specific strategies and their practical implications for advancing pain management in active clinical, "real-world," settings.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC.

DESIGN

Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT?

SUMMARY

Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Harmonized outcome measures for use in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis patient registries and clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

The development of new treatment approaches for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) has introduced many questions about comparative effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Patient registries collect robust, longitudinal data that could be combined or aggregated to form a national and potentially international research data infrastructure to address these and other research questions. However, linking data across registries is challenging because registries typically define and capture different outcome measures. Variation in outcome measures occurs in clinical practice and other types of research studies as well, limiting the utility of existing data sources for addressing new research questions. The purpose of this project was to develop a minimum set of patient- and clinician-relevant standardized outcome measures that are feasible for collection in DLS registries and clinical practice.

METHODS

Nineteen DLS registries, observational studies, and quality improvement efforts were invited to participate and submit outcome measures. A stakeholder panel was organized that included representatives from medical specialty societies, health systems, government agencies, payers, industries, health information technology organizations, and patient advocacy groups. The panel categorized the measures using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Outcome Measures Framework (OMF), identified a minimum set of outcome measures, and developed standardized definitions through a consensus-based process.

RESULTS

The panel identified and harmonized 57 outcome measures into a minimum set of 10 core outcome measure areas and 6 supplemental outcome measure areas. The measures are organized into the OMF categories of survival, clinical response, events of interest, patient-reported outcomes, and resource utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

This effort identified a minimum set of standardized measures that are relevant to patients and clinicians and appropriate for use in DLS registries, other research efforts, and clinical practice. Collection of these measures across registries and clinical practice is an important step for building research data infrastructure, creating learning healthcare systems, and improving patient management and outcomes in DLS.

Possible differential benefits of edetate disodium in post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes treated with different hypoglycemic strategies in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT)

BACKGROUND

The NIH-funded Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) randomized 1708 stable patients age ≥50 who were ≥6 months post myocardial infarction to 40 infusions of an edetate disodium-based regimen or placebo. In 633 patients with diabetes, edetate disodium significantly reduced the primary composite endpoint of mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.79, p < 0.001). The principal secondary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was also reduced (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.91, p = 0.017). It is unknown if the treatment effect differs by diabetes therapy.

METHODS

We grouped the subset of 633 patients with diabetes according to glucose-lowering therapy at time of randomization. The log-rank test was used to compare active therapy versus placebo. All treatment comparisons were performed using 2-sided significance tests at the significance level of 0.05 and were as randomized. Relative risks were expressed as HR with associated 95% CI, calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

There were 162 (25.7%) patients treated with insulin; 301 (47.5%) with oral hypoglycemics only; and 170 (26.8%) receiving no pharmacologic treatment for diabetes. Patients on insulin reached the primary endpoint more frequently than patients on no pharmacologic treatment [61 (38%) vs 49 (29%) (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07-2.27, p = 0.022)] or oral hypoglycemics [61 (38%) vs 87 (29%) (HR 1.46, 1.05-2.03, p = 0.024)]. The primary endpoint occurred less frequently with edetate disodium based therapy versus placebo in patients on insulin [19 (26%) vs 42 (48%) (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.74, log-rank p = 0.002)], marginally in patients on oral hypoglycemics [38 (25%) vs 49 (34%) (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43-1.01, log-rank p = 0.041)], and no significant difference in patients not treated with a pharmacologic therapy [23 (25%) vs 26 (34%) (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39-1.20, log-rank p = 0.225)]. The interaction between randomized intravenous treatment and type of diabetes therapy was not statistically significant (p = 0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

Edetate disodium treatment in stable, post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes suggests that patients on insulin therapy at baseline may accrue the greatest benefit.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00044213?term=TACT&rank=7 identifier Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT), NCT00044213.

AB0226 USING 3 TESLA MRI WITH A HIGH-RESOLUTION 16-CHANNEL HAND COIL TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN RHEUMATOID AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A PILOT STUDY

Background:

The differentiation between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is sometimes a challenge for rheumatologists in daily clinical practice. Imaging techniques such as MRI could be a helpful tool for this purpose.

Objectives:

To examine the value of 3 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a high-resolution 16-channel hand coil for the differentiation between RA and PsA.

Methods:

A total of 17 patients with active PsA and 27 patients with active RA were evaluated by 3T MRI. Images were analyzed by three readers according to the outcome measures for RA clinical trials (OMERACT) and RA and PsA MRI scores for the presence and intensity of the following MRI features: synovitis, flexor tenosynovitis, bone edema, bone erosion, periarticular inflammation, bone proliferation, and joint space narrowing. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was established for a calculated prediction model comprising age, gender, and the imaging features ‘periarticular inflammation’ and ‘erosion’ of the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint of the 5th finger.

Results:

PsA could be differentiated from RA by extracapsular inflammatory changes (PsAMRIS sub-score ‘periarticular inflammation’), with a minimal odds ratio (OR) for the outcome ‘not RA’ of 0.06 (p< 0.01) at all MCP joints. The calculated ROC curve had an area under the curve (AUC) of 98.1%.

Conclusion:

3T MRI showed a strong association of extracapsular inflammatory changes with PsA at the MCP joint level, and consequently allowed differentiation between PsA and RA.

Figure 1.

Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve with different thresholds for the calculated prediction model for the outcome RA. Area under the curve (AUC) = 98.1%.

Figure 2.

51-year-old female patient with PsA. MR images show flexor tenosynovitis (FS), synovitis (Syn), and periarticular inflammation (PI). A. Sagittal PD fat-saturation of D5. PI at the volar and dorsal aspects at the MCP, PIP, and DIP levels. FS at the PIP and DIP joint levels. Black asterisks indicate PI. Black arrow points to FS. B. Coronal STIR with bone edema (BE) at the proximal portion of PIP3 and 5 accompanied by PI at PIP3 and MCP, PIP and DIP5. Asterisks indicate BE. Arrowheads point to PI. C. Transversal T2 fat-saturation with FS and PI at MCP5. Arrowhead indicates FS, arrow points to volar PI. D. Transversal T1 fat-saturation following iv contrast, with FS and PI at MCP5. Arrowhead indicates FS, arrows points to volar PI.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philipp Sewerin Grant/research support from: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG

Bristol-Myers Squibb Celgene GmbH

Lilly Deutschland GmbH

Novartis Pharma GmbH Pfizer Deutschland GmbH

Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Consultant of: AMGEN GmbH AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG Biogen GmbHBristol-Myers Squibb Celgene GmbH Chugai Pharma arketing Ltd. / Chugai Europe GmbHHexal Pharma Janssen-CilagGmbH Johnson & Johnson Deutschland GmbHLilly Deutschland GmbH / Lilly Europe / Lilly Global Novartis Pharma GmbH Pfizer Deutschland GmbH Roche Pharma Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr Sanofi-Genzyme Deutschland GmbH Swedish Orphan Biovitrum GmbH UCB Pharma GmbH, Speakers bureau: AMGEN GmbH AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG Biogen GmbHBristol-Myers Squibb Celgene GmbH Chugai Pharma arketing Ltd. / Chugai Europe GmbHHexal Pharma Janssen-CilagGmbH Johnson & Johnson Deutschland GmbHLilly Deutschland GmbH / Lilly Europe / Lilly Global Novartis Pharma GmbH Pfizer Deutschland GmbH Roche Pharma Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr Sanofi-Genzyme Deutschland GmbH Swedish Orphan Biovitrum GmbH UCB Pharma GmbH, Daniel Abrar: None declared, Alexander Lautwein: None declared, Stefan Vordenbäumen: None declared, Ralph Brinks: None declared, Christine Goertz: None declared, Miriam Frenken: None declared, Matthias Schneider Grant/research support from: GSK, UCB, Abbvie, Consultant of: Abbvie, Alexion, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Lilly, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Benedikt Ostendorf: None declared, Christoph Schleich: None declared

Differential Outcomes With Edetate Disodium-Based Treatment Among Stable Post Anterior vs. Non-Anterior Myocardial Infarction Patients

BACKGROUND

The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) found that chelation therapy significantly reduced clinical events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI). The initial report of TACT included the observation of an interaction between edetate disodium infusions and MI location, as well as diabetes. Thus, we examined in greater detail the effect of edetate disodium chelation therapy as a function of MI location and diabetes.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1708) at least 6 weeks post-MI and age ≥ 50 were randomized to receive 40 infusions of a 500 mL chelation solution or placebo (median follow-up 55 months). The effect of edetate disodium on the primary outcome (all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, hospitalization for angina, or coronary revascularization) was assessed as a function of MI location using log-rank test and Cox regression model, adjusting for other prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Among patients with post anterior MI (n = 674), chelation was associated with a lower risk of the primary endpoint (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, p = 0.003) among anterior MI patients, but not in post non-anterior MI (n = 1034) patients (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.20, p = 0.702) (p-for-interaction = 0.032). The point estimates for each component of the primary endpoint favored chelation therapy. The differing treatment effect in patients with post anterior vs. non-anterior MI was consistent among patients with or without diabetes and remained significant after adjusting for other prognostic variables (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Edetate disodium infusions reduced the risk of cardiovascular events among patients with a prior anterior MI. Future studies should focus on replicating these results and understanding the mechanisms of benefit.

The Impact of Spinal Manipulation on Migraine Pain and Disability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several small studies have suggested that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment for reducing migraine pain and disability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the evidence regarding spinal manipulation as an alternative or integrative therapy in reducing migraine pain and disability.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for clinical trials that evaluated spinal manipulation and migraine-related outcomes through April 2017. Search terms included: migraine, spinal manipulation, manual therapy, chiropractic, and osteopathic. Meta-analytic methods were employed to estimate the effect sizes (Hedges' g) and heterogeneity (I² ) for migraine days, pain, and disability. The methodological quality of retrieved studies was examined following the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

Our search identified 6 RCTs (pooled n = 677; range of n = 42-218) eligible for meta-analysis. Intervention duration ranged from 2 to 6 months; outcomes included measures of migraine days (primary outcome), migraine pain/intensity, and migraine disability. Methodological quality varied across the studies. For example, some studies received high or unclear bias scores for methodological features such as compliance, blinding, and completeness of outcome data. Due to high levels of heterogeneity when all 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis, the 1 RCT performed only among chronic migraineurs was excluded. Heterogeneity across the remaining studies was low. We observed that spinal manipulation reduced migraine days with an overall small effect size (Hedges' g = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.53, -0.16, P < .001) as well as migraine pain/intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal manipulation may be an effective therapeutic technique to reduce migraine days and pain/intensity. However, given the limitations to studies included in this meta-analysis, we consider these results to be preliminary. Methodologically rigorous, large-scale RCTs are warranted to better inform the evidence base for spinal manipulation as a treatment for migraine.

The value of the simplified RAMRIS-5 in early RA patients under methotrexate therapy using high-field MRI

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate a simplified version of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS) for five joints of the hand (RAMRIS-5) in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) before and after the initiation of methotrexate (MTX) therapy using high-resolution, 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients with a seropositive, early RA (disease duration of less than 6 months (range 2-23 weeks)) according to 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria (mean age 56.8 years, range 39-74) were prospectively assessed with a baseline investigation including clinical assessment (disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS-28) and C-reactive protein (CRP)) and 3-T MRI of the clinically dominant hand. Follow-up visits were performed 3 and 6 months after initiation of a MTX therapy at baseline. MRI scans were analyzed in accordance with RAMRIS and the simplified RAMRIS-5.

RESULTS

DAS-28 and CRP decreased significantly after initiation of MTX therapy. Even though erosion scores increased over time, RAMRIS and RAMRIS-5 also decreased significantly after the start of therapy. There was a strong correlation between the total RAMRIS-5 and RAMRIS at baseline (r = 0.838; P <0.001) and follow-up (3 months: r = 0.876; P <0.001; 6 months: r = 0.897; P <0.001). In the short term (3-month follow-up), RAMRIS and RAMRIS-5 demonstrated similar ability to detect changes for all subgroups (bone edema, erosion, and synovitis). In the long-term comparison (6-month follow-up), RAMRIS-5 also showed similar effectiveness when detecting changes in bone edema and erosion compared with RAMRIS. Deviations occurred regarding only synovitis, where change was slightly higher in RAMRIS-5: SRM (RAMRIS) = 0.07 ± 0.14; SRM (RAMRIS-5) = 0.34 ± 0.06.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-Tesla MRI-based RAMRIS-5 is a simplified and resource-saving RAMRIS score which compares favorably with the RAMRIS when detecting changes in early RA. Even though there is a slight abbreviation between RAMRIS-5 and the original score regarding the change of synovitis, it may be used for diagnosis and therapy monitoring in follow-up evaluations.

Effect of chiropractic manipulative therapy on reaction time in special operations forces military personnel: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) has been shown to improve reaction time in some clinical studies. Slight changes in reaction time can be critical for military personnel, such as special operation forces (SOF). This trial was conducted to test whether CMT could lead to improved reaction and response time in combat-ready SOF-qualified personnel reporting little or no pain.

Methods

This prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital, Fort Campbell, KY, USA. Active-duty US military participants over the age of 19 years carrying an SOF designation were eligible. Participants were randomly allocated to CMT or wait-list control. One group received four CMT treatments while the other received no treatment within the 2-week trial period. Assessment included simple hand/foot reaction time, choice reaction time, and Fitts’ Law and whole-body response time. On visits 1 and 5, the same five assessments were conducted immediately pre- and post-treatment for the CMT group and before and after a 10-min wait period for the wait-list group. Primary outcomes included between-group differences for the pre-CMT/wait-list period at visit 1 and visit 5 for each test. Secondary outcomes included between-group differences in immediate pre- and post-(within visit) changes. Analysis of covariance was used for all data analysis.

Results

One hundred and seventy-five SOF-qualified personnel were screened for eligibility; 120 participants were enrolled, with 60 randomly allocated to each group. Due to technical problems resulting in inconsistent data collection, data from 77 participants were analyzed for simple hand/foot reaction time. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 33.0 ± 5.6 years and all participants were male. No between-group statistically significant differences were found for any of the five biomechanical tests, except immediate pre- and post-changes in favor of the CMT group in whole-body response time at both assessment visits. There were four adverse events, none related to trial participation.

Conclusions

A single session of CMT was shown to have an immediate effect of reducing the time required for asymptomatic SOF qualified personnel to complete a complex whole-body motor response task. However, sustained reduction in reaction or response time from five tests compared with a wait-list control group was not observed following three sessions of CMT.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02168153. Registered on 12 June 2014.

Researchers, Patients, and Stakeholders Evaluating Comparative-Effectiveness Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of the PCORI Reviewer Experience

OBJECTIVES

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) includes patients and stakeholders alongside scientists in reviewing research applications using unique review criteria including patient-centeredness and patient and/or stakeholder engagement. To support extension of this unique collaborative model to other funders, information from the reviewers on the review process is needed to understand how scientists and nonscientists evaluate research proposals together. Thus, this study aimed to describe reviewers' perspectives of the interactions during the in-person review panel; to examine the value and challenges of including scientists, patients, and stakeholders together; and to understand the perceived importance of PCORI's review criteria.

METHODS

This study utilized anonymous, cross-sectional surveys (N = 925 respondents from 5 funding cycles: 470 scientists, 217 patients, 238 stakeholders; survey completion rates by cycle: 70-89%) and group interviews (N = 18).

RESULTS

Reviewers of all types describe PCORI Merit Review as respectful, balanced, and one of reciprocal influence among different reviewer types. Reviewers indicate strong support and value of input from all reviewer types, receptivity to input from others, and the panel chair's incorporation of all views. Patients and stakeholders provide real-world perspectives on importance to patients, research partnership plans, and study feasibility. Challenges included concerns about a lack of technical expertise of patient/stakeholder reviewers and about scientists dominating conversations. The most important criterion for assigning final review scores was technical merit-either alone or in conjunction with patient-centeredness or patient/ stakeholder engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

PCORI Merit Reviewers' self-reports indicate that the perspectives of different reviewer types are influential in panel discussions and Merit Review outcomes.

Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding

OBJECTIVE

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) uses a unique approach to Merit Review that includes patients and stakeholders as reviewers with scientists, and includes unique review criteria (patient-centeredness and active engagement of end users in the research). This study assessed the extent to which different reviewer types influence review scores and funding outcomes, the emphasis placed on technical merit compared to other criteria by a multistakeholder panel, and the impact of the in-person discussion on agreement among different reviewer types.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from PCORI online and in-person Merit Review (N = 1312 applications from the five funding cycles from November 2013 to August 2015). Linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

For all reviewer types, final review scores were associated with at least one review criterion score from each of the three reviewer types. The strongest predictor of final overall scores for all reviewer types was scientists' prediscussion ratings of technical merit. All reviewers' prediscussion ratings of the potential to improve health care and outcomes, and scientists' ratings of technical merit and patient-centeredness, were associated with funding success. For each reviewer type, overall impact scores from the online scoring were changed on at least half of the applications at the in-person panel discussion. Score agreement across reviewer types was greater after panel discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientist, patient, and stakeholder views all contribute to PCORI Merit Review of applications for research funding. Technical merit is critical to funding success but patient and stakeholder ratings of other criteria also influence application disposition.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities

PURPOSE

Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.

METHODS

Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: resources to implement a spine care program

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.

RESULTS

Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: classification system for spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway.

METHODS

Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate.

RESULTS

Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.

METHODS

World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: care pathway for people with spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally.

METHODS

The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.

RESULTS

After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.

CONCLUSION

A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Effect of high-dose oral multivitamins and minerals in participants not treated with statins in the randomized Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT)

IMPORTANCE

In a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants not on statin therapy at baseline in the TACT, a high-dose complex oral multivitamins and multimineral regimen was found to have a large unexpected benefit compared with placebo. The regimen tested was substantially different from any vitamin regimen tested in prior clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To explore these results, we performed detailed additional analyses of participants not on statins at enrollment in TACT.

DESIGN

TACT was a factorial trial testing chelation treatments and a 28-component high-dose oral multivitamins and multiminerals regimen versus placebo in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients 50 years or older.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 460 (27%) of 1,708 TACT participants not taking statins at baseline, 224 (49%) were in the active vitamin group and 236 (51%) were in the placebo group.

SETTING

Patients were enrolled at 134 sites around the United States and Canada.

INTERVENTION

Daily high-dose oral multivitamins and multiminerals (6 tablets, active or placebo).

MAIN OUTCOME

The primary end point of TACT was time to the first occurrence of any component of the composite end point: all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina.

RESULTS

The primary end point occurred in 137 nonstatin participants (30%), of which 51 (23%) of 224 were in the active group and 86 (36%) of 236 were taking placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.87; P=.006). Results in the key TACT secondary end point, a combination of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, or recurrent MI, was consistent in favoring the active vitamin group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.75; P=.002). Multiple end point analyses were consistent with these results.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

High-dose oral multivitamin and multimineral supplementation seem to decrease combined cardiac events in a stable, post-MI population not taking statin therapy at baseline. These unexpected findings are being retested in the ongoing TACT2.

The McAndrews Leadership Lecture: February 2015, by Dr Scott Haldeman. Challenges of the Past, Challenges of the Present

The McAndrews Leadership Lecture was developed by the American Chiropractic Association to honor the legacy of Jerome F. McAndrews, DC, and George P. McAndrews, JD, and their contributions to the chiropractic profession. This article is a transcription of the presentation made by Dr Scott Haldeman on February 28, 2015, in Washington, DC, at the National Chiropractic Leadership Conference.

Quality-of-life outcomes with a disodium EDTA chelation regimen for coronary disease: results from the trial to assess chelation therapy randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health.funded Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) randomized 1708 stablecoronary disease patients aged .50 years who were .6 months post.myocardial infarction (2003.2010) to 40 infusions ofa multicomponent EDTA chelation solution or placebo. Chelation reduced the primary composite end point of mortality,recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95%confidence interval, 0.69.0.99; P=0.035).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a randomly selected subset of 911 patients, we prospectively collected a battery of quality-of-life(QOL) instruments at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The prespecified primary QOL measures were the Duke Activity Status Index (Table I in the Data Supplement) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 Mental Health Inventory-5. All comparisons were by intention to treat. Baseline clinical and QOL variables were well balanced in the 451 patients randomized to chelation and in the 460 patients randomized to placebo. The Duke Activity Status Index improved in both groups during the first 6 months of therapy, but we found no evidence for a treatment-related difference (mean difference [chelation.placebo] during follow-up, 0.9 [95% confidence interval, .0.7 to 2.6; P=0.27]).There was no statistically significant evidence of a treatment-related difference in the Mental Health Inventory-5 during follow-up (mean difference, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, .0.1 to 2.0; P=0.08). None of the secondary QOL measures showed a consistent treatment-related difference.

CONCLUSIONS

In stable, predominantly asymptomatic coronary disease patients with a history of myocardial infarction,EDTA chelation therapy did not have a detectable effect on QOL during 2 years of follow-up.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00044213.

Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The NIH Pain Consortium therefore charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A Task Force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium, with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimal dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVE

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus.

DESIGN

Expert panel and preliminary evaluation of key recommendations.

METHODS

The NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting.

RESULTS

The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals.

CONCLUSION

The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Methods for Developing Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures (PRO-PMs)

OBJECTIVE

To recommend methods for assessing quality of care via patient-reported outcome-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) of symptoms, functional status, and quality of life.

METHODS

A Technical Expert Panel was assembled by the American Medical Association-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. An environmental scan and structured literature review were conducted to identify quality programs that integrate PRO-PMs. Key methodological considerations in the design, implementation, and analysis of these PRO-PM data were systematically identified. Recommended methods for addressing each identified consideration were developed on the basis of published patient-reported outcome (PRO) standards and refined through public comment. Literature review focused on programs using PROs to assess performance and on PRO guidance documents.

RESULTS

Thirteen PRO programs and 10 guidance documents were identified. Nine best practices were developed, including the following: provide a rationale for measuring the outcome and for using a PRO-PM; describe the context of use; select a measure that is meaningful to patients with adequate psychometric properties; provide evidence of the measure's sensitivity to differences in care; address missing data and risk adjustment; and provide a framework for implementation, interpretation, dissemination, and continuous refinement.

CONCLUSION

Methods for integrating PROs into performance measurement are available.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Prevalence of radiographic findings in individuals with chronic low back pain screened for a randomized controlled trial: secondary analysis and clinical implications

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to measure the prevalence of graded disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis, transitional segmentation, and the distribution of sacral slope in patients 21 to 65 years of age with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 247 digital lumbar radiographic series obtained during a randomized controlled trial of chiropractic patients with CLBP. Chronic low back pain was defined as pain in the low back lasting 12 weeks or longer. Radiographic findings of disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis, and lumbosacral transitional segmentation were graded by 2 authors using established classification criteria. Sacral slope was measured with a digital tool contained within imaging software.

RESULTS

Lumbosacral transitional segments graded I to IV (Castellvi classification) were present in 14% of cases. Lumbar disc degeneration was most prevalent at L3-4 (49%), followed by L4-5 (42%), L2-3 (41%), L5-S1 (37%), and L1-2 (29%). Isthmic spondylolisthesis was present in 5% of cases, with L5 the most common location. Degenerative spondylolisthesis demonstrated a prevalence of 18%, most commonly occurring at L4. The prevalence of degenerative spondylolisthesis was 51% for women aged 50 to 59 years and 24% for men in the same age range.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-severe disc degeneration, multilevel disc narrowing, and degenerative spondylolisthesis were common in individuals with CLBP with age more than 40 years. Isthmic spondylolisthesis was not more prevalent than what has been reported in other populations. Transitional segmentation was identified in a minority of participants, with some of these exhibiting accessory joints or fusion. Mean sacral slope in individuals with CLBP was not substantially different from mean slopes reported in other populations.

Report of the National Institutes of Health task force on research standards for chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed nonspecific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The purpose of this article is to disseminate the report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) task force on research standards for cLBP.

METHODS

The NIH Pain Consortium charged a research task force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting.

RESULTS

The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved these recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals.

CONCLUSIONS

The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of cLBP. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

PERSPECTIVE

A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.

Oral high-dose multivitamins and minerals after myocardial infarction: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Whether high-dose multivitamins are effective for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic disease is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether oral multivitamins reduce cardiovascular events and are safe.

DESIGN

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 x 2 factorial, multicenter, randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00044213) SETTING: 134 U.S. and Canadian academic and clinical sites.

PATIENTS

1708 patients aged 50 years or older who had myocardial infarction (MI) at least 6 weeks earlier and had serum creatinine levels of 176.8 mol/L (2.0 mg/dL) or less.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to an oral, 28-component, high-dose multivitamin and multimineral mixture or placebo.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point was time to total death, recurrent MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina.

RESULTS

The median age was 65 years, and 18% of patients were women. The qualifying MI occurred a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.6 to 9.2 years) before enrollment. Median follow-up was 55 months (IQR, 26 to 60 months). Patients received vitamins for a median of 31 months (IQR, 13 to 59 months) in the vitamin group and 35 months (IQR, 13 to 60 months) in the placebo group (P = 0.65). Totals of 645 (76%) and 646 (76%) patients in the vitamin and placebo groups, respectively, completed at least 1 year of oral therapy (P = 0.98), and 400 (47%) and 426 (50%) patients, respectively, completed at least 3 years (P = 0.23). Totals of 394 (46%) and 390 (46%) patients in the vitamin and placebo groups, respectively, discontinued the vitamin regimen (P = 0.67), and 17% of patients withdrew from the study. The primary end point occurred in 230 (27%) patients in the vitamin group and 253 (30%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07]; P = 0.21). No evidence suggested harm from vitamin therapy in any category of adverse events.

LIMITATION

There was considerable nonadherence and withdrawal, limiting the ability to draw firm conclusions (particularly about safety).

CONCLUSION

High-dose oral multivitamins and multiminerals did not statistically significantly reduce cardiovascular events in patients after MI who received standard medications. However, this conclusion is tempered by the nonadherence rate.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

The effect of an EDTA-based chelation regimen on patients with diabetes mellitus and prior myocardial infarction in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT)

BACKGROUND

The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) showed clinical benefit of an EDTA-based infusion regimen in patients aged ≥50 years with prior myocardial infarction. Diabetes mellitus before enrollment was a prespecified subgroup.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients received 40 infusions of EDTA chelation or placebo. A total of 633 (37%) patients had diabetes mellitus (322 EDTA and 311 placebo). EDTA reduced the primary end point (death, reinfarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina; 25% versus 38%; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.79; P<0.001) over 5 years. The result remained significant after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple subgroups (99.4% CI, 0.39-0.88; adjusted P=0.002). All-cause mortality was reduced by EDTA chelation (10% versus 16%; hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.88; P=0.011), as was the secondary end point (cardiovascular death, reinfarction, or stroke; 11% versus 17%; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91; P=0.017). However, after adjusting for multiple subgroups, those results were no longer significant. The number needed to treat to reduce 1 primary end point over 5 years was 6.5 (95% CI, 4.4-12.7). There was no reduction in events in non-diabetes mellitus (n=1075; P=0.877), resulting in a treatment by diabetes mellitus interaction (P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes mellitus aged ≥50 demonstrated a marked reduction in cardiovascular events with EDTA chelation. These findings support efforts to replicate these findings and define the mechanisms of benefit. However, they do not constitute sufficient evidence to indicate the routine use of chelation therapy for all post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes mellitus.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00044213.

Effect of disodium EDTA chelation regimen on cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction: the TACT randomized trial

IMPORTANCE

Chelation therapy with disodium EDTA has been used for more than 50 years to treat atherosclerosis without proof of efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if an EDTA-based chelation regimen reduces cardiovascular events.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial enrolling 1708 patients aged 50 years or older who had experienced a myocardial infarction (MI) at least 6 weeks prior and had serum creatinine levels of 2.0 mg/dL or less. Participants were recruited at 134 US and Canadian sites. Enrollment began in September 2003 and follow-up took place until October 2011 (median, 55 months). Two hundred eighty-nine patients (17% of total; n=115 in the EDTA group and n=174 in the placebo group) withdrew consent during the trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive 40 infusions of a 500-mL chelation solution (3 g of disodium EDTA, 7 g of ascorbate, B vitamins, electrolytes, procaine, and heparin) (n=839) vs placebo (n=869) and an oral vitamin-mineral regimen vs an oral placebo. Infusions were administered weekly for 30 weeks, followed by 10 infusions 2 to 8 weeks apart. Fifteen percent discontinued infusions (n=38 [16%] in the chelation group and n=41 [15%] in the placebo group) because of adverse events.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prespecified primary end point was a composite of total mortality, recurrent MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina. This report describes the intention-to-treat comparison of EDTA chelation vs placebo. To account for multiple interim analyses, the significance threshold required at the final analysis was P = .036.

RESULTS

Qualifying previous MIs occurred a median of 4.6 years before enrollment. Median age was 65 years, 18% were female, 9% were nonwhite, and 31% were diabetic. The primary end point occurred in 222 (26%) of the chelation group and 261 (30%) of the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.99]; P = .035). There was no effect on total mortality (chelation: 87 deaths [10%]; placebo, 93 deaths [11%]; HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.70-1.25]; P = .64), but the study was not powered for this comparison. The effect of EDTA chelation on the components of the primary end point other than death was of similar magnitude as its overall effect (MI: chelation, 6%; placebo, 8%; HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.54-1.11]; stroke: chelation, 1.2%; placebo, 1.5%; HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.34-1.76]; coronary revascularization: chelation, 15%; placebo, 18%; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.64-1.02]; hospitalization for angina: chelation, 1.6%; placebo, 2.1%; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.35-1.47]). Sensitivity analyses examining the effect of patient dropout and treatment adherence did not alter the results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among stable patients with a history of MI, use of an intravenous chelation regimen with disodium EDTA, compared with placebo, modestly reduced the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, many of which were revascularization procedures. These results provide evidence to guide further research but are not sufficient to support the routine use of chelation therapy for treatment of patients who have had an MI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00044213.

Military report more complementary and alternative medicine use than civilians

OBJECTIVES

The study objective was to estimate complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among active duty military and compare data with civilian use.

DESIGN

A global survey on CAM use in the 12 previous months was conducted. Final participants (16,146) were stratified by gender, service, region, and pay grade. Analysis included prevalence of CAM use, demographic and lifestyle characteristics.

RESULTS

Approximately 45% of respondents reported using at least one type of CAM therapy. Most commonly used therapies were as follows: prayer for one's own health (24.4%), massage therapy (14.1%), and relaxation techniques (10.8%). After exclusion of prayer for one's own health, adjusting to the 2000 U.S. census, overall CAM use in the military (44.5%) was higher than that in comparable civilian surveys (36.0% and 38.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Military personnel reported using three CAM stress-reduction therapies at 2.5-7 times the rate of civilians. Among the military, high utilization of CAM practices that reduce stress may serve as markers for practitioners assessing an individual's health and well-being.

Standards for evaluating patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based performance measures

45

Background: There is growing interest to use performance measures that integrate patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but there are no existing methodological standards for developing, implementing, or analyzing such measures in this context. Methods: To develop standards for evaluating PRO-based performance measures submitted to or developed by the American Medical Association-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement, a multi-disciplinary expert technical panel was assembled. A systematic literature review and landscape overview were conducted to identify use cases and existing PRO standards in related contexts. Lessons learned from use cases and existing standards guided development of discrete methodological standards. Results: The systematic review identified only one use case, whereas the landscape overview identified eight. Five purposes were identified for which PROs might be measured to assess performance, including one categorized as process and four as outcome. Eight discrete methodological standards were developed which will be detailed at the meeting. Conclusions: The patient perspective is an essential but missing component of performance evaluation. When appropriately elicited, data from patients can be informative. Lack of adherence to good practices and inadequate patient input when developing measurement strategies are potential pitfalls to be avoided.

Design of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT)

TACT is an National Institutes of Health-sponsored, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial clinical trial testing the benefits and risks of 40 infusions of a multicomponent disodium EDTA chelation solution compared with placebo and of an oral, high-dose multivitamin and mineral supplement. TACT has randomized and will follow up 1,708 patients for an average of approximately 4 years. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for angina. A 900-patient substudy will examine quality-of-life outcomes. The trial is designed to have >85% power to detect a 25% relative reduction in the primary end point for each treatment factor. Enrollment began in September 2003 and was completed in October 2010.