Osteoporosis identification among previously undiagnosed individuals with vertebral fractures.

Because osteoporosis is under-recognized in patients with vertebral fractures, we evaluated characteristics associated with osteoporosis identification. Most patients with vertebral fractures did not receive evaluation or treatment for osteoporosis. Black, younger, and male participants were particularly unlikely to have had recognized osteoporosis, which could increase their risk of negative outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fractures may be identified on imaging but fail to prompt evaluation for osteoporosis. Our objective was to evaluate characteristics associated with clinical osteoporosis recognition in patients who had vertebral fractures detected on their thoracolumbar spine imaging reports. METHODS: We prospectively identified individuals who received imaging of the lower spine at primary care clinics in 4 large healthcare systems who were eligible for osteoporosis screening and lacked indications of osteoporosis diagnoses or treatments in the prior year. We evaluated characteristics of participants with identified vertebral fractures that were associated with recognition of osteoporosis (diagnosis code in the health record; receipt of bone mineral density scans; and/or prescriptions for anti-osteoporotic medications). We used mixed models to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: A total of 114,005 participants (47% female; mean age 65 (interquartile range: 57-72) years) were evaluated. Of the 8579 (7%) participants with vertebral fractures identified, 3784 (44%) had recognition of osteoporosis within the subsequent year. In adjusted regressions, Black participants (OR (95% CI): 0.74 (0.57, 0.97)), younger participants (age 50-60: 0.48 (0.42, 0.54); age 61-64: 0.70 (0.60, 0.81)), and males (0.39 (0.35, 0.43)) were less likely to have recognized osteoporosis compared to white participants, adults aged 65 + years, or females. CONCLUSION: Individuals with identified vertebral fractures commonly did not have recognition of osteoporosis within a year, particularly those who were younger, Black, or male. Providers and healthcare systems should consider efforts to improve evaluation of osteoporosis in patients with vertebral fractures.

A randomized trial to examine the mechanisms of cognitive, behavioral and mindfulness-based psychosocial treatments for chronic pain: Study protocol.

This randomized trial will evaluate the mechanisms of three chronic pain treatments: cognitive therapy (CT), mindfulness meditation (MM), and activation skills (AS). We will determine the extent to which late-treatment improvement in primary outcome (pain interference) is predicted by early-treatment changes in cognitive content, cognitive process, and/or activity level. The shared versus specific role of these mechanisms across the three treatments will be evaluated during treatment (Primary Aim), and immediately post-treatment to examine relapse mechanisms (Secondary Aim). We will enroll 300 individuals with chronic pain (with low back pain as a primary or secondary condition), with 240 projected to complete the study. Participants will be randomly assigned to eight, 1.5 h telehealth group sessions of CT, MM, or AS. Mechanisms and outcomes will be assessed twice daily during 2-week baseline, 4-week treatment period, and 4-week post-treatment epoch via random cue-elicited ecological momentary assessment (EMA); activity level will be monitored during these time epochs via daily monitoring with ActiGraph technology. The primary outcome will be measured by the PROMIS 5-item Pain Interference scale. Structural equation modeling (SEM) will be used to test the primary aims. This study is pre-registered on clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03687762). This study will determine the temporal sequence of lagged mediation effects to evaluate rates of change in outcome as a function of change in mediators. The findings will provide an empirical basis for enhancing and streamlining psychosocial chronic pain interventions. Further, results will guide future efforts towards optimizing maintenance of gains to effectively reduce relapse risk.

A Pre-clinical Study of the Response Threshold of Intact and Transected Nerves to Stimulation by Transcutaneous Intense Focused Ultrasound.

We used diagnostic ultrasound imaging to guide individual bursts (0.1 s) of 2 MHz intense focused ultrasound (iFU) to determine the sensitivity of intact and transected nerves. We found that all nerves had greater sensitivity to iFU stimulation than surrounding muscle. Intact nerves from healthy volunteers had less sensitivity to iFU stimulation (272 ± 35 W/cm2 [median ± standard error]) than transected nerves (19 ± 37 W/cm2). Intact, contralateral nerves of amputees dichotomized naturally into two groups-one very sensitive to iFU stimulation (6 ± 2 W/cm2) and one relatively insensitive (539 ± 19 W/cm2), compared with the intact nerves of healthy volunteers. Our study demonstrates the ability of iFU under ultrasound image guidance to stimulate deep, intact and transected peripheral nerves. It also highlights differences in the receptivity to ultrasound stimulation of the peripheral nerves of amputees versus healthy volunteers.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Severity by CT or MRI Does Not Predict Response to Epidural Corticosteroid versus Lidocaine Injections.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Epidural steroid injections may offer little-to-no short-term benefit in the overall population of patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with lidocaine alone. We investigated whether imaging could identify subgroups of patients who might benefit most. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis prospective, double-blind trial was performed, and patients were randomized to receive an epidural injection of lidocaine with or without corticosteroids. Patients (n = 350) were evaluated for qualitative and quantitative MR imaging or CT measures of lumbar spinal stenosis. The primary clinical end points were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the leg pain numeric rating scale at 3 weeks following injection. ANCOVA was used to assess the significance of interaction terms between imaging measures of spinal stenosis and injectate type on clinical improvement. RESULTS: There was no difference in the improvement of disability or leg pain scores at 3 weeks between patients injected with epidural lidocaine alone compared with corticosteroid and lidocaine when accounting for the primary imaging measures of qualitative spinal stenosis assessment (interaction coefficients for disability score, -0.1; 95% CI, -1.3 to 1.2; P = .90; and for the leg pain score, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.8; P = .81) or the quantitative minimum thecal sac cross-sectional area (interaction coefficients for disability score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .40; and for the leg pain score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging measures of spinal stenosis are not associated with differential clinical responses following epidural corticosteroid injection.