Semi-Permanent Ear (Aguille SP) Needle "Migration" into the External Auditory Canal.

Background: Auricular acupuncture (AA) is commonly used by acupuncturists as stand-alone therapy or as an adjunctive to body acupuncture. AA is considered to be safe, with rare complications. The most commonly reported complications are usually transient and include: pain at insertion; minor bleeding; local tenderness; dizziness; and nausea. No reported cases of an Aiguille Semi-Permanente® (ASP®) needle retained in the external auditory canal (EAC) has been found in the medical literature. Case: As part of a treatment for complex regional pain syndrome, auricular ASP needles were placed. When the patient returned 6 weeks later for continued treatment, he reported feeling slightly dizzy at times and that he had a sensation that something might be in his ear canal. Results: This patient appeared to be in his usual good health with normal vital signs. The external ear had no visible ASP needles. An otoscopic examination revealed a yellow reflection from the base of the tympanic membrane (TM), and a gold ASP needle was identified. It was recovered with a normal saline flush of the canal. The TM and EAC were otherwise normal. Conclusions: In this first report of an ASP needle being "lost" in an EAC, perhaps it may have occurred while the patient slept. The event seems to be rare enough, but acupuncturists should be aware of the possibility, and if patients mention a foreign-body sensation in their ears, hearing unusual sounds, or have persistent discomfort or dizziness, the external auditory canal should be examined.

Resolution of Trigger Finger with Electroacupuncture.

Background: Trigger finger (TF; a type of stenosing tenosynovitis) is common, affecting the flexor tendons of the hand, often causing significant pain and functional impairment. Treatment can include splinting, corticosteroid injection, or surgical release. There is little published research on the role of electroacupuncture (EA) for treating TF. Case: After more than 1 year of pain and triggering, a 58 year-old male had locking of his left, fourth ring finger requiring painful manual reduction. EA was performed with 4-6 needles in a rectangular pattern along the radial and ulnar aspects of the A1 pulley of the fourth digit, with 10 Hz delivered in a daisy-chain formation for 45 minutes. Nodule size, frequency of triggering and locking, and severity of pain were assessed before and after 4 treatments over ∼1.5 months. Results: This patient's frequency of locking and severity of pain decreased significantly by 50% after his first treatment. Additional clinically significant reductions of locking, pain, and nodule-size were evident after each treatment along with substantial functional gains between visits. After his fourth treatment, he reported 100% resolution of his symptoms with no further pain or triggering. Throughout this time, he continued his usual activities. Conclusions: EA alone directed at the A1 pulley may be an effective treatment modality for patients with TF. The authors hypothesize that EA may reduce pain enabling a return to normal function and compression of the nodule, thus eliminating triggering. Further research evaluating the efficacy of EA for TF may help substantiate these results.

Association between chiropractic care and use of prescription opioids among older medicare beneficiaries with spinal pain: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The burden of spinal pain can be aggravated by the hazards of opioid analgesics, which are still widely prescribed for spinal pain despite evidence-based clinical guidelines that identify non-pharmacological therapies as the preferred first-line approach. Previous studies have found that chiropractic care is associated with decreased use of opioids, but have not focused on older Medicare beneficiaries, a vulnerable population with high rates of co-morbidity and polypharmacy. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the association between chiropractic utilization and use of prescription opioids among older adults with spinal pain. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study in which we examined a nationally representative multi-year sample of Medicare claims data, 2012-2016. The study sample included 55,949 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with spinal pain, of whom 9,356 were recipients of chiropractic care and 46,593 were non-recipients. We measured the adjusted risk of filling a prescription for an opioid analgesic for up to 365 days following diagnosis of spinal pain. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling and inverse weighted propensity scoring to account for selection bias, we compared recipients of both primary care and chiropractic to recipients of primary care alone regarding the risk of filling a prescription. RESULTS: The adjusted risk of filling an opioid prescription within 365 days of initial visit was 56% lower among recipients of chiropractic care as compared to non-recipients (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Among older Medicare beneficiaries with spinal pain, use of chiropractic care is associated with significantly lower risk of filling an opioid prescription.

Efficiency of primary spine care as compared to conventional primary care: a retrospective observational study at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Primary Spine Care (PSC) is an innovative model for the primary management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs), with a focus on the use of non-pharmacological therapies which now constitute the recommended first-line approach to back pain. PSC clinicians serve as the initial or early point of contact for spine patients and utilize evidence-based spine care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce escalation of care (EoC; e.g., spinal injections, diagnostic imaging, hospitalizations, referrals to a specialist). The present study examined 6-month outcomes to evaluate the efficiency of care for patients who received PSC as compared to conventional primary care. We hypothesized that patients seen by a PSC clinician would have lower rates of EoC compared to patients who received usual care by a primary care (PC) clinician. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study. We evaluated 6-month outcomes for two groups seen and treated for an SRD between February 01, 2017 and January 31, 2020. Patient groups were comprised of N = 1363 PSC patients (Group A) and N = 1329 PC patients (Group B). We conducted Pearson chi-square and logistic regression (adjusting for patient characteristics that were unbalanced between the two groups) to determine associations between the two groups and 6-month outcomes. RESULTS: Within six months of an initial visit for an SRD, a statistically significantly smaller proportion of PSC patients utilized healthcare resources for spine care as compared to the PC patients. When adjusting for patient characteristics, those who received care from the PSC clinician were less likely within 6 months of an initial visit to be hospitalized (OR = .47, 95% CI .23-.97), fill a prescription for an opioid analgesic (OR = .43; 95% CI .29-.65), receive a spinal injection (OR = .56, 95% CI .33-.95), or have a visit with a specialist (OR = .48, 95% CI .35-.67) as compared to those who received usual primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received PSC in an academic primary care clinic experienced significantly less escalation of their spine care within 6 months of their initial visit. The PSC model may offer a more efficient approach to the primary care of spine problems for patients with SRDs, as compared to usual primary care.

Experiences and Attitudes About Chiropractic Care and Prescription Drug Therapy Among Patients With Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine experiences and attitudes toward care offered by chiropractors and prescription drug therapy offered by medical physicians for patients who have back pain. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey measured patients with back pain (n = 150) seeking care within an academic primary care setting. A survey assessed patient experiences, beliefs, and attitudes regarding chiropractic care and prescription drug therapy. Two samples of patients in the New Hampshire region included 75 patients treated by a doctor of chiropractic (DC) and 75 treated by a medical primary care physician (PCP). The 30-item survey was sent to existing and new patients between February 2019 and January 2020. Between-group comparisons were examined to test rates of reporting and to determine the mean difference in the total number of office visits between the 2 samples. RESULTS: Patients treated by both DCs and PCPs reported high overall satisfaction with chiropractic care received for low back pain with no significant differences between groups. The majority in both groups reported that seeing a DC for back pain made sense to them (95% of patients treated by a DC and 75% of patients treated by a PCP) whereas the minority reported that taking prescription drugs for back pain made sense (25% of patients treated by a DC and 41% of patients treated by a PCP). There was no statistical difference between groups when patients were asked if seeing a chiropractor changed their beliefs or behaviors about taking pain medication. Significant differences were found between groups for agreement that chiropractic care would be a suitable treatment for back pain (79% of patients treated by a DC and 45% of patients treated by a PCP). There were 7% of patients treated by PCP and 23% of the patients treated by DC who agreed that a DC would be the first health care provider they would like to see for their general health needs. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of patients, patient satisfaction regarding chiropractic care received for back pain was high. There were differences between patient groups about preferences for treatment for back pain. Our results indicate that patients reported that seeing a DC for back pain did not change their beliefs or behaviors regarding prescription drug therapy provided by their medical PCP.

Implementation of the Primary Spine Care Model in a Multi-Clinician Primary Care Setting: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation was to compare the value of primary spine care (PSC) with usual care for management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs) within a primary care setting. METHODS: We retrospectively examined existing patient encounter data at 3 primary care sites within a multi-clinic health system. Designated clinicians serve in the role as PSC as the initial point of contact for spine patients, coordinate, and follow up for the duration of the episode of care. A PSC may be a chiropractor, physical therapist, or medical or osteopathic physician who has been trained to provide primary care for patients with SRDs. The PSC model of care had been introduced at site I (Lebanon, New Hampshire); sites II (Bedford, New Hampshire) and III (Nashua, New Hampshire) served as control sites where patients received usual care. To evaluate cost outcomes, we employed a controlled quasi-experimental design for analysis of health claims data. For analysis of clinical outcomes, we compared clinical records for PSC at site I and usual care at sites II and III, all with reference to usual care at site I. We examined clinical encounters occurring over a 24-month period, from February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2018. RESULTS: Primary spine care was associated with reduced total expenditures compared with usual care for SRDs. At site I, average per-patient expenditure was $162 in year 1 and $186 in year 2, compared with site II ($332 in year 1; $306 in year 2) and site III ($467 in year 1; $323 in year 2). CONCLUSION: Among patients with SRDs included in this study, implementation of the PSC model within a conventional primary care setting was associated with a trend toward reduced total expenditures for spine care compared with usual primary care. Implementation of PSC may lead to reduced costs and resource utilization, but may be no more effective than usual care regarding clinical outcomes.

Trends in Insurance Coverage for Complementary Health Care Services.

Introduction: Complementary health care professionals deliver a substantial component of clinical services in the United States, but insurance coverage for many such services may be inadequate. The objective of this project was to follow up on an earlier single-year study with an evaluation of trends in reimbursement for complementary health care services over a 7-year period. Methods: The authors employed a retrospective serial cross-sectional design to analyze health insurance claims for services provided by licensed acupuncturists, chiropractors, and naturopaths in New Hampshire (NH) from 2011 to 2017. They restricted the analyses to claims in nonemergent outpatient settings for Current Procedural Terminology code 99213, which is one of the most commonly used clinical procedure codes across all specialties. They evaluated by year the likelihood of reimbursement, as compared with primary care physicians as the gold standard. A generalized estimating equation model was used to account for within-person correlations among the separate claim reimbursement indicators for individuals used in the analysis, using an exchangeable working covariance structure among claims for the same individual. Reimbursement was defined as payment >0 dollars. Results: The total number of clinical services claimed was 26,725 for acupuncture, 8317 for naturopathic medicine, 2,539,144 for chiropractic, and 1,860,271 for primary care. Initially, likelihood of reimbursement for naturopathic physicians was higher relative to primary care physicians, but was lower from 2014 onward. Odds of reimbursement for both acupuncture and chiropractic claims remained lower throughout the study period. In 2017, as compared with primary care the likelihood of reimbursement was 77% lower for acupuncturists, 72% lower for chiropractors, and 64% lower for naturopaths. Conclusion: The likelihood of reimbursement for complementary health care services is significantly lower than that for primary care physicians in NH. Lack of insurance coverage may result in reduced patient access to such services.

Impact of Chiropractic Care on Use of Prescription Opioids in Patients with Spinal Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Utilization of nonpharmacological pain management may prevent unnecessary use of opioids. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of chiropractic utilization upon use of prescription opioids among patients with spinal pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: We employed a retrospective cohort design for analysis of health claims data from three contiguous states for the years 2012-2017. SUBJECTS: We included adults aged 18-84 years enrolled in a health plan and with office visits to a primary care physician or chiropractor for spinal pain. We identified two cohorts of subjects: Recipients received both primary care and chiropractic care, and nonrecipients received primary care but not chiropractic care. METHODS: We performed adjusted time-to-event analyses to compare recipients and nonrecipients with regard to the risk of filling an opioid prescription. We stratified the recipient populations as: acute (first chiropractic encounter within 30 days of diagnosis) and nonacute (all other patients). RESULTS: The total number of subjects was 101,221. Overall, between 1.55 and 2.03 times more nonrecipients filled an opioid prescription, as compared with recipients (in Connecticut: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-2.17, P = 0.010; in New Hampshire: HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.92-2.14, P < 0.0001). Similar differences were observed for the acute groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with spinal pain who saw a chiropractor had half the risk of filling an opioid prescription. Among those who saw a chiropractor within 30 days of diagnosis, the reduction in risk was greater as compared with those with their first visit after the acute phase.

Association Between Utilization of Chiropractic Services for Treatment of Low Back Pain and Risk of Adverse Drug Events.

OBJECTIVES: Mortality rates due to adverse drug events (ADEs) are escalating in the United States. Analgesics are among the drug classes most often associated with occurrence of an ADE. Utilization of nonpharmacologic chiropractic services for treatment of low back pain could lead to reduced risk of an ADE. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the association between utilization of chiropractic services and likelihood of an ADE. METHODS: We employed a retrospective cohort design to analyze health insurance claims data from the state of New Hampshire. After inversely weighting each participant by their propensity to be in their cohort, we employed logistic regression to compare recipients of chiropractic services to nonrecipients with regard to likelihood of occurrence of an ADE in an outpatient setting. RESULTS: The risk of an ADE was significantly lower among recipients of chiropractic services as compared with nonrecipients. The adjusted likelihood of an ADE occurring in an outpatient setting within 12 months was 51% lower among recipients of chiropractic services as compared to nonrecipients (OR 0.49; P = .0002). The reported ADEs were nonspecific with regard to drug category in the majority of incidents that occurred in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among New Hampshire adults with office visits for low back pain, the adjusted likelihood of an ADE was significantly lower for recipients of chiropractic services as compared to nonrecipients. No causal relationship was established between utilization of chiropractic care and risk of an ADE. Future research should employ larger databases, rigorous methods to reduce risk of bias, and more sensitive means of identifying ADEs.

Association Between Utilization of Chiropractic Services for Treatment of Low-Back Pain and Use of Prescription Opioids.

OBJECTIVE: Pain relief resulting from services delivered by doctors of chiropractic may allow patients to use lower or less frequent doses of opioids, leading to reduced risk of adverse effects. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the association between utilization of chiropractic services and the use of prescription opioid medications. DESIGN: The authors used a retrospective cohort design to analyze health insurance claims data. SETTING: The data source was the all payer claims database administered by the State of New Hampshire. The authors chose New Hampshire because health claims data were readily available for research, and in 2015, New Hampshire had the second-highest age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths in the United States. SUBJECTS: The study population comprised New Hampshire residents aged 18-99 years, enrolled in a health plan, and with at least two clinical office visits within 90 days for a primary diagnosis of low-back pain. The authors excluded subjects with a diagnosis of cancer. OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors measured likelihood of opioid prescription fill among recipients of services delivered by doctors of chiropractic compared with nonrecipients. They also compared the cohorts with regard to rates of prescription fills for opioids and associated charges. RESULTS: The adjusted likelihood of filling a prescription for an opioid analgesic was 55% lower among recipients compared with nonrecipients (odds ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.47; p < 0.0001). Average charges per person for opioid prescriptions were also significantly lower among recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Among New Hampshire adults with office visits for noncancer low-back pain, the likelihood of filling a prescription for an opioid analgesic was significantly lower for recipients of services delivered by doctors of chiropractic compared with nonrecipients. The underlying cause of this correlation remains unknown, indicating the need for further investigation.

Analysis of barriers to adoption of buprenorphine maintenance therapy by family physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid abuse has reached epidemic levels. Evidence-based treatments such as buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) remain underutilized. Offering BMT in primary care settings has the potential to reduce overall costs of care, decrease medical morbidity associated with opioid dependence, and improve treatment outcomes. However, access to BMT, especially in rural areas, remains limited. This article will present a review of barriers to adoption of BMT among family physicians in a primarily rural area in the USA. METHODS: An anonymous survey of family physicians practicing in Vermont or New Hampshire, two largely rural states, was conducted. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative questions, focused on BMT adoption and physician opinions of opioids. Specific factors assessed included physician factors, physicians' understanding of patient factors, and logistical issues. RESULTS: One-hundred and eight family physicians completed the survey. Approximately 10% were buprenorphine prescribers. More than 80% of family physicians felt they regularly saw patients addicted to opiates. The majority (70%) felt that they, as family physicians, bore responsibility for treating opiate addiction. Potential logistical barriers to buprenorphine adoption included inadequately trained staff (88%), insufficient time (80%), inadequate office space (49%), and cumbersome regulations (37%). Common themes addressed in open-ended questions included lack of knowledge, time, or interest; mistrust of people with addiction or buprenorphine; and difficult patient population. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to quantify perceived barriers to treatment and provide insight expanding the community of family physicians offering BMT. The results suggest family physicians are excellent candidates to provide BMT, as most report regularly seeing opioid-addicted patients and believe that treating opioid addiction is their responsibility. Significant barriers remain, including inadequate staff training, lack of access to addiction experts, and perceived efficacy of BMT. Addressing these barriers may lower resistance to buprenorphine adoption and increase access to BMT in rural areas.

Changing horses midstream: the promise and prudence of practice redesign.

An emerging vision for primary care calls for the adoption of information technology and a strong business model to save a dying health care system. The authors are participants in the National Demonstration Project (NDP), a study sponsored by leading organizations in family medicine and directed by a for-profit subsidiary of the American Academy of Family Physicians, TransforMED. The NDP embraces the Future of Family Medicine Report and seeks to test the ability of existing practices to implement its basic tenets. The NDP will conclude in June 2008, but its findings and observations will likely ripple out for years. Our report is a personal reflection that looks beyond the question of whether busy practices and practitioners can change horses midstream. We ask, "Is this primary care, and is this what it needs?"

Prevention of iron deficiency in infants and toddlers.

The prevalence of nutritional iron deficiency anemia in infants and toddlers has declined dramatically since 1960. However, satisfaction with this achievement must be tempered because iron deficiency anemia in infants and toddlers is associated with long-lasting diminished mental, motor, and behavioral functioning. Additionally, the prevalence of iron deficiency anemia in one- to three-year-old children seems to be increasing. The exact relationship between iron deficiency anemia and the developmental effects is not well understood, but these effects do not occur until iron deficiency becomes severe and chronic enough to produce anemia. At that point, treatment with iron can reverse the anemia and restore iron sufficiency, yet the poorer developmental functioning appears to persist. Therefore, intervention should focus on the primary prevention of iron deficiency. In the first year of life, measures to prevent iron deficiency include completely avoiding cow's milk, starting iron supplementation at four to six months of age in breastfed infants, and using iron-fortified formula when not breastfeeding. Low-iron formula should not be used. In the second year of life, iron deficiency can be prevented by use of a diversified diet that is rich in sources of iron and vitamin C, limiting cow's milk consumption to less than 24 oz per day, and providing a daily iron-fortified vitamin. All infants and toddlers who did not receive primary prevention should be screened for iron deficiency. Screening is performed at nine to 12 months, six months later, and at 24 months of age. The hemoglobin/hematocrit level alone detects only patients with enough iron deficiency to be anemic. Screening by erythrocyte protoporphyrin or red-cell distribution width identifies earlier stages of iron deficiency. A positive screening test is an indication for a therapeutic trial of iron, which remains the definitive method of establishing a diagnosis of iron deficiency.