How well do participants in clinical trials represent the U.S. population with chronic neck or back pain?

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing treatment effectiveness; however, they have been criticized for generalizability issues such as how well trial participants represent those who receive the treatments in clinical practice. We assessed the representativeness of participants from eight RCTs for chronic spine pain in the U.S., which were used for an individual participant data meta-analysis on the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation for spine pain. In these clinical trials, spinal manipulation was performed by chiropractors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of RCT data to compare trial participants' socio-demographic characteristics, clinical features, and health outcomes to a representative sample of (a) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain and (b) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain receiving chiropractic care, using secondary data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed differences between trial and U.S. spine populations using independent t-tests for means and z-tests for proportions, accounting for the complex multi-stage survey design of the NHIS and MEPS. RESULTS: We found the clinical trials had an under-representation of individuals from health disparity populations with lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority groups (Black/African American 7% lower, Hispanic 8% lower), less educated (No high school degree 19% lower, high school degree 11% lower), and unemployed adults (25% lower) with worse health outcomes (physical health scores 2.5 lower and mental health scores 5.3 lower using the SF-12/36) relative to the U.S. population with spine pain. While the odds of chiropractic use in the U.S. are lower for individuals from health disparity populations, the trials also under-represented these populations relative to U.S. adults with chronic spine pain who visit a chiropractor. CONCLUSIONS: Health disparity populations are not well represented in spine pain clinical trials. Embracing key community-based approaches, which have shown promise for increasing participation of underserved communities, is needed.

Causally interpretable meta-analysis: Clearly defined causal effects and two case studies.

Meta-analysis is commonly used to combine results from multiple clinical trials, but traditional meta-analysis methods do not refer explicitly to a population of individuals to whom the results apply and it is not clear how to use their results to assess a treatment's effect for a population of interest. We describe recently-introduced causally interpretable meta-analysis methods and apply their treatment effect estimators to two individual-participant data sets. These estimators transport estimated treatment effects from studies in the meta-analysis to a specified target population using the individuals' potentially effect-modifying covariates. We consider different regression and weighting methods within this approach and compare the results to traditional aggregated-data meta-analysis methods. In our applications, certain versions of the causally interpretable methods performed somewhat better than the traditional methods, but the latter generally did well. The causally interpretable methods offer the most promise when covariates modify treatment effects and our results suggest that traditional methods work well when there is little effect heterogeneity. The causally interpretable approach gives meta-analysis an appealing theoretical framework by relating an estimator directly to a specific population and lays a solid foundation for future developments.

Effectiveness of Spinal Manipulation and Biopsychosocial Self-Management compared to Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Trial Study Protocol.

Background Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. Methods We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2x2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. Discussion By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

Cross-Sectional Survey of Acupuncturists in the United States Who Prescribed Chinese Herbal Medicine for Patients with Symptoms Likely Related to COVID-19.

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the prescribing of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) by licensed acupuncturists in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A 28-question survey with nine branching questions was disseminated through collegial networks, paid advertisements, and a study website in April-July 2021. Participants indicated that they were licensed acupuncturists who treated more than five patients for symptoms likely related to COVID-19 to gain entry to the full survey. Surveys were undertaken electronically through the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system. Results: The survey was undertaken by 103 participants representing all US geographic regions and had an average of 17 years in practice. Sixty-five percent received or intended to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Phone and videoconference were the predominant methods of patient contact; granules and pill forms of CHM were the most prescribed. A wide variety of information sources were used in devising patient treatments inclusive of anecdotal, observational, and scientific sources. Most patients were not receiving biomedical treatment. Ninety-seven percent of participants reported that they had no patients die of COVID-19, and the majority reported that <25% of their patients developed long hauler syndrome (post-acute sequelae SARS-CoV-2 infection). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that licensed acupuncturists were treating COVID-19 infected individuals in the United States during the early stages of the pandemic, and for many such patients this was the only therapeutic intervention they had access to from a licensed health care provider. Information disseminated from China through collegial networks, along with published sources including scientific studies, informed the approach to treatment. This study provides insight into an unusual circumstance in which clinicians needed to establish evidence-based approaches to the treatment of a new disease during a public health emergency.

Multidisciplinary integrative care versus chiropractic care for low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is influenced by interrelated biological, psychological, and social factors, however current back pain management is largely dominated by one-size fits all unimodal treatments. Team based models with multiple provider types from complementary professional disciplines is one way of integrating therapies to address patients' needs more comprehensively. METHODS: This parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2007 to August 2010 aimed to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness of 12 weeks of monodisciplinary chiropractic care (CC), versus multidisciplinary integrative care (IC), for adults with sub-acute and chronic LBP. The primary outcome was pain intensity and secondary outcomes were disability, improvement, medication use, quality of life, satisfaction, frequency of symptoms, missed work or reduced activities days, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, pain coping strategies and kinesiophobia measured at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. RESULTS: 201 participants were enrolled. The largest reductions in pain intensity occurred at the end of treatment and were 43% for CC and 47% for IC. The primary analysis found IC to be significantly superior to CC over the 1-year period (P = 0.02). The long-term profile for pain intensity which included data from weeks 4 through 52, showed a significant advantage of 0.5 for IC over CC (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; P = 0.02; 0 to 10 scale). The short-term profile (weeks 4 to 12) favored IC by 0.4, but was not statistically significant (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.9; P = 0.06). There was also a significant advantage over the long term for IC in some secondary measures (disability, improvement, satisfaction and low back symptom frequency), but not for others (medication use, quality of life, leg symptom frequency, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, active pain coping, and kinesiophobia). Importantly, no serious adverse events resulted from either of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the IC group tended to have better outcomes than the CC group, however the magnitude of the group differences was relatively small. Given the resources required to successfully implement multidisciplinary integrative care teams, they may not be worthwhile, compared to monodisciplinary approaches like chiropractic care, for treating LBP. Trial registration NCT00567333.

A Randomized Trial of 21 Days of Loving Kindness Meditation for Stress Reduction and Emotional Well-being Within an Online Health Community for Patients, Family, and Friends Experiencing a Cancer Health Journey.

Objectives: CaringBridge (CB) is an online health community for people undergoing challenging health journeys. Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM) is a systemized mind-body approach developed to increase loving acceptance and has previously been reported to increase resilience in the face of adversity. Materials and Methods: Results of a randomized controlled trial of immediate compared with deferred 21-day LKM intervention in an online community are reported. The deferred group received LKM intervention after a waiting period of 3 weeks. Inclusion criteria were >18 years old, ability to understand English, willingness to participate in a mind-body practice, and use of CB for a cancer journey. Change in perceived stress, self-compassion, social connectedness and assurance, and compassionate love scales from baseline to 21 days was assessed. Results: Of the 979 participants included in the study, 649 (66%) provided 3-week follow-up data and 330 (49%) self-reported engaging in the LKM practice 5 or more days/week. Participants in the immediate LKM group reported medium effect size improvement in stress (0.4), self-compassion (0.5), and social connectedness (0.4) compared with the deferred LKM group. Changes in perceived stress and self-compassion were larger in magnitude and increased with more frequent engagement in LKM. Conclusions: The immediate LKM group showed improvements in stress, self-compassion, and social connectedness compared with the deferred control group. Differential study retention rates by treatment arm and self-reported engagement in LKM subject the results to selection bias. Future research of similar interventions within online health communities might pay greater attention to promoting intervention adherence and engaging a more diverse economic and racial/ethnic population. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05002842).

Survey analysis to determine the impact of evidence informed practice education upon East Asian medicine faculty clinical instruction and students' skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors within a master's degree program.

BACKGROUND: Between 2013 and 2018 Pacific College of Health and Science (formerly Pacific College of Oriental Medicine) trained faculty and developed curriculum in evidence informed practice (EIP), with support from a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A three-credit (45 h) Foundations of EIP course, and online EIP learning modules (developed as part of a previous NIH R25 award), were used for faculty and student training. In addition, EIP was incorporated into 73% of the East Asian medicine degree program. Clinical integration of EIP in the College clinic was enhanced by improving access to reference sources, including additional EIP-related questions to the patient intake forms, requiring the use of a patient-centered outcome instrument, and assessing students' clinical EIP competencies. METHODS: Master's degree students' self-reported EIP skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors were assessed before and after taking the Foundations of EIP course using a 17-question paper-based survey with an additional open-ended comments section. The survey was administered in 29 courses across all three Pacific College campuses. Clinical faculty self-reported EIP instruction, focusing on the EIP content and instructional approaches that were utilized, was evaluated on the New York City campus using a paper-based survey before and after changes were made to enhance the clinical integration of EIP. RESULTS: A total of 1181 completed EIP-course surveys consisting of 657 pre-EIP course surveys and 524 post-EIP course surveys were analyzed. There was a statistically significant improvement in students' EIP skills, knowledge and behaviors after completing the EIP course. Students' perception of the importance of EIP was high before and after the EIP course. Little change in Faculty's EIP-related clinical instruction was evident following the EIP-related changes that were made to the Clinic. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the three-credit (45 h) EIP course was effective at improving the EIP skills, knowledge and behaviors of this group of East Asian medicine students who were undertaking a master's degree that qualified them for licensure in acupuncture in the US. These students also demonstrated a high level of recognition for the importance of research and EIP both before and after the course. Training faculty clinical supervisors and providing greater access to evidence sources in the College clinic did not appear to increase EIP instructional activity.

Spinal manipulative therapy and exercise for older adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common disabling condition in older adults which often limits physical function and diminishes quality of life. Two clinical trials in older adults have shown spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) results in similar or small improvements relative to medical care; however, the effectiveness of adding SMT or rehabilitative exercise to home exercise is unclear. Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial assessing the comparative effectiveness of adding SMT or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise in adults 65 or older with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Treatments were provided over 12-weeks and self-report outcomes were collected at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity. Secondary outcomes included back disability, health status, medication use, satisfaction with care, and global improvement. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. The primary analysis included longitudinal outcomes in the short (week 4-12) and long-term (week 4-52). An omnibus test assessing differences across all groups over the year was used to control for multiplicity. Secondary analyses included outcomes at each time point and responder analyses. This study was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. Results: 241 participants were randomized and 230 (95%) provided complete primary outcome data. The primary analysis showed group differences in pain over the one-year were small and not statistically significant. Pain severity was reduced by 30 to 40% after treatment in all 3 groups with the largest difference (eight percentage points) favoring SMT and home exercise over home exercise alone. Group differences at other time points ranged from 0 to 6 percentage points with no consistent pattern favoring one treatment. One-year post-treatment pain reductions diminished in all three groups. Secondary self-report outcomes followed a similar pattern with no important group differences, except satisfaction with care, where the two combination groups were consistently superior to home exercise alone. Conclusions: Adding spinal manipulation or supervised rehabilitative exercise to home exercise alone does not appear to improve pain or disability in the short- or long-term for older adults with chronic low back pain, but did enhance satisfaction with care. Trial registration: NCT00269321.

Outcomes of a Gratitude Practice in an Online Community of Caring.

OBJECTIVES: CaringBridge (CB) is a web-based social network where people share information, enlist support, and access resources following a difficult diagnosis; it can also be used to disseminate supportive self-care tools, such as a gratitude practice, for its users. Gratitude practices are shown to reduce stress and fear, improve sleep, and increase positive emotions and overall well-being. The purpose of this article was to report the findings of a brief gratitude intervention delivered to CB users. Design, setting/location, subjects: This is a nonrandomized, prospective, pre- and post-evaluation study in an online community. Inclusion criteria were adults 18 years or older, English literate, willingness to participate in a mind-body practice, and active users of CB: patient, caregiver, or visitor to a site. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were engaged in a daily, 21-day brief gratitude practice and were given weekly automated reminders to do their practice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included perceived stress, gratitude, social connectedness, and social assurance scales. Paired t tests were used to assess changes in outcomes; multivariate regression models were used to assess the relationship between the frequency of gratitude practice and change in outcomes. RESULTS: Follow-up data were collected from 882/1598 participants, and nearly 70% self-reported engaging in the gratitude practice five or more days/week. Participants reported statistically significant improvement in all outcomes with small standardized effect sizes for gratitude (0.39), social connectedness (0.24), and social assurance (0.10). Changes in perceived stress (-0.73) were larger in magnitude and increased with more frequent practice. CONCLUSIONS: Among this online community, there was a high level of engagement with a brief gratitude practice, and improvements in stress, gratitude, and social support were observed. This design did not control for changes in outcomes that may be due to time trends, placebo or contextual effects, regression to the mean, or selection bias.

Short- or Long-Term Treatment of Spinal Disability in Older Adults With Manipulation and Exercise.

OBJECTIVE: Back and neck pain are associated with disability and loss of independence in older adults. Whether long-term management using commonly recommended treatments is superior to shorter-term treatment is unknown. This randomized clinical trial compared short-term treatment (12 weeks) versus long-term management (36 weeks) of back- and neck-related disability in older adults using spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with supervised rehabilitative exercises (SRE). METHODS: Eligible participants were ages ≥65 years with back and neck disability for ≥12 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores after 36 weeks. An intent-to-treat approach used linear mixed-model analysis to detect between-group differences. Secondary analyses included other self-reported outcomes, adverse events, and objective functional measures. RESULTS: A total of 182 participants were randomized. The short-term and long-term groups demonstrated significant improvements in back disability (ODI score -3.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -5.8, -2.0] versus ODI score -6.3 [95% CI -8.2, -4.4]) and neck disability (NDI score -7.3 [95% CI -9.1, -5.5] versus NDI score -9.0 [95% CI -10.8, -7.2]) after 36 weeks, with no difference between groups (back ODI score 2.4 [95% CI -0.3, 5.1]; neck NDI score 1.7 [95% CI 0.8, 4.2]). The long-term management group experienced greater improvement in neck pain at week 36, in self-efficacy at weeks 36 and 52, and in functional ability, and balance. CONCLUSION: For older adults with chronic back and neck disability, extending management with SMT and SRE from 12 to 36 weeks did not result in any additional important reduction in disability.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach: a study protocol.

Background: Spinal pain is a common and disabling condition with considerable socioeconomic burden. Spine pain management in the United States has gathered increased scrutiny amidst concerns of overutilization of costly and potentially harmful interventions and diagnostic tests. Conservative interventions such as spinal manipulation, exercise and self-management may provide value for the care of spinal pain, but little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the U.S. Our primary objective for this project is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain using an individual patient data meta-analysis approach. Methods/design: We will estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management using cost and clinical outcome data collected in eight randomized clinical trials performed in the U.S. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from both societal and healthcare perspectives using QALYs, pain intensity, and disability as effectiveness measures. The eight randomized clinical trials used similar methods and included different combinations of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, or self-management for spinal pain. They also collected similar clinical outcome, healthcare utilization, and work productivity data. A two-stage approach to individual patient data meta-analysis will be conducted. Discussion: This project capitalizes on a unique opportunity to combine clinical and economic data collected in a several clinical trials that used similar methods. The findings will provide important information on the value of spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, and self-management for spinal pain management in the U.S.

Spinal manipulation and exercise for low back pain in adolescents: a randomized trial.

Low back pain (LBP) is common in adolescence, but there is a paucity of high-quality research to inform care. We conducted a multicenter randomized trial comparing 12 weeks of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with exercise therapy (ET) to ET alone. Participants were 185 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years with chronic LBP. The primary outcome was LBP severity at 12, 26, and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included disability, quality of life, medication use, patient- and caregiver-rated improvement, and satisfaction. Outcomes were analyzed using longitudinal linear mixed effect models. An omnibus test assessing differences in individual outcomes over the entire year controlled for multiplicity. Of the 185 enrolled patients, 179 (97%) provided data at 12 weeks and 174 (94%) at 26 and 52 weeks. Adding SMT to ET resulted in a larger reduction in LBP severity over the course of 1 year (P = 0.007). The group difference in LBP severity (0-10 scale) was small at the end of treatment (mean difference = 0.5; P = 0.08) but was larger at weeks 26 (mean difference = 1.1; P = 0.001) and 52 (mean difference = 0.8; P = 0.009). At 26 weeks, SMT with ET performed better than ET alone for disability (P = 0.04) and improvement (P = 0.02). The SMT with ET group reported significantly greater satisfaction with care at all time points (P ≤ 0.02). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. For adolescents with chronic LBP, spinal manipulation combined with exercise was more effective than exercise alone over a 1-year period, with the largest differences occurring at 6 months. These findings warrant replication and evaluation of cost effectiveness.

Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of cervicogenic headache: a dual-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The optimal number of visits for the care of cervicogenic headache (CGH) with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is unknown. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify the dose-response relationship between visits for SMT and chronic CGH outcomes and to evaluate the efficacy of SMT by comparison with a light-massage control. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a two-site, open-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Participants were 256 adults with chronic CGH. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days with CGH in the previous 4 weeks evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included CGH days at remaining end points, pain intensity, disability, perceived improvement, medication use, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Participants were randomized to four dose levels of chiropractic SMT: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions. They were treated three times per week for 6 weeks and received a focused light-massage control at sessions when SMT was not assigned. Linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. The present study was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006330) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01530321). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: A linear dose-response was observed for all follow-ups, a reduction of approximately 1 CGH day/4 weeks per additional 6 SMT visits (p<.05); a maximal effective dose could not be determined. Cervicogenic headache days/4 weeks were reduced from about 16 to 8 for the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits. Mean differences in CGH days/4 weeks between 18 SMT visits and control were -3.3 (p=.004) and -2.9 (p=.017) at the primary end points, and were similar in magnitude at the remaining end points (p<.05). Differences between other SMT doses and control were smaller in magnitude (p>.05). Cervicogenic headache intensity showed no important improvement nor differed by dose. Other secondary outcomes were generally supportive of the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There was a linear dose-response relationship between SMT visits and days with CGH. For the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits, CGH days were reduced by half and about 3 more days per month than for the light-massage control.

Accelerometer-Determined Physical Activity and Clinical Low Back Pain Measures in Adolescents With Chronic or Subacute Recurrent Low Back Pain.

Study Design Cross-sectional. Background Although low back pain (LBP) occurs commonly in adolescence, little is known about the relationship between objectively measured physical activity and chronic LBP. Objectives To assess the relationship between an objective physical activity measure (accelerometer) and standard clinical measures (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life) in a sample of adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. Methods The study included a subsample of 143 adolescents, 12 to 18 years of age, from a randomized clinical trial. Pearson correlations (r) and bivariate linear regression were used to assess the relationship between baseline measures of sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity using accelerometers and clinical measures of LBP (pain intensity, disability, and quality of life). Results Participants spent an average of 610.5 minutes in sedentary activity, 97.6 minutes in light physical activity, and 35.6 minutes in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Physical activity was very weakly associated with clinical measures of LBP (r<0.13). None of the assessed correlations were statistically significant, and bivariate regression models showed that physical activity measures explained very little of the variability for clinical measures of LBP (R2<0.02). Conclusion We found no important relationship between objectively measured physical activity and self-reported LBP intensity, disability, or quality of life in adolescents with recurrent or chronic LBP. The parent randomized clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01096628). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(10):769-774. Epub 12 Sep 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7345.

Dose-response of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is a prevalent and costly pain condition commonly treated by chiropractors. There is evidence to support the effectiveness for spinal manipulation, but the dose of treatment required to achieve maximal relief remains unknown. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methodology for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the dose-response of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache in an adult population. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed-methods, two-site, prospective, parallel groups, observer-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at university-affiliated research clinics in the Portland, OR and Minneapolis, MN areas. The primary outcome is patient reported headache frequency. Other outcomes include self-reported headache intensity, disability, quality of life, improvement, neck pain intensity and frequency, satisfaction, medication use, outside care, cervical motion, pain pressure thresholds, health care utilization, health care costs, and lost productivity. Qualitative interviews are also conducted to evaluate patients' expectations of treatment. DISCUSSION: With growing concerns regarding the costs and side effects of commonly used conventional treatments, greater numbers of headache sufferers are seeking other approaches to care. This is the first full-scale randomized controlled trial assessing the dose-response of spinal manipulation therapy on outcomes for cervicogenic headache. The results of this study will provide important evidence for the management of cervicogenic headache in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01530321).

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy, supervised exercise, and home exercise for older adults with chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic neck pain is a prevalent and disabling condition among older adults. Despite the large burden of neck pain, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of home exercise and advice (HEA), spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus HEA, and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) plus HEA. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 241 older adults (≥65 years) with chronic mechanical neck pain comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were direct and indirect costs, neck pain, neck disability, SF-6D-derived quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 1-year time horizon. METHODS: This work was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (#F32AT007507), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (#P60AR062799), and Health Resources and Services Administration (#R18HP01425). The RCT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00269308). A societal perspective was adopted for the primary analysis. A healthcare perspective was adopted as a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectivenesswas a secondary aim of the RCT which was not powered for differences in costs or QALYs. Differences in costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Total costs for SMT+HEA were 5% lower than HEA (mean difference: -$111; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$1,354 to $899) and 47% lower than SRE+HEA (mean difference: -$1,932; 95% CI -$2,796 to -$1,097). SMT+HEA also resulted in a greater reduction of neck pain over the year relative to HEA (0.57; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92) and SRE+HEA (0.41; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Differences in disability and QALYs favored SMT+HEA. The probability that adding SMT to HEA is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY gained ranges from 0.75 to 0.81. If adopting a health-care perspective, costs for SMT+HEA were 66% higher than HEA (mean difference: $515; 95% CI $225 to $1,094), resulting in an ICER of $55,975 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: On average, SMT+HEA resulted in better clinical outcomes and lower total societal costs relative to SRE+HEA and HEA alone, with a 0.75 to 0.81 probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY.

The Association Between Use of Chiropractic Care and Costs of Care Among Older Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multiple Comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether use of chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) was associated with lower healthcare costs among multiply-comorbid Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of chronic low back pain (cLBP). METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective study of 2006 to 2012 Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements for 72326 multiply-comorbid patients aged 66 and older with cLBP episodes and 1 of 4 treatment exposures: chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) alone, CMT followed or preceded by conventional medical care, or conventional medical care alone. We used propensity score weighting to address selection bias. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, total and per-episode day Part A, Part B, and Part D Medicare reimbursements during the cLBP treatment episode were lowest for patients who used CMT alone; these patients had higher rates of healthcare use for low back pain but lower rates of back surgery in the year following the treatment episode. Expenditures were greatest for patients receiving medical care alone; order was irrelevant when both CMT and medical treatment were provided. Patients who used only CMT had the lowest annual growth rates in almost all Medicare expenditure categories. While patients who used only CMT had the lowest Part A and Part B expenditures per episode day, we found no indication of lower psychiatric or pain medication expenditures associated with CMT. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that older multiply-comorbid patients who used only CMT during their cLBP episodes had lower overall costs of care, shorter episodes, and lower cost of care per episode day than patients in the other treatment groups. Further, costs of care for the episode and per episode day were lower for patients who used a combination of CMT and conventional medical care than for patients who did not use any CMT. These findings support initial CMT use in the treatment of, and possibly broader chiropractic management of, older multiply-comorbid cLBP patients.

Complementary and integrative healthcare for patients with mechanical low back pain in a U.S. hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: Complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH) is commonly used to treat low back pain (LBP). While the use of CIH within hospitals is increasing, little is known regarding the delivery of these services within inpatient settings. We examine the patterns of CIH services among inpatients with mechanical LBP in a hospital setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective, practice-based study conducted at Abbot Northwestern hospital in Minnesota. Using electronic health record data from July 2009 to December 2012, 8095 inpatients with mechanical LBP were identified using ICD-9 codes. We classified patients by reason for hospitalization. We examined demographic and clinical characteristics by receipt of CIH services. Then, we estimated the prevalence of types of CIH delivered and clinical foci for CIH visits among inpatients with mechanical LBP. RESULTS: Most inpatients with mechanical LBP (>90%) were hospitalized for surgical procedures. Overall, 14.2% received inpatient CIH services. All demographic and clinical characteristics differed by receipt of CIH (P<0.001), except race/ethnicity. CIH recipients were in poorer health than those who did not. Most commonly delivered CIH services were massage (62.1%), relaxation techniques (42.0%) and acupuncture (25.7%). Pain (45.1%), relaxation (17.5%), and comfort (8.2%) were the top three reasons for CIH visits. CONCLUSION: There are important differences between CIH recipients and non-CIH recipients among patients with mechanical LBP within a hospital setting. The reasons documented for CIH visits included addressing physical, emotional and/or mental conditions of patients. Future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of CIH services health and wellbeing outcomes in this population.

Spinal rehabilitative exercise or manual treatment for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.