Chiropractic spinal manipulation and likelihood of tramadol prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using US data.

OBJECTIVES: Patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) for low back pain (LBP) are less likely to receive any opioid prescription for subsequent pain management. However, the likelihood of specifically being prescribed tramadol, a less potent opioid, has not been explored. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSM for newly diagnosed radicular LBP would be less likely to receive a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up, compared with those receiving usual medical care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: US medical records-based dataset including >115 million patients attending academic health centres (TriNetX, Inc), queried 9 November 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-naive adults aged 18-50 with a new diagnosis of radicular LBP were included. Patients with serious pathology and tramadol use contraindications were excluded. Variables associated with tramadol prescription were controlled via propensity matching. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into two cohorts dependent on treatment received on the index date of radicular LBP diagnosis (CSM or usual medical care). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratio (RR) for tramadol prescription (primary); markers of usual medical care utilisation (secondary). RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1171 patients per cohort (mean age 35 years). Tramadol prescription was significantly lower in the CSM cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an RR (95% CI) of 0.32 (0.18 to 0.57; p<0.0001). A cumulative incidence graph demonstrated that the reduced incidence of tramadol prescription in the CSM cohort relative to the usual medical care cohort was maintained throughout 1-year follow-up. Utilisation of NSAIDs, physical therapy evaluation and lumbar imaging was similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that US adults initially receiving CSM for radicular LBP had a reduced likelihood of receiving a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up. These findings should be corroborated by a prospective study to minimise residual confounding.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and lumbar discectomy in adults with lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy: retrospective cohort study using United States' data.

OBJECTIVES: Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) and lumbar discectomy are both used for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR); however, limited research has examined the relationship between these therapies. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed LDH or LSR would have reduced odds of lumbar discectomy over 1-year and 2-year follow-up compared with those receiving other care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 101 million patient US health records network (TriNetX), queried on 24 October 2022, yielding data from 2012 query. PARTICIPANTS: Adults age 18-49 with newly diagnosed LDH/LSR (first date of diagnosis) were included. Exclusions were prior lumbar surgery, absolute indications for surgery, trauma, spondylolisthesis and scoliosis. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with the likelihood of discectomy (eg, demographics, medications). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into cohorts according to receipt of CSMT. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: ORs for lumbar discectomy; calculated by dividing odds in the CSMT cohort by odds in the cohort receiving other care. RESULTS: After matching, there were 5785 patients per cohort (mean age 36.9±8.2). The ORs (95% CI) for discectomy were significantly reduced in the CSMT cohort compared with the cohort receiving other care over 1-year (0.69 (0.52 to 0.90), p=0.006) and 2-year follow-up (0.77 (0.60 to 0.99), p=0.040). E-value sensitivity analysis estimated the strength in terms of risk ratio an unmeasured confounding variable would need to account for study results, yielding point estimates for each follow-up (1 year: 2.26; 2 years: 1.92), which no variables in the literature reached. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest receiving CSMT compared with other care for newly diagnosed LDH/LSR is associated with significantly reduced odds of discectomy over 2-year follow-up. Given socioeconomic variables were unavailable and an observational design precludes inferring causality, the efficacy of CSMT for LDH/LSR should be examined via randomised controlled trial to eliminate residual confounding.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy and benzodiazepine prescription in patients with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using real-world data from the USA.

OBJECTIVES: Although chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) and prescription benzodiazepines are common treatments for radicular low back pain (rLBP), no research has examined the relationship between these interventions. We hypothesise that utilisation of CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP is associated with reduced odds of benzodiazepine prescription through 12 months' follow-up. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: National, multicentre 73-million-patient electronic health records-based network (TriNetX) in the USA, queried on 30 July 2021, yielding data from 2003 to the date of query. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18-49 with an index diagnosis of rLBP were included. Serious aetiologies of low back pain, structural deformities, alternative neurological lesions and absolute benzodiazepine contraindications were excluded. Patients were assigned to cohorts according to CSMT receipt or absence. Propensity score matching was used to control for covariates that could influence the likelihood of benzodiazepine utilisation. OUTCOME MEASURES: The number, percentage and OR of patients receiving a benzodiazepine prescription over 3, 6 and 12 months' follow-up prematching and postmatching. RESULTS: After matching, there were 9206 patients (mean (SD) age, 37.6 (8.3) years, 54% male) per cohort. Odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription were significantly lower in the CSMT cohort over all follow-up windows prematching and postmatching (p<0.0001). After matching, the OR (95% CI) of benzodiazepine prescription at 3 months was 0.56 (0.50 to 0.64), at 6 months 0.61 (0.55 to 0.68) and 12 months 0.67 (0.62 to 0.74). Sensitivity analysis suggested a patient preference to avoid prescription medications did not explain the study findings. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP is associated with reduced odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription during follow-up. These results provide real-world evidence of practice guideline-concordance among patients entering this care pathway. Benzodiazepine prescription for rLBP should be further examined in a randomised trial including patients receiving chiropractic or usual medical care, to reduce residual confounding.

Clinical decision-making for spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain following lumbar surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited available research and guidance regarding the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in patients with low back-related symptoms following lumbar spine surgery, a condition called persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS-2). This publication outlines a review protocol to identify and synthesise individual participant data (IPD) to examine associations between patient, clinical and surgical variables and SMT application in adults with PSPS-2. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature and KoreaMed will be searched from inception to 1 January 2022 without language restrictions. Case reports, series, observational studies and cases from grey literature of adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 will be included. Two investigators will independently screen citations, abstracts and full-text articles. A risk-of-bias assessment will be performed in duplicate to rate cases according to exposure and outcome ascertainment and data completeness. Data extraction will be performed in duplicate and missing IPD will be requested from corresponding authors. Multiple binary logistic regression will be used to identify independent predictors of the use of lumbar-SMT, lumbar-manual-thrust SMT and SMT within 1-year postsurgery. Patient, clinical and surgical variables will be summarised using descriptive statistics, while SMT-related outcomes (lumbar-SMT, lumbar-manual-thrust SMT and 1-year surgery-to-SMT interval) will be described using adjusted ORs with 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was deemed not human subjects research by the University Hospitals' institutional review board. The results of this review will be disseminated at conferences and/or published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021250039.

Association between radicular low back pain and constipation: a retrospective cohort study using a real-world national database.

INTRODUCTION: Previous observational studies have reported an association between lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR), a form of low back pain (LBP) with nerve root involvement, and constipation. However, it is unclear whether this association is due to confounding variables such as comorbidities and medications. OBJECTIVES: This study explores the possible association between LSR and constipation, with the hypothesis that adults with LSR have increased odds of developing constipation compared with those with nonradicular LBP. METHODS: Adults aged 18 to 49 years with incident LSR and nonradicular LBP were identified from a national 70 million patient electronic health records network (TriNetX). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for covariates and determine the odds ratio (OR) of constipation over a 1-year follow-up. Lumbar stenosis, cauda equina syndrome, and inflammatory bowel diseases were excluded. RESULTS: After PSM, 503,062 patients were in each cohort. Before PSM, the likelihood of constipation was identical between cohorts (LSR 10.8% vs 10.9%; OR [confidence interval] = 0.99 [0.98-1.0], P = 0.251). This association was unchanged after PSM (LSR 10.8% vs 11.1%; OR [confidence interval] = 0.98 [0.97-0.99]; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The study hypothesis can be refuted given that the OR approximated the null in a large propensity-matched sample. Patients with LSR have equivalent odds of constipation compared with those with nonradicular LBP, suggesting that LSR is not a direct cause of constipation. The similar risk of constipation between cohorts could be explained by factors common to LBP in general, such as pain severity, physical inactivity, and constipating medications.