Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

Comparative effectiveness of bariatric procedures among adolescents: the PCORnet bariatric study.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery has been used for treatment of severe obesity in adolescents but most studies have been small and limited in follow-up. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that electronic health record data could be used to compare effectiveness of bariatric procedures in adolescents. SETTING: Data were obtained from clinical research networks using a common data model to extract data from each site. METHODS: Adolescents who underwent a primary bariatric procedure from 2005 through 2015 were identified. The percent change in body mass index (BMI) at 1, 3, and 5 years was estimated using random effects linear regression for patients undergoing all operations. Propensity score adjusted estimates and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for procedures with >25 patients at each time period. RESULTS: This cohort of 544 adolescents was predominantly female (79%) and White (66%), with mean (±standard deviation) age of 17.3 (±1.6) years and mean BMI of 49.8 (± 7.8) kg/m2. Procedures included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB; n = 177), sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n = 306), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (n = 61). For those undergoing RYGB, SG, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, mean (95% confidence interval) BMI changes of -31% (-30% to -33%), -28% (-27% to -29%), and -10% (-8% to -12%), were estimated at 1 year. For RYGB and SG, BMI changes of -29% (-26% to -33%) and -25% (-22% to -28%) were estimated at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents undergoing SG and RYGB experienced greater declines in BMI at 1- and 3-year follow-up time points, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding was significantly less effective for BMI reduction.

Evaluation of a risk-stratification strategy to improve primary care for low back pain: the MATCH cluster randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous options for treating back pain and the increasing healthcare resources devoted to this problem, the prevalence and impact of back pain-related disability has not improved. It is now recognized that psychosocial factors, as well as physical factors, are important predictors of poor outcomes for back pain. A promising new approach that matches treatments to the physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery, the STarT Back risk stratification approach, improved patients' physical function while reducing costs of care in the United Kingdom (UK). This trial evaluates implementation of this strategy in a United States (US) healthcare setting. METHODS: Six large primary care clinics in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State were block-randomized, three to receive an intensive quality improvement intervention for back pain and three to serve as controls for secular trends. The intervention included 6 one-hour training sessions for physicians, 5 days of training for physical therapists, individualized and group coaching of clinicians, and integration of the STarT Back tool into the electronic health record. This prognostic tool uses 9 questions to categorize patients at low, medium or high risk of persistent disabling pain with recommendations about evidence-based treatment options appropriate for each subgroup. Patients at least 18 years of age, receiving primary care for non-specific low back pain, were invited to provide data 1-3 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 months and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. The primary outcomes are back-related physical function and pain severity. Using an intention to treat approach, intervention effects on patient outcomes will be estimated by comparing mean changes at the 2 and 6 month follow-up between the pre- and post-implementation periods. The inclusion of control clinics permits adjustment for secular trends. Differences in change scores by intervention group and time period will be estimated using linear mixed models with random effects. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization and adherence to clinical guidelines. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the first randomized trial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of implementing risk stratification with matched treatment options for low back pain in a United States health care delivery system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02286141. Registered November 5, 2014.