Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Improving adherence to guidelines for spine pain care: what tools could support primary care clinicians in conforming to guidelines?

BACKGROUND: Spine pain is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care and is often treated with ineffective, aggressive interventions, such as prescription pain medications, imagery and referrals to surgery. Aggressive treatments are associated with negative side effects and high costs while conservative care has lower risks and costs and equivalent or better outcomes. Despite multiple well-publicised treatment guidelines and educational efforts recommending conservative care, primary care clinicians (PCCs) widely continue to prescribe aggressive, low-value care for spine pain. METHODS: In this qualitative study semistructured interviews were conducted with PCCs treating spine pain patients to learn what prevents clinicians from following guidelines and what tools or support could promote conservative care. Interviews were conducted by telephone, transcribed and coded for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Forty PCCs in academic and private practice were interviewed. Key reflections included that while familiar with guidelines recommending conservative treatment, they did not find guidelines useful or relevant to care decisions for individual patients. They believed that there is an insufficient body of real-world evidence supporting positive outcomes for conservative care and guidance recommendations. They indicated that spine pain patients frequently request aggressive care. These requests, combined with the PCCs' commitment to reaching shared treatment decisions with patients, formed a key reason for pursuing aggressive care. PCCs reported not being familiar with risk-screening tools for spine patients but indicated that such screens might increase their confidence to recommend conservative care to low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: PCCs may be more willing to give conservative, guideline-consistent care for spine pain if they had tools to assist in making patient-specific evaluations and in countering requests for unneeded aggressive care. Such tools would include both patient risk screens and shared decision-making aids that include elements for resolving patient demands for inappropriate care.

Design of the Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure Trial (SPINE CARE) study: Methods and lessons from a multi-site pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain (together, spine pain) are among the leading causes of medical visits, lost productivity, and disability. For most people, episodes of spine pain are self-limited; nevertheless, healthcare spending for this condition is extremely high. Focusing care on individuals at high-risk of progressing from acute to chronic pain may improve efficiency. Alternatively, postural therapies, which are frequently used by patients, may prevent the overuse of high-cost interventions while delivering equivalent outcomes. METHODS: The SPINE CARE (Spine Pain Intervention to Enhance Care Quality And Reduce Expenditure) trial is a cluster-randomized multi-center pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and healthcare utilization of two interventions for primary care patients with acute and subacute spine pain. The study was conducted at 33 primary care clinics in geographically distinct regions of the United States. Individuals ≥18 years presenting to primary care with neck and/or back pain of ≤3 months' duration were randomized at the clinic-level to 1) usual care, 2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary approach called the Identify, Coordinate, and Enhance (ICE) care model, or 3) Individualized Postural Therapy (IPT), a standardized postural therapy method of care. The trial's two primary outcomes are change in function at 3 months and spine-related spending at one year. 2971 individuals were enrolled between June 2017 and March 2020. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. DISCUSSION: The SPINE CARE trial will determine the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of two interventions for patients with spine pain presenting to primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03083886.

Appropriate use criteria for lumbar puncture and cerebrospinal fluid testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: The Alzheimer's Association convened a multidisciplinary workgroup to develop appropriate use criteria to guide the safe and optimal use of the lumbar puncture procedure and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing for Alzheimer's disease pathology detection in the diagnostic process. METHODS: The workgroup, experienced in the ethical use of lumbar puncture and CSF analysis, developed key research questions to guide the systematic review of the evidence and developed clinical indications commonly encountered in clinical practice based on key patient groups in whom the use of lumbar puncture and CSF may be considered as part of the diagnostic process. Based on their expertise and interpretation of the evidence from systematic review, members rated each indication as appropriate or inappropriate. RESULTS: The workgroup finalized 14 indications, rating 6 appropriate and 8 inappropriate. DISCUSSION: In anticipation of the emergence of more reliable CSF analysis platforms, the manuscript offers important guidance to health-care practitioners and suggestions for implementation and future research.

The combination of collaborative drug therapy management and E-prescribing.

Many discussions regarding electronic prescribing (E-prescribing) continue to focus on "who" should be responsible for building the communication platform: retail pharmacy or managed care. National pharmacy practice experts were interviewed to discuss a broader question: Given the potential for E-prescribing to reduce medication errors and improve communication between pharmacists and physicians, and given the increasing trend toward formal arrangements between pharmacists and physicians to establish collaborative drug therapy management (CDTM) practice settings, what are the implications for the practice of pharmacy? Specifically, how can technology for E-prescribing assist in the expansion of CDTM opportunities for the pharmacy profession?

Functional status and somatization as predictors of medical offset in anxious and depressed patients.

OBJECTIVE: Certain anxious/depressed primary care patients decrease medical utilization after mental health treatment. Previous research has established demo-graphic and medical comorbidities as distinguishing these patients. We asked whether characteristics such as symptom severity, somatization, or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could also distinguish patients who reduce or increase primary care utilization after mental health care. METHODS: Primary care patients in a mixed-model HMO were screened for untreated anxiety with and without depression, using the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) and medical records abstractions, and also for HRQoL (SF-36). We identified 165 symptomatic patients who subsequently received mental health treatment and then defined two subgroups: 1) offset patients (reduced medical utilization the year after initiation of mental health treatment) (N=97); and 2) no-offset patients (increased utilization) (N =68). RESULTS: Three HRQoL domains (general health perceptions, physical functioning, and role functioning- physical) predicted increased offset savings in the year after initiation of mental health treatment. Each point of improved functioning in these domains was associated with 4 dollars to 10 dollars of additional offset savings. Somatization-related comorbidities were predictive of greater additional costs (230 dollars). CONCLUSION: Using models to predict individual patient costs, we found that HRQoL and somatic comorbidities did not predict by anxiety/depression symptom severity or medical comorbidities, but by increasing or decreasing utilization after mental health care. Patients with higher functioning levels and no somatic comorbidities were most likely to reduce utilization. These findings support growing evidence for the need of inclusion of reliable indicators of somatization and patients' functioning in offset research and inpatient care.

A second and more promising round of E-health enterprises.

After several years of false starts and failed enterprises, E-medicine is starting to generate practical applications in health care. The new generation of E-businesses is benefiting from the dot-com bust, which has driven away expectations of high financial returns from enterprises based on overblown, ill-fitting models taken from non-health care industries. The more successful new models are adapted to hospital operations and practice patterns, and are backed by money and management indigenous to medicine. However, they are also fragmented, in thus far unconnected pieces of E-network services for discrete clinical activities, such as scripting, lab-testing, patient monitoring, and condition-specific diagnostics and treatment. The new question about E-medicine practice may be not "When will it happen?" but "when will the fragmented E-health systems be connected?"