Esther L. Meerwijk, PhD, MSN , Mary Jo Larson, PhD, MPA, Eric M. Schmidt, PhD, Rachel Sayko Adams, PhD, MPH, Mark R. Bauer, MD, Grant A. Ritter, PhD, Chester Buckenmaier III, MD, and Alex H. S. Harris, PhD, MS
VA Health Services Research & Development,
Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i),
VA Palo Alto Health Care System,
Menlo Park, CA, USA.
BACKGROUND: Potential protective effects of nonpharmacological treatments (NPT) against long-term pain-related adverse outcomes have not been examined.
OBJECTIVE: To compare active duty U.S. Army service members with chronic pain who did/did not receive NPT in the Military Health System (MHS) and describe the association between receiving NPT and adverse outcomes after transitioning to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A longitudinal cohort study of active duty Army service members whose MHS healthcare records indicated presence of chronic pain after an index deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan in the years 2008-2014 (N = 142,539). Propensity score-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazard models tested for differences in adverse outcomes between the NPT group and No-NPT group.
EXPOSURES: NPT received in the MHS included acupuncture/dry needling, biofeedback, chiropractic care, massage, exercise therapy, cold laser therapy, osteopathic spinal manipulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and other electrical manipulation, ultrasonography, superficial heat treatment, traction, and lumbar supports.
MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were propensity score-weighted proportional hazards for the following adverse outcomes: (a) diagnoses of alcohol and/or drug disorders; (b) poisoning with opioids, related narcotics, barbiturates, or sedatives; (c) suicide ideation; and (d) self-inflicted injuries including suicide attempts. Outcomes were determined based on ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnoses recorded in VHA healthcare records from the start of utilization until fiscal year 2018.
KEY RESULTS: The propensity score-weighted proportional hazards for the NPT group compared to the No-NPT group were 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94, P < 0.001) for alcohol and/or drug use disorders; 0.65 (95% CI 0.51-0.83, P < 0.001) for accidental poisoning with opioids, related narcotics, barbiturates, or sedatives; 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.91, P < 0.001) for suicide ideation; and 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.90, P < 0.001) for self-inflicted injuries including suicide attempts.
Kelsey L Corcoran, DC, Lori A Bastian, MD, Craig G Gunderson, MD, Catherine Steffens, Alexandria Brackett, MA, MLIS, Anthony J Lisi, DC
Kelsey L. Corcoran, DC,
Yale Center for Medical Informatics,
300 George St., Suite 501,
New Haven, CT 06511, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current evidence to determine if there is an association between chiropractic use and opioid receipt.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: The protocol for this review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018095128). The MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant articles from database inception through April 18, 2018. Controlled studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies including adults with noncancer pain were eligible for inclusion. Studies reporting opioid receipt for both subjects who used chiropractic care and nonusers were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed independently by pairs of reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed and presented as an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: In all, 874 articles were identified. After detailed selection, 26 articles were reviewed in full, and six met the inclusion criteria. Five studies focused on back pain and one on neck pain. The prevalence of chiropractic care among patients with spinal pain varied between 11.3% and 51.3%. The proportion of patients receiving an opioid prescription was lower for chiropractic users (range = 12.3–57.6%) than nonusers (range = 31.2–65.9%). In a random-effects analysis, chiropractic users had a 64% lower odds of receiving an opioid prescription than nonusers (odds ratio = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.30–0.43, P < 0.001, I2 = 92.8%).
Cee Y Yong, Jill Hamilton, Jatinder Benepal, Katie Griffiths, Zoë E Clark, Amanda Rush, Raj Sengupta, Jane Martindale, and Karl Gaffney
Department of Rheumatology,
North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust,
OBJECTIVE: Chiropractors and osteopaths are important professional partners in the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). In view of recent advances in diagnosis and treatment, we sought to understand their current knowledge and working practices.
METHODS: A Web-based survey was advertised to chiropractors and osteopaths via the Royal College of Chiropractors and the Institute of Osteopathy.
RESULTS: Of 382 completed responses [237 chiropractors (62%) and 145 osteopaths (38%)], all were familiar with AS, but only 63 and 25% were familiar with the terms axSpA and non-radiographic axSpA, respectively. Seventy-seven per cent were confident with inflammatory back pain. Respondents routinely asked about IBD (91%), psoriasis (81%), acute anterior uveitis (49%), peripheral arthritis (71%), genitourinary/gut infection (56%), enthesitis (30%) and dactylitis (20%). Eighty-seven per cent were aware of the association between axSpA and HLA-B27. Only 29% recognized that axSpA was common in women. Forty per cent recommend an X-ray (pelvic in 80%) and, if normal, 27% would recommend MRI of the sacroiliac joints and whole spine. Forty-four per cent were aware of biologic therapies. Forty-three per cent were confident with the process of onward referral to rheumatology via the general practitioner (GP). The principal perceived barrier to onward referral was reluctance by the GP to accept their professional opinion.
Andreas Eklund ,Irene Jensen,Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde,Alice Kongsted,Mattias Jonsson, Peter Lövgren,Jakob Petersen-Klingberg,Christian Calvert,Iben Axén
Institute of Environmental Medicine,
Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health,
A recent single blinded placebo controlled study, conducted by the Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, conclusively demonstrates that maintenance care provides significant benefits for those with chronic low back pain.
BACKGROUND: Chiropractic maintenance care is effective as secondary/tertiary prevention of non-specific low back pain (LBP), but the potential effect moderation by psychological characteristics is unknown. The objective was to investigate whether patients in specific psychological sub-groups had different responses to MC with regard to the total number of days with bothersome pain and the number of treatments.
METHOD: Data from a two-arm randomized pragmatic multicenter trial with a 12–month follow up, designed to investigate the effectiveness of maintenance care, was used. Consecutive patients, 18–65 years of age, with recurrent and persistent LBP seeking chiropractic care with a good effect of the initial treatment were included. Eligible subjects were randomized to either maintenance care (prescheduled care) or to the control intervention, symptom-guided care. The primary outcome of the trial was the total number of days with bothersome LBP collected weekly for 12 months using an automated SMS system. Data used to classify patients according to psychological subgroups defined by the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (adaptive copers, interpersonally distressed and dysfunctional) were collected at the screening visit.
RESULTS: A total of 252 subjects were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations linear regression framework. Patients in the dysfunctional subgroup who received maintenance care reported fewer days with pain (–30.0; 95% CI: –36.6, –23.4) and equal number of treatments compared to the control intervention. In the adaptive coper subgroup, patients who received maintenance care reported more days with pain (10.7; 95% CI: 4.0, 17.5) and more treatments (3.9; 95% CI: 3.5, 4.2). Patients in the interpersonally distressed subgroup reported equal number of days with pain (–0.3; 95% CI: –8.7, 8.1) and more treatments (1.5; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.1) on maintenance care.