National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health of the National Institutes of Health.

Key Points Question Is the transition from acute to chronic low back pain (LBP) associated with risk strata, defined by a standardized prognostic tool, and/or with early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care? Findings In this cohort study of 5233 patients with acute LBP from 77 primary care practices, nearly half the patients were exposed to at least 1 guideline nonconcordant recommendation within the first 21 days after the index visit. Patients were significantly more likely to transition to chronic LBP as their risk on the prognostic tool increased and as they were exposed to more nonconcordant recommendations. Meaning In this study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial and increased correspondingly with risk strata and early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care.

The treatment-based classification (TBC) system for the treatment of patients with low back pain (LBP) has been in use by clinicians since 1995. This perspective article describes how the TBC was updated by maintaining its strengths, addressing its limitations, and incorporating recent research developments. The current update of the TBC has 2 levels of triage: (1) the level of the first-contact health care provider and (2) the level of the rehabilitation provider. At the level of first-contact health care provider, the purpose of the triage is to determine whether the patient is an appropriate candidate for rehabilitation, either by ruling out serious pathologies and serious comorbidities or by determining whether the patient is appropriate for self-care management. At the level of the rehabilitation provider, the purpose of the triage is to determine the most appropriate rehabilitation approach given the patient's clinical presentation. Three rehabilitation approaches are described. A symptom modulation approach is described for patients with a recent-new or recurrent-LBP episode that has caused significant symptomatic features. A movement control approach is described for patients with moderate pain and disability status. A function optimization approach is described for patients with low pain and disability status. This perspective article emphasizes that psychological and comorbid status should be assessed and addressed in each patient. This updated TBC is linked to the American Physical Therapy Association's clinical practice guidelines for low back pain.

Background: Many patients with acute low back pain (LBP) first seek care from primary care physicians. Evidence is lacking for interventions to prevent transition to chronic LBP in this setting. We aimed to test if implementation of a risk-stratified approach to care would result in lower rates of chronic LBP and improved self-reported disability. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial using 77 primary care clinics in four health care systems across the United States. Practices were randomly assigned to a stratified approach to care (intervention) or usual care (control). Using the STarTBack screening tool, adults with acute LBP were screened low, medium, and high-risk. Patients screened as high-risk were eligible. The intervention included electronic best practice alerts triggering referrals for psychologically informed physical therapy (PIPT). PIPT education was targeted to community clinics geographically close to intervention primary care clinics. Primary outcomes were transition to chronic LBP and self-reported disability at six months. Trial Registry: Clini-calTrials.gov NCT02647658 Findings: Between May 2016 and June 2018, 1207 patients from 38 intervention and 1093 from 37 control practices were followed. In the intervention arm, around 50% of patients were referred for physical therapy (36% for PIPT) compared to 30% in the control. At 6 months, 47% of patients reported transition to chronic LBP in the intervention arm (38 practices, n = 658) versus 51% of patients in the control arm (35 practices, n = 635; OR=0.83 95% CI 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.18). No differences in disability were detected (difference -2¢1, 95% CI -4.9À0.6; p = 0.12). Opioids and imaging were prescribed in 22%À25% and 23%À26% of initial visits, for intervention and control, respectively. Twelve-month LBP utilization was similar in the two groups. Interpretation: There were no differences detected in transition to chronic LBP among patients presenting with acute LBP using a stratified approach to care. Opioid and imaging prescribing rates were non-concordant with clinical guidelines.

No abstract

BackgroundChronic low back pain causes substantial morbidity and cost to society while disproportionately impacting low-income and minority adults. Several randomized controlled trials show yoga is an effective treatment. However, the comparative effectiveness of yoga and physical therapy, a common mainstream treatment for chronic low back pain, is unknown.Methods/DesignThis is a randomized controlled trial for 320 predominantly low-income minority adults with chronic low back pain, comparing yoga, physical therapy, and education. Inclusion criteria are adults 18–64 years old with non-specific low back pain lasting ≥12 weeks and a self-reported average pain intensity of ≥4 on a 0–10 scale. Recruitment takes place at Boston Medical Center, an urban academic safety-net hospital and seven federally qualified community health centers located in diverse neighborhoods. The 52-week study has an initial 12-week Treatment Phase where participants are randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio into i) a standardized weekly hatha yoga class supplemented by home practice; ii) a standardized evidence-based exercise therapy protocol adapted from the Treatment Based Classification method, individually delivered by a physical therapist and supplemented by home practice; and iii) education delivered through a self-care book. Co-primary outcome measures are 12-week pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale and back-specific function measured using the modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. In the subsequent 40-week Maintenance Phase, yoga participants are re-randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either structured maintenance yoga classes or home practice only. Physical therapy participants are similarly re-randomized to either five booster sessions or home practice only. Education participants continue to follow recommendations of educational materials. We will also assess cost effectiveness from the perspectives of the individual, insurers, and society using claims databases, electronic medical records, self-report cost data, and study records. Qualitative data from interviews will add subjective detail to complement quantitative data.Trial registrationThis trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number: NCT01343927.

Study Design Randomized-controlled trial with follow-up to 6 months. Objective This was a comparative effectiveness trial of: manual-thrust manipulation (MTM) versus mechanical-assisted manipulation (MAM); and manipulation versus usual medical care (UMC). Summary of Background Data Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care and physical medicine practice. MTM is a common treatment for LBP. Claims that MAM is an effective alternative to MTM have yet to be substantiated. There is also question about the effectiveness of manipulation in acute and sub-acute LBP, as compared to UMC. Methods 107 adults with onset of LBP within the past 12 weeks were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: MTM; MAM; or UMC. Outcome measures included the Oswestry LBP disability index (0 to 100 scale) and numeric pain rating (0 to 10 scale). Participants in the manipulation groups were treated twice weekly over 4 weeks; subjects in UMC were seen for 3 visits during this time. Outcome measures were captured at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Results Linear regression showed a statistically significant advantage of MTM at 4 weeks compared to MAM (disability = −8.1, p = .009; pain = −1.4, p = .002) and UMC (disability = −6.5, p = .032; pain = −1.7, p < .001). Responder analysis, defined as 30% and 50% reductions in Oswestry scores revealed a significantly greater proportion of responders at 4 weeks in MTM (76%; 50%) compared to MAM (50%; 16%) and UMC (48%; 39%).Similar between-group results were found for pain: MTM (94%; 76%); MAM (69%; 47%); and UMC (56%; 41%). No statistically significant group differences were found between MAM and UMC, and for any comparison at 3 or 6 months. Conclusions MTM provides greater short-term reductions in self-reported disability and pain scores compared to UMC or MAM.

Implementation is an iterative process requiring evaluation, measurement, and refinement. During this period, behavior change is actualized as clinicians become increasingly proficient and committed to their use of new evidence. Successfully incorporating evidence into routine practice requires a systems perspective to account for the complexity of the clinical setting. The value the profession provides can be enhanced by improving the implementation of evidence-based strategies. Achieving this outcome will require a concerted effort in all areas of the profession. New skills will be needed by leaders, researchers, managers, and clinicians.