Zoya Bauer

Association of Early Imaging for Back Pain With Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults

IMPORTANCE In contrast to the recommendations for younger adults, many guidelines allow for older adults with back pain to undergo imaging without waiting 4 to 6 weeks. However, early imaging may precipitate interventions that do not improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE To compare function and pain at the 12-month follow-up visit among older adults who received early imaging with those who did not receive early imaging after a new primary care visit for back pain without radiculopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective cohort of 5239 patients 65 years or older with a new primary care visit for back pain (2011-2013) in 3 US health care systems. We matched controls 1:1 using propensity score matching of demographic and clinical characteristics, including diagnosis, pain severity, pain duration, functional status, and prior resource use. EXPOSURES Diagnostic imaging (plain films, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of the lumbar or thoracic spine within 6 weeks of the index visit. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES PRIMARY OUTCOME back or leg pain-related disability measured by the modified Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (score range, 0-24; higher scores indicate greater disability) 12 months after enrollment. RESULTS Among the 5239 patients, 1174 had early radiographs and 349 had early MRI/CT. At 12 months, neither the early radiograph group nor the early MRI/CT group differed significantly from controls on the disability questionnaire. The mean score for patients who underwent early radiography was 8.54 vs 8.74 among the control group (difference, -0.10 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.50]; mixed model, P = .36). The mean score for the early MRI/CT group was 9.81 vs 10.50 for the control group (difference,-0.51 [-1.62 to 0.60]; mixed model, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among older adults with a new primary care visit for back pain, early imaging was not associated with better 1-year outcomes. The value of early diagnostic imaging in older adults for back pain without radiculopathy is uncertain.

Study protocol: The back pain outcomes using longitudinal data (BOLD) registry

BackgroundBack pain is one of the most important causes of functional limitation, disability, and utilization of health care resources for adults of all ages, but especially among older adults. Despite the high prevalence of back pain in this population, important questions remain unanswered regarding the comparative effectiveness of commonly used diagnostic tests and treatments in the elderly. The overall goal of the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) project is to establish a rich, sustainable registry to describe the natural history and evaluate prospectively the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for patients 65 and older with back pain.Methods/designBOLD is enrolling 5,000 patients ≥ 65 years old who present to a primary care physician with a new episode of back pain. We are recruiting study participants from three integrated health systems (Kaiser-Permanente Northern California, Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates/ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in Boston). Registry patients complete validated, standardized measures of pain, back pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life at enrollment and 3, 6 and 12 months later. We also have available for analysis the clinical and administrative data in the participating health systems’ electronic medical records. Using registry data, we will conduct an observational cohort study of early imaging compared to no early imaging among patients with new episodes of back pain. The aims are to: 1) identify predictors of early imaging and; 2) compare pain, functional outcomes, diagnostic testing and treatment utilization of patients who receive early imaging versus patients who do not receive early imaging. In terms of predictors, we will examine patient factors as well as physician factors.DiscussionBy establishing the BOLD registry, we are creating a resource that contains patient-reported outcome measures as well as electronic medical record data for elderly patients with back pain. The richness of our data will allow better matching for comparative effectiveness studies than is currently possible with existing datasets. BOLD will enrich the existing knowledge base regarding back pain in the elderly to help clinicians and patients make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding their care.

Study Protocol- Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis (LESS): a double-blind randomized controlled trial of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis among older adults

BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsWe will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection.DiscussionThis study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536

Challenges conducting comparative effectiveness research: the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (CHOICE) experience

Janna L Friedly, University of Washington Zoya Bauer, University of Washington Bryan A Comstock, University of Washington Emily DiMango, Columbia University Medical Center Assiamira Ferrara, Kaiser Foundation Research Institute Susan S Huang, University of California Irvine School of Medicine Elliot Israel, Harvard Medical School Jeffrey G Jarvik, University of Washington Andrew A Nierenberg, Massachusetts General Hospital Michael K Ong, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Prioritizing research topics: a comparison of crowdsourcing and patient registry

PurposeA cornerstone of patient-centered outcome research is direct patient involvement throughout the research process. Identifying and prioritizing research topics is a critical but often overlooked point for involvement, as it guides what research questions are asked. We assess the feasibility of involving individuals with low back pain in identifying and prioritizing research topics using two approaches: an existing patient registry and an online crowdsourcing platform. We compare and contrast the diversity of participants recruited, their responses, and resources involved.MethodsEligible participants completed a survey ranking their five highest priority topics from an existing list and supplying additional topics not previously identified. We analyzed their responses using descriptive statistics and content analysis.ResultsThe patient registry yielded older (mean age 72.4), mostly White (70%), and well-educated (95% high school diploma or higher) participants; crowdsourcing yielded younger (mean age 36.6 years), mostly White (82%), and well-educated (98% high school diploma or higher) participants. The two approaches resulted in similar research priorities by frequency. Both provided open-ended responses that were useful, in that they illuminate additional and nuanced research topics. Overall, both approaches suggest a preference towards topics related to diagnosis and treatment over other topics.ConclusionUsing a patient registry and crowdsourcing are both feasible recruitment approaches for engagement. Researchers should consider their approach, community, and resources when choosing their recruitment approach, as each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. These approaches are likely most appropriate to supplement or to complement in-person and ongoing engagement strategies.

Effect of Comorbid Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis on Longitudinal Clinical and Health Care Use Outcomes in Older Adults With New Visits for Back Pain

OBJECTIVE To examine if a comorbid diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in older adults with new back pain visits is associated with long-term patient-reported outcomes and back-related health care use. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING Three integrated health systems forming the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data cohort. PARTICIPANTS Participants (N=5155) were older adults (≥65y) with a new visit for back pain and a complete electronic health record data. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable; we obtained OA diagnoses using diagnostic codes in the electronic health record 12 months prior to the new back pain visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were key patient-reported outcomes. Health care use, measured by relative-value units (RVUs), was summed for the 12 months after the initial visit. We used linear mixed-effects models to model patient-reported outcomes. We also used generalized linear models to test the association between comorbid knee or hip OA and total back-related RVUs. RESULTS Of the 5155 participants, 368 (7.1%) had a comorbid knee OA diagnosis, and 94 (1.8%) had a hip OA diagnosis. Of the participants, 4711 (91.4%) had neither knee nor hip OA. In adjusted models, the 12-month RDQ score was 1.23 points higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.74) for patients with knee OA and 1.26 points higher (95% CI, 0.24-2.27) for those with hip OA than those without knee or hip OA, respectively. A lower EQ-5D score was found among participants with knee OA (.02 lower; 95% CI, -.04 to -.01) and hip OA diagnoses (.03 lower; 95% CI, -.05 to -.01) compared with those without knee or hip OA, respectively. Comorbid knee or hip OA was not significantly associated with total 12-month back-related resource use. CONCLUSIONS Comorbid knee or hip OA in older adults with a new back pain visit was associated with modestly worse long-term disability and health-related quality of life.

Short-term improvements in disability mediate patient satisfaction after epidural corticosteroid injections for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Study Design. Secondary analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Objective. To identify mediators of the effect of lumbar epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine on patient satisfaction at 6 weeks postinjection in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. We hypothesized that short-term (⩽3 wk) change in leg pain would be a significant mediator of satisfaction. Summary of Background Data. No prior studies have identified mediators of effects of epidural injections on patient satisfaction with treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods. We used mediation analysis methods to examine selected intermediate variables (adverse events and change in leg pain, back pain, disability, depression, and fatigue at 3 wk) as potential mediators of the effect of lumbar epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine on patient satisfaction with treatment. We used the overall satisfaction item from the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire as our primary outcome to measure patient satisfaction with the injection procedure at 6 weeks. Results. Among 400 patients randomized to receive epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or with lidocaine alone, 369 had complete data for the satisfaction outcome and potential mediators and served as the analysis sample. Contrary to our expectations, 3-week change in leg pain intensity did not have significant mediation effects on patient satisfaction. Three-week change in disability as measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was a significant mediator of the effects of lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections on patient satisfaction at 6 weeks, explaining 48% to 60% of the treatment effect on satisfaction. Changes in pain intensity in the leg and back together explained very little of the treatment effect on satisfaction beyond the information contributed by disability change alone. We did not find other intermediate variables to be mediators of patient satisfaction. Conclusion. These findings support the current approach of examining disability as a primary patient-reported outcome in comparative effectiveness studies of lumbar spinal stenosis. Level of Evidence: 2

Long-term outcomes of a large, prospective observational cohort of older adults with back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Although back pain is common among older adults, there is relatively little research on the course of back pain in this age group. PURPOSE Our primary goals were to report 2-year outcomes of older adults initiating primary care for back pain and to examine the relative importance of patient factors versus medical interventions in predicting 2-year disability and pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This study used a predictive model using data from a prospective, observational cohort from a primary care setting. PATIENT SAMPLE The study included patients aged ≥65 years at the time of new primary care visits for back pain. OUTCOME MEASURES Self-reported 2-year disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and back pain (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS]). METHODS We developed our models using a machine learning least absolute shrinkage and selection operator approach. We evaluated the predictive value of baseline characteristics and the incremental value of interventions that occurred between 0 and 90 days, and the change in patient disability and pain from 0 to 90 days. Limitations included confounding by indication and unmeasured confounding. RESULTS Of 4,665 patients (89%) with follow-up, both RDQ (from mean 9.6 [95% confidence interval {CI} 9.4-9.7] to mean 8.3 [95% CI 8.0-8.5]) and back pain NRS (from mean 5.0 [95% CI 4.9-5.1] to mean 3.5 [95% CI 3.4-3.6]) scores improved slightly. Only 16% (15%-18%) reported no back pain-related disability or back pain at 2 years after initial visits. Regression model parameters explained 40% of the variation (R2) in 2-year RDQ scores, and the addition of 0- to 3-month change in RDQ score and pain improved prediction (R2=51%). The most consistent predictors of 2-year RDQ scores and back pain NRS scores were 0- to 90-day change in each respective outcome and patient confidence in improvement. Patients experienced 50% and 43% improvement in back pain and disability, respectively, 2 years after their initial visit. However, fewer than 20% of patients had complete resolution of their back pain and disability at that time. CONCLUSIONS Baseline patient factors were more important than early interventions in explaining disability and pain after 2 years.

Systemic effects of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis.

Abstract This analysis of the lumbar epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis multicenter randomized controlled trial data identifies the degree of and risk factors for cortisol suppression after epidural steroid injections in older adults with spinal stenosis. Four hundred patients aged 50 years and older with back or leg pain and central lumbar spinal stenosis completed baseline demographic and psychosocial measures. Morning serum cortisol levels were measured at baseline and 3 weeks after initial injection. Patients were randomized to receive epidural injections of either local anesthetic with corticosteroid (n = 200) or local anesthetic only (n = 200). The specific corticosteroid was chosen at the treating physicians discretion (methylprednisolone, betamethasone, triamcinolone, or dexamethasone). Thirty-two patients (20.3%) treated with corticosteroid experienced cortisol reduction at 3 weeks of >50% compared with 10 patients (6.7%) treated with lidocaine only (adjusted treatment effect = 3.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.6-7.9, P = 0.002). The effect on 3-week cortisol changes did not differ by demographic or patient-level characteristics. Those treated with methylprednisolone or triamcinolone had an average 3-week cortisol reduction of 41.0% (P = 0.005) and 41.6% (P < 0.001) from baseline, respectively, whereas patients treated with betamethasone or dexamethasone were not significantly different than comparable patients in the lidocaine arm. The higher rates of cortisol suppression at 3 weeks in those receiving epidural corticosteroid injections, particularly with longer-acting insoluble corticosteroid formulations, are consistent with sustained systemic absorption of corticosteroid.

Associations of Early Opioid Use with Patient-Reported Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization Among Older Adults with Low Back Pain

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and health care utilization of older patients who did versus did not fill opioid prescriptions within 90 days of initiating care for low back pain. Materials and Methods: For patients ≥65 years with new back pain visits, we used propensity scores to match those who filled no opioid prescriptions to those who filled ≥2 opioid prescriptions within 90 days (and the first opioid prescription within 30 d) of the index visit. Over 24 months, we examined patient-reported outcomes, health care utilization, and subsequent opioid prescription fills. Results: Among 1954 patients eligible for matching, 238 (12%) filled ≥2 opioid prescriptions within 90 days; 200 of these were matched to controls. Patients with versus without early opioid prescriptions had similar patient-reported outcomes but were more likely to have filled ≥1 opioid prescription 18 to 24 months after the index visit (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]=2.4 [1.5-3.9]) and to have had ≥1 visit to the emergency department in the subsequent 24 months (OR, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.5). Discussion: Among older patients with new back pain visits, filling ≥2 opioid prescriptions within 90 days of the visit was associated with similar back pain-related outcomes but increased likelihood of filling opioid prescriptions 18 to 24 months later compared with matched patients who did not fill early opioid prescriptions.