Dataset Information

A Multidisciplinary Integrative Medicine Team in the Treatment of Chronic Low-Back Pain: An Observational Comparative Effectiveness Study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is burdensome and costly, and a common condition for which adults use integrative therapies. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary integrative approaches has not been well studied. The purpose of this observational study was to compare characteristics and outcomes of CLBP patients treated at the Osher Clinical Center (OCC) versus other clinics at Brigham and Women's Hospital. DESIGN:Observational comparative effectiveness study. SETTING:Tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS:Patients ?21 years with 3+ months of CLBP or 6+ months of intermittent low-back pain. INTERVENTION:All patients were observed for 12 months. OCC patients received care at the integrative clinic (7.3 visits on average over 13 weeks); non-OCC patients received usual care at other clinics of the same hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcomes: change from baseline to 6 months in functional status (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and bothersomeness of pain (BOP). SECONDARY OUTCOMES:change in RDQ and BOP at 3 and 12 months, percentages of patients with clinically meaningful (?30%) improvements. RESULTS:One hundred fifty-six OCC and 153 non-OCC participants were enrolled; follow-up was 90.4 and 98.0%, respectively, at 12 months. There were substantial differences in baseline characteristics between groups. For RDQ, the adjusted mean group difference was nonsignificant at 6 months; for BOP, the differences were significant, but clinically small. At 12 months, the observed benefit on RDQ was significant and clinically meaningful; for BOP, there were significant, but clinically small differences. Percentages of patients with ?30% improvements in RDQ were significantly greater in the OCC group only at 12 months, and both 6 and 12 months for BOP. CONCLUSIONS:Baseline characteristics can differ between those who select different sources of healthcare for CLBP. While benefits seen in the OCC versus non-OCC clinics were not large, further evaluation through randomized trials might be warranted to provide a more definitive evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Wayne PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6103251 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Multidisciplinary Integrative Medicine Team in the Treatment of Chronic Low-Back Pain: An Observational Comparative Effectiveness Study.

Wayne Peter M PM Eisenberg David M DM Osypiuk Kamila K Gow Brian J BJ Witt Claudia M CM Davis Roger B RB Buring Julie E JE

Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) 20180521 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is burdensome and costly, and a common condition for which adults use integrative therapies. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary integrative approaches has not been well studied. The purpose of this observational study was to compare characteristics and outcomes of CLBP patients treated at the Osher Clinical Center (OCC) versus other clinics at Brigham and Women's Hospital.<h4>Design</h4>Observational comparative effectiveness study.<h4>Setting< ...[more]

PMID: 29782198

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo report the results of health economic analyses comparing two treatment approaches for chronic low back pain (CLBP).DesignObservational prospective cohort study comparing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CLBP care provided at an integrative care clinic with that provided in other clinics within the same hospital. CLBP-related medical utilization, function, quality of life, and days of work incapacity were self-reported at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months.Settings/locationOsher Clinical Center (OCC) based at a tertiary academic hospital (Brigham and Women's Hospital [BWH]) and other clinics at BWH.SubjectsCLBP patients seeking care at OCC or non-OCC BWH clinics.InterventionsIntegrative or conventional care for CLBP as prescribed by the treating clinician(s).Outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated per treatment approach based on the SF-12. Cost per QALY gained was evaluated using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ICERs based on CLBP-specific effectiveness measures (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ] and bothersomeness of pain [BOP]) were exploratory outcomes.ResultsTotal adjusted annual CLBP-related costs per patient were greater in the OCC versus non-OCC group ($11,526.73 vs. $6,810.63). Between group differences in QALYs were small and ICER estimate of cost per QALY gained was high ($436,676). However, unadjusted mean direct costs per patient decreased over time in the OCC group. Savings in direct costs of $391 (95% confidence interval: -1,078 to 1,861) were observed in the OCC group for the 6- to 12-month period, driven primarily by reduced medication usage. ICERs based on adjusted RDQ and BOP group differences showed cost of $2,073 and $4,203 for a one-point reduction per respective scale.ConclusionsWhen adjusted for baseline differences, self-reported costs were higher in the OCC group with only small effects on QALYs. However, trends toward decreased direct expenditures and medication usage over time warrant further investigation. Future studies evaluating potential benefits of integrative care models for the management of CLBP should employ randomized designs, longer observational periods, and explore multiple metrics of cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is influenced by interrelated biological, psychological, and social factors, however current back pain management is largely dominated by one-size fits all unimodal treatments. Team based models with multiple provider types from complementary professional disciplines is one way of integrating therapies to address patients' needs more comprehensively.MethodsThis parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2007 to August 2010 aimed to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness of 12 weeks of monodisciplinary chiropractic care (CC), versus multidisciplinary integrative care (IC), for adults with sub-acute and chronic LBP. The primary outcome was pain intensity and secondary outcomes were disability, improvement, medication use, quality of life, satisfaction, frequency of symptoms, missed work or reduced activities days, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, pain coping strategies and kinesiophobia measured at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes.Results201 participants were enrolled. The largest reductions in pain intensity occurred at the end of treatment and were 43% for CC and 47% for IC. The primary analysis found IC to be significantly superior to CC over the 1-year period (P = 0.02). The long-term profile for pain intensity which included data from weeks 4 through 52, showed a significant advantage of 0.5 for IC over CC (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; P = 0.02; 0 to 10 scale). The short-term profile (weeks 4 to 12) favored IC by 0.4, but was not statistically significant (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.9; P = 0.06). There was also a significant advantage over the long term for IC in some secondary measures (disability, improvement, satisfaction and low back symptom frequency), but not for others (medication use, quality of life, leg symptom frequency, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, active pain coping, and kinesiophobia). Importantly, no serious adverse events resulted from either of the interventions.ConclusionsParticipants in the IC group tended to have better outcomes than the CC group, however the magnitude of the group differences was relatively small. Given the resources required to successfully implement multidisciplinary integrative care teams, they may not be worthwhile, compared to monodisciplinary approaches like chiropractic care, for treating LBP. Trial registration NCT00567333.

Project description:The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), acupuncture and herbal medicine for chronic non-specific LBP. A comprehensive search was conducted by an experienced librarian from the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) in multiple databases up to December 22, 2008. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with chronic non-specific LBP, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant, patient-centred outcome measure were included. Two authors working independently from one another assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The data were pooled when clinically homogeneous and statistically possible or were otherwise qualitatively described. GRADE was used to determine the quality of the evidence. In total, 35 RCTs (8 SMT, 20 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine), which examined 8,298 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of these (2 SMT, 8 acupuncture, 7 herbal medicine) were thought to have a low risk of bias. In general, the pooled effects for the studied interventions demonstrated short-term relief or improvement only. The lack of studies with a low-risk of bias, especially in regard to SMT precludes any strong conclusions; however, the principal findings, which are based upon low- to very-low-quality evidence, suggest that SMT does not provide a more clinically beneficial effect compared with sham, passive modalities or any other intervention for treatment of chronic low-back pain. There is evidence, however, that acupuncture provides a short-term clinically relevant effect when compared with a waiting list control or when acupuncture is added to another intervention. Although there are some good results for individual herbal medicines in short-term individual trials, the lack of homogeneity across studies did not allow for a pooled estimate of the effect. In general, these results are in agreement with other recent systematic reviews on SMT, but in contrast with others. These results are also in agreement with recent reviews on acupuncture and herbal medicine. Randomized trials with a low risk of bias and adequate sample sizes are directly needed.

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain affects nearly 116 million American adults at an estimated cost of up to $635 billion annually and is the No. 1 condition for which patients seek care at integrative medicine clinics. In our Study on Integrative Medicine Treatment Approaches for Pain (SIMTAP), we observed the impact of an integrative approach on chronic pain and a number of other related patient-reported outcome measures.MethodsOur prospective, non-randomized, open-label observational evaluation was conducted over six months, at nine clinical sites. Participants received a non-standardized, personalized, multimodal approach to chronic pain. Validated instruments for pain (severity and interference levels), quality of life, mood, stress, sleep, fatigue, sense of control, overall well-being, and work productivity were completed at baseline and at six, 12, and 24 weeks. Blood was collected at baseline and week 12 for analysis of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Repeated-measures analysis was performed on data to assess change from baseline at 24 weeks.ResultsOf 409 participants initially enrolled, 252 completed all follow-up visits during the 6 month evaluation. Participants were predominantly white (81%) and female (73%), with a mean age of 49.1 years (15.44) and an average of 8.0 (9.26) years of chronic pain. At baseline, 52% of patients reported symptoms consistent with depression. At 24 weeks, significantly decreased pain severity (-23%) and interference (-28%) were seen. Significant improvements in mood, stress, quality of life, fatigue, sleep and well-being were also observed. Mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels increased from 33.4 (17.05) ng/mL at baseline to 39.6 (16.68) ng/mL at week 12.ConclusionsAmong participants completing an integrative medicine program for chronic pain, significant improvements were seen in pain as well as other relevant patient-reported outcome measures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01186341.

Project description:A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enroll into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritize larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.Clinical trials NCT00565942.

Dataset Information

A Multidisciplinary Integrative Medicine Team in the Treatment of Chronic Low-Back Pain: An Observational Comparative Effectiveness Study.

Publications

A Multidisciplinary Integrative Medicine Team in the Treatment of Chronic Low-Back Pain: An Observational Comparative Effectiveness Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets