case study for low back pain

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, multidisciplinary firms and the treatment of chronic pain: a case study of low back pain.

• 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, United States
• 2 Department of Neuroscience and Experimental Therapeutics, Albany, NY, United States
• 3 Broadwell College of Business and Economics, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC, United States

Sixteen million people suffer with chronic low back pain and related healthcare expenditures can be as high as $USD 635 billion. Current pain treatments help a significant number of acute pain patients, allowing them to obtain various treatments and then “exit the market for pain services” quickly. However, chronic patients remain in pain and need multiple, varying treatments over time. Often, a single pain provider does not oversee their care. Here, we analyze the current pain market and suggest ways to establish a new treatment paradigm. We posit that more cost effective treatment and better pain relief can be achieved with multi-disciplinary care with a provider team overseeing care.

Introduction

The cost of chronic pain to our society is staggering and has been quoted as up to $USD 635 billion in health care expenditures, disability and loss of productivity ( 1 ). Pain diagnoses make up 4 of the top 10 reasons people seek medical care ( 2 ). Costs for health care utilization include hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and expensive invasive therapies. Societal costs include missed workdays and impact on family dynamics, which may also have economic ramifications. Chronic pain affects roughly 20 million adults in the United States and has a profound influence on an individual's productivity, quality of life and mental health ( 3 – 7 ). Sixteen million suffer with chronic low back pain.

Chronic pain is defined as pain that lasts more than 3 months despite treatment. Patients with chronic pain are desperate to find a solution for managing their pain, but only half of these patients report having control over their pain ( 8 ). The issues surrounding management of chronic pain are complicated. What works for acute pain often does not work for chronic pain. For the purpose of this article, we will focus on the market for low back pain relief, which exceeds $100 billion USD ( 9 , 10 ). We will begin by defining the patient population constituting the pain relief market and addressing the current state of the consumers and service providers in the market. We will then examine multidisciplinary clinics as a potential solution and address mechanisms of establishing financial sustainability and limiting barriers. Section Introduction describes the current market for pain relief. Section Background presents an alternative model, multidisciplinary firms for comprehensive chronic pain management.

The Consumers in the Market of Pain Relief

Patients with acute low back pain are often desperate to obtain pain relief and will often seek any number of medications or devices to achieve that relief (i.e., over the counter pills or patches, assistive devices and braces and even more expensive alternatives like tilt tables). They may then go for a massage, to a chiropractor, or to an acupuncturist. In the vast majority of patients, the acute pain dissipates within 2 weeks ( 11 ) and they are no longer consumers in the market for pain relief. Those who are unaware of this natural history of the disease, are in extreme pain, and/or are still in pain after 2 weeks, may go to the emergency department or see their primary care doctor who will likely prescribe physical therapy and medications ( 12 ).

Up to 80% of acute pain exacerbations improve within 6 weeks ( 13 ), at which point the consumers leave the market for pain relief. For the subset who have continued pain, they may be referred to a pain specialist who generally focuses on injections ( 14 ). Alternatively or in addition, an MRI may be ordered after a course of physical therapy ( 15 ). The MRI is very rarely read as normal, and though the number of findings on lumbar MRIs in people with pain and without pain are similar ( 16 ), review of an imaging report often leads to a trip to the neurosurgeon or orthopedic spine surgeon. In most conservative spine practices, the majority of patients are not surgical candidates and are referred for injections or other conservative measures.

By 12 weeks, 95% of patients have resolution of pain ( 13 ). Over the course of a lifetime, a person may have acute pain that requires entry into the pain market several times with symptoms of varying intensities (i.e., a trip to a pharmacy for a heating pad/ibuprofen for acute back spasms v. a course of chiropractic manipulation for pain that persists for several weeks v. a spine surgery for acute leg pain associated with a herniated disc). However, in most cases, the pain is acute. The remainder of consumers, that is those who have no relief, are termed chronic pain patients and remain in the market for chronic pain relief services.

The Current State of the Market for Pain Relief in Chronic Pain Patients

Chronic back pain patients become very familiar with multi-modality treatment that consists of medications, physical therapy, alternative therapies, injections, surgery, and/or neuromodulation. Though some medications for the treatment of chronic pain are reasonably priced, they often have notable side effects and are not well tolerated by patients. The relative low cost of opioids, in part, contributes to their overuse ( 17 ) despite significant evidence that these drugs are not appropriate for the majority of chronic pain sufferers. Other types of medications (e.g., pregabalin, lidocaine patches) can be quite expensive, ranging from $USD 250–1,000 per month for treatment.

Often, physical therapy and core-strengthening/stretching may actually be more effective than medications ( 18 , 19 ). However, patients are often more eager to try a medication, than an alternative therapy, as the price of medications is often covered in large by insurance, while alternatives are typically not. Further, there are psychological barriers to such behaviors-people who have difficulty moving fear they will be asked to do just that at therapy. Additionally, it takes a 6–12 week commitment to daily exercises to see a difference. Finally, patients are typically responsible for co-payments associated with physical therapy which can be cost prohibitive (i.e., $40 per visit with visits 3x/week for up to 20 visits).

Other forms of physical manipulation have even greater financial barriers as acupuncture and chiropractic are often not covered by insurance. Biofeedback and cognitive behavioral therapy, though proven beneficial for chronic pain, are often met with resistance by patients who feel like clinicians are telling them their pain is not real. In addition, there are significant barriers for pain patients obtaining psychological evaluation and follow-up due to a relative paucity of psychologists who see patients with chronic pain and psychologists/psychiatrists in general ( 20 ).

Ultimately, for the reasons above and human nature, patients often look for a quick fix which may or may not be beneficial depending on the pathology and the procedure chosen. Patients will often see pain management providers who more commonly offer invasive options instead of medications or body therapies, based on their area of expertise ( 21 ). The co-payment for one visit for steroid injections or radiofrequency ablations is similar to that of one visit at physical therapy. As these injections and ablations are only performed 3–4x a year and have more immediate results, patients have financial benefits for undergoing these therapies. When injections are no longer helpful, surgery is often considered.

If there is a primary issue with the spine, an appropriate surgery may be performed. There is variability in what type of surgery, if any, will be offered from surgeon to surgeon and region to region. Patients often have a co-pay anywhere between $50–1,000. The cost submitted to insurance for the procedure however can range from $USD 10,000 to over 100,000 depending on the type of surgery performed ( 22 ). Despite the above attempts, it is fairly rare that patients with chronic pain have complete resolution of their pain.

After a year or two of repeating the cycle above, patients may then move onto more neuromodulation therapies- that is, treatments that alter their perception of the sensation. These therapies may include spinal cord stimulation or intrathecal pumps. These procedures are successful in 50-80% of people, where success is defined as 50% pain relief ( 23 ). However, failures may occur in up to 30% of patients and 10–15% of the devices are explanted ( 24 , 25 ). These devices cost an average of $30,000 per implant and the total cost of surgery/hospitalization is often ~$50,000. Neuromodulation therapy has experienced a growth rate of 20% a year, which is outside the growth rate for other treatments. Thus, insurance companies are beginning to become more stringent in defining which patients will be covered. Additionally, neuromodulation has been shown to be more cost-effective compared to conservative treatments ( 4 , 26 – 28 ) and spine reoperation in properly selected patients ( 29 ). In these cases, health care resource utilization decreases ( 4 , 6 , 26 , 30 , 31 ), indicating successful exit from the pain market. However, in patients that ultimately do not have success with the therapy and have the device explanted, total costs are higher ( 32 ). Newer technologies are also available. Currently, these include stem cell therapies injected into the spine ( 33 ) or minimally invasive procedures performed by pain physicians ( 34 – 37 ). Evidence remains limited at this point.

Flaws in the Current Market for Chronic Pain Relief

Often, regardless of what therapies the chronic back pain patient has undergone, there is continued healthcare utilization, with the majority of spine and spinal cord stimulation patients requiring multiple medications and/or cycles of injections, physical therapy, and/or surgery over time ( 25 , 38 ). Based on this pattern, the patients that remain in debilitating pain, and the healthcare expenditures associated with this suboptimal care ( 39 ), there is little debate that the market for chronic pain relief is flawed. To analyze the market, we will examine it in economic terms.

The consumer is the patient in pain. The market generally works well for the acute pain patient, as 95% of these patients exit the market by 12 weeks ( 13 ). However, for the 5% who remain in the market, it works less well, and in some cases, leads to debilitating pain that precludes normal activity for decades. The service providers in the market (which will be referred to as “firms” for the remainder of this paper) generally specialize in one type of therapy. This categorization is a slight simplification as there are nuances among different therapies – but they generally fall into the same category of therapies. For example, body work, physical therapy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and/or massage are generally provided by specialty vendors who provide one service. Pain specialists, as a trend in the last 5 years, routinely perform injections and often only provide medications in special cases ( 8 , 38 ). Pain psychologists are few and far between and waiting lists are long ( 20 , 40 ). Surgeons, of course, specialize in surgery. For all firms, the inputs are chronic pain patients and the ideal outputs are chronic pain patients with manageable levels of pain. It is important to note that once patients are in chronic pain, they often will have some degree of pain even when treatment is optimized ( 41 ).

Unfortunately, the output is often not achieved within the current market. More commonly, patients have some degree of pain relief with one therapy and move onto treatment by the next firm, leaving patients to continue in the pain relief market with no single physician specializing in pain management overseeing their care plan. Further, the market is limited by resources. As treatment of chronic pain is difficult and may lead to physician burnout ( 42 ), there are limited numbers of providers willing to take care of these patients. Often, care remains with the primary care physician, who often does not have the time and/or resources to manage these patients.

In the last decade, another barrier has arisen. In some cases, the primary care physician and the patient have found a medication regimen that works “well enough.” A subset of these patients have been treated successfully with low dose opioids for a decade. This option, though not recommended for the vast majority of patients, is highly successful in a small minority ( 43 , 44 ). Recent regulations and stigma related to opioids preclude many providers from continuing medications. Patients are subsequently left without therapy and they re-enter the pain market where they may see a pain specialist. Most physicians consider opioid prescribing a highly undesirable risk-to-benefit ratio (not only for patients but also for them), hence, most primary care and pain practices have become very limited in their ability and desire to prescribe ( 45 ). Prescribing responsibly requires pain contracts, urine drug screens, checking databases for inappropriate use, and frequent appointments to receive a limited supply of medications ( 8 ). Thus, there is a significant transaction cost to firms which prescribe. As the cost of caring for patients on opioids is ~70% higher than for those not on opioids, it is not fiscally wise to continue this practice ( 46 ). The added risk of staff burnout compounds the issue ( 42 ).

What has resulted is patients having more costly procedures that may be less effective. Patients become frustrated, feel deserted, and look for practices which prescribe medications. There are many practices that focus on prescribing opioids in a reasonable fashion and have either found ways to make this financially viable or are part of a tertiary care facility or state facility which focuses on serving public health needs. However, there are also practices that have been described as “pill mills.” In these businesses, the profit associated with writing prescriptions/drug screens may complicate motivation to wean patients to the lowest dose or off medications entirely, even if they have pain relief ( 47 ). Fortunately, these practices have been investigated by law enforcement in the last decade. To be fair, these are not the only pain practices where ethics become complicated. Most firms in the pain market rely on volume due to low revenue margins ( 48 ). Incentivizing physicians or any health care provider to see more patients is similar to examples of factory line workers being incentivized to make more parts ( 49 ). Quality dissipates with this type of incentive ( 50 ).

Taken together, while the current market may work for the acute pain patient with a straightforward problem, it does not fulfill the needs of the chronic pain patient. We posit that concentrating care into comprehensive, multidisciplinary firms would be highly beneficial and would likely lead to improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare expenditures.

A Proposed Model: Multidisciplinary Firms

We have already seen the overall costs of chronic pain. For the 16 million Americans who have chronic back pain, expenses are estimated at $USD100 billion ( 9 , 10 ). This staggering figure includes both health care expenditures and estimated lost time and wages. Specifically, patients with chronic pain who are not adequately treated are likely to have more disability over time and subsequently will have an increase in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) compared to patients who have been adequately treated ( 3 , 4 , 51 ). Emergency room (ER) visits can be a surrogate marker of HCRU and it has been found that 42% of visits are due to pain ( 51 , 52 ). Further, chronic pain patients with more disability use the ER more than those who have greater function ( 51 , 53 , 54 ). They may visit as often as twice to three times a month due to uncontrolled pain and/or lack of an established care team ( 52 ). Overall, multidisciplinary pain clinics have been shown to reduce ER visits ( 55 , 56 ).

Outside of the ER, multidisciplinary pain clinics have resulted in cost savings of $6.68 per day in prescription costs ( 57 ). The implementation of a multidisciplinary pain clinic at Geisinger ( 58 ) resulted in decreases in the number of primary care visits, acute inpatient admission rates, opioid prescription fill frequencies, and the use of high-end diagnostic imaging, which corresponded with a reduction in total medical costs ( 59 ). Such collaborative clinics have been found to positively alter patients' care-seeking behaviors ( 57 , 59 ).

Most importantly, patients in multidisciplinary clinics have better outcomes. These patients generally report less pain, have fewer effects of pain on activity and have more appropriate use of non-opioid medications ( 60 , 61 ). They have regularly scheduled outpatient follow-up, ( 60 – 62 ) greater health literacy about pain, and reasonable expectations for relief. However, pain management is often viewed as low priority due to the stigma that pain is a symptom not a disease ( 63 ). Compounded with fears of increased costs for payers and providers ( 57 ), multidisciplinary pain clinics are not prioritized. Currently there is little to no incentive for both payers and providers to be involved in the implementation of these clinics, despite the benefits. However, in order for a multidisciplinary clinic to be successful, thoughtful deliberation between all clinicians involved is necessary to develop a protocol/ pathway for pain patients. We have done this for our pelvic pain patients ( 64 ). Similar could be done with different types of pain leading to low back pain, including SI joint dysfunction, mechanical pain, and neuropathic pain.

Opportunity Costs and Financial Sustainability

When thinking about developing a multidisciplinary pain clinic, it is necessary for all those involved in treatment of chronic pain to reach a consensus on the organizational structure of the clinic. This requires an assessment of internal strengths and weaknesses and external threats and opportunities. Much depends on what already exists in the community and where the needs are. A bit depends on the demographics of the community and appropriately determining who would be a candidate. In a community with limited resources and a large demographic of manual laborers who have performed decades of heavy lifting, there is a mismatch between resources and need. A patient who has undergone three courses of physical therapy, three courses of injections, four spine surgeries and 10 MRIs, would be appropriately served in this clinic. The patient who has only had one of the four interventions, no matter how many times, may or may not be a candidate. In a community with more resources, a patient after one surgery with continued pain may be appropriate. Each community should work together to perform a needs assessment.

This point would warrant discussion and depend on the other firms in the market, the capacity of the multidisciplinary clinic and the number of chronic pain patients the market serves. However, in the majority of markets, it is likely that the input to the firm (e.g., a patient with one spine surgery) would still be too high, based on the firm's resources for achieving the desired output. To avoid overwhelming the system, a more reasonable entry point into the pain market may be after 6 months of pain and the failure of two therapies. Additional data is needed to test this hypothesis and again may vary from community to community. The multidisciplinary firm we discuss in this article focuses on back pain, but it is important to note that the entry point should be altered depending on the disease process and the external market. For example, all patients with pelvic pain that come into care with any of our providers can be entered into the system because there are so few resources available to these patients that they often have been suffering for more than a decade before they seek care ( 64 ). Patients with cancer pain also would need to enter into the system much more quickly ( 65 ). Each region should work together to perform a needs assessment.

Partnerships With Insurance Companies and Other Firms in the Market

Third-party payers are essential stakeholders in the discussion. The most established multidisciplinary program for chronic pain has been at the ( 66 , 67 ). More recently, regions such as Eastern Pennsylvania have insurance companies that have partnered with health systems (2019). In 2012 Piedmont and WellStar healthcare systems created a joint venture called the Georgia Health Collaborative which utilizes a care model with the goal of implementing both prevention and care management programs with higher quality care at lower costs ( 68 ).

Partnerships with insurance companies in these initiatives has increased ( 62 ). Such practices have also helped in monitoring financial risk to manage healthcare spending and potential losses, while also providing patients with better, more well-rounded care ( 69 ). In 2014, Geisinger ( 58 ) implemented a multidisciplinary pain clinic, noting significant reduction in health care utilization and cost of care ( 59 ). Recent partnerships between Southeast MI hospitals and Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI, have resulted in more implementation of multidisciplinary teams, beginning with integrating clinical pharmacists into the patient-care team ( 70 ). These teams have led to improved resource utilization.

However, in most regions, partnerships for development of multidisciplinary clinics for pain have not been pursued presumably due to cost and volume concerns ( 57 ). To determine what is and what is not possible requires discussions among the groups. A discussion would first lead to a better-defined partnership between the insurers and the hospitals. Expectations must be established and the poor results that are achieved with the existing market understood, further, all must accept that adequate pain relief, rather than total pain relief is the goal ( 71 ). Next, the group could determine the need and timing for certain therapies and limit the fairly common “fail first” model prior to granting authorization for some diagnostics and therapies when the model does not promote better care ( 72 ). Clinicians, researchers and economists must show the cost-benefit analysis of these programs for payers to desire them ( 73 – 75 ). Additional payment structure that is mutually agreed upon must be established so that groups providing the care to patients can cover costs and an agreed-upon margin ( 76 ).

Additionally, some degree of intervention from insurance companies and large firms will be needed to encourage providers to use the multidisciplinary clinic. Within geographic regions, how this will be done and which patients will be included will vary. Limiting pre-authorizations or encouragement through pay-for-performance may be some means of promoting the use of multidisciplinary clinics. Ultimately, for this model to be sustainable, the multidisciplinary firm will have to develop a comparative advantage and provide the best outputs. As only 27% of patients with chronic pain have Medicare, the process is likely to start with commercial payers ( 77 ).

Of course, in addition to partnership with insurance companies that mandate their patients participate, the multidisciplinary clinic needs additional patient inputs. Including firms in the process of caring for patients will likely add to this input. Once a care plan is developed by the multidisciplinary clinic as described above, it could be subsequently implemented in combination with other firms to ensure inputs, internal capacity, and financial viability for the surrounding market. This set-up would allow patients to be treated closer to their home when all other factors are equivalent. Alternatively, for niche services, the patients may need to receive the services within the multidisciplinary group. Careful cost analysis must be done to ensure that capacity is appropriate and that the use of internal and external services is a financially sustainable model. Oversight will need to be maintained by the multidisciplinary clinic on patient outcomes. This could be done through semi-annual or annual assessment.

Development of multidisciplinary teams may be hindered by physicians themselves. Sometimes physicians are reluctant to give up patients to a multi-disciplinary center and/or do not have the administrative a number of providers who have very busy practices and necessitates personnel for coordination ( 78 ). Further, some practices may be in direct competition. Additionally, there is limited interoperability between medical records in different practices and systems ( 79 , 80 ). How records will be housed and shared will need to be determined and subject to regulations.

Minimizing Transaction Costs

When establishing a new type of practice, ease of the referral process is essential ( 81 ). Sometimes specialized firms within a tertiary medical center make referrals difficult. In this case, the external firms, which are much more available, maintain considerable market share. Patients face similar challenges obtaining appointments. Put in economic terms, the transaction costs of dealing with a tertiary medical center can be too great for many referring providers and for many patients. The buildings are huge, the waits are long, the providers seem overworked, and the telephone trees are unwieldly. A multidisciplinary clinic may also not serve the needs of the primary care doctor if only recommendations are made and the primary responsibility for patient care still lies with the front line physician. Primary care physicians are often overworked and undercompensated and cannot afford to take care of chronic pain patients, or find it unduly difficult. If pain practices take this burden from them, the output is less important and the referrals grow.

In establishing our multidisciplinary pelvic pain health consortium at our institution-Albany Medical Center, we have found that providing a single contact with an email and phone number works well for providers ( 64 ). Intake is then performed by that one patient navigator, using a form that was developed by the group as a whole and appropriate consultations are embarked upon. We have been able to initiate these plans over the phone, virtually, or in person. Then, in a mature multidisciplinary group, the team should describe what the expected outcomes are for the patient, their family and their primary care physician. The multidisciplinary group should discuss all patients that have entered the clinic and who are not achieving the expected outcomes at weekly and/or monthly conferences. Often, these discussions also help providers stay on message in discussion with patients. For example, patients with lower health literacy may be highly resistant to working with pain psychologists as they feel that referral is a sign that their providers think “the pain is in their head.” They fail to realize that pain is a tridimensional (bio-psycho social) experience involving sensory, cognitive and emotional components ( 82 ) and further do not realize that biofeedback, talking about coping and strategies that empower them to independently control their pain may be valuable ( 8 ). Finally, as pain changes over time and new advances are commonplace, multidisciplinary discussion may prompt new ideas, thus increasing the likelihood of success ( 38 ).

The Importance of Cost-Sharing

An upfront investment is needed to ensure buy-in among all parties and to ensure that the multidisciplinary clinic's resources and capacity is adequate to provide the sources they are meant to provide. Creative means of gaining buy-in and cost-sharing will be needed. Partnerships between hospitals and insurance were discussed above. To hold the physician accountable, it is important to emphasize transparency and accountability of patient outcomes. Medicare Pay for Performance (P4P) strategies can be adapted for pain practices, based on metrics selected by pain providers, rather than metrics which are less relevant. This has been an issue for specialties in the early attempts of P4P. Quality in these metrics should initially be incentivized and, over time, penalized in order to make sure that the outputs are adequate.

Another option is patient cost sharing. which has been shown to reduce health care expenditures. However, it is important to note that the reduction does not differentiate between high- and low-value care ( 83 ). Further, in most areas of medicine, it is difficult to employ patient cost-sharing for all medical care in real life situations, because of the unpredictably of life. As these resources only cover the chronic pain the patient is suffering from and they do not affect the care patients would receive for other chronic conditions or for acute unexpected conditions, this system does not suffer from moral hazards that diffuse cost-sharing plans may suffer from Baicke et al. ( 83 ). Further, it is important to note that patients can become incentivized to suffer in pain (i.e., disability, workman's compensation, beneficial family dynamics). A counter-incentive to improve cost-sharing could better balance the patient's behavioral economics. Elasticities of demand vary by chronic conditions patients suffer from Chandra et al. ( 84 ) and where the elasticity of chronic pain services has not been defined. We know that dental and psychiatric services are more elastic than those of other medical services ( 83 ) for the general population. Interestingly, we would posit that chronic pain care would also be more elastic if there were not a motivation for a subset of patients to seek such services to continue receiving disability and workman's compensation benefits. It is important to note, however, that cost-sharing could be detrimental to patients in lower socio-economic brackets who have fewer monetary and non-monetary resources ( 84 ). A cost-sharing program could be on a sliding scale, depending on income relative to the poverty line [as has been done in Massachusetts ( 84 )].

One potential strategy is to offer different co-payments depending on how likely a patient is to benefit from a therapy. If the patient is likely to benefit based on the medical literature, the co-pay would be lower. If the patient is unlikely to benefit or likely to have only a modest benefit, the co-pay would be higher. Unfortunately, in chronic pain the data is lacking as to which patients are likely to benefit and pain phenotypes are difficult to determine from the medical care as ICD10 codes do not accurately reflect patient status ( 85 ). Insurance companies restrict services when treatments are experimental. Insurance partnership with the multidisciplinary clinic may allow for physician input on low v. high probability of improvement for individual patients, especially where in chronic pain management a satisfactory outcome is considered 50% pain relief in 50% of patients ( 23 ).

Alternatively, patients could be given all the information and review it with their treatment providers and then make decisions in conjunction with their care team. They could be given a certain number of annual resources and determine how they will use those resources based on their pain. This strategy may be effective, as the patient and the multidisciplinary team are most likely to have the best insight into the patient phenotype. It would be essential for patients to be clear on the treatments and the cost sharing; thus, the plan must be straightforward and relatively simple ( 86 ). Additionally, cost-sharing for treatment would need to be done within the construct of a multidisciplinary clinic as care does not involve a single treatment. However, this may negate the draw to complementary services which have lower co-pays ( 83 ). We see this currently with patients opting for more invasive therapies. We also see this in providers when reimbursements for one procedure are far greater than for another. Taken together, cost-sharing could modulate behavioral economics while allowing for improved, more affordable care.

Sixteen million suffer with chronic low back pain at an annual cost of $100 billion. The current market for pain relief does not meet the needs for patients for chronic low back pain. We posit that a multidisciplinary care clinic can be beneficial for the patients, providers, hospitals and insurance companies. Implementation will require appropriate partnerships and organizational structures. Opportunity costs, cost-sharing and relationship with external firms will vary regionally. Future work should examine best practices and expand this model from lower back pain to chronic pain, generally.

Author Contributions

JP conceived of and coordinated the review and assisted in writing the manuscript. OK and NW also assisted in writing the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript editing, and approved the final submission.

Conflict of Interest

JP is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Nevro, Medtronic, Saluda and Abbott and receives grant support from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro, NIH 2R01CA166379-06 and NIH U44NS115111. She is the medical advisor for Aim Medical Robotics and Karuna and has stock equity.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Gaskin DJ, Richard P. The economic costs of pain in the United States. J Pain. (2012) 13:715–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.03.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. St Sauver JL, Warner DO, Yawn BP, Jacobson DJ, McGree ME, Pankratz JJ, et al. Why patients visit their doctors: assessing the most prevalent conditions in a defined American population. Mayo Clin Proc. (2013) 88:56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.08.020

3. Blyth FM, March LM, Brnabic AJ, Cousins MJ. Chronic pain and frequent use of health care. Pain. (2004) 111:51–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.05.020

4. Zucco F, Ciampichini R, Lavano A, Costantini A, De Rose M, Poli P, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome: results from the precise study. Neuromodulation. (2015) 18:266–76. doi: 10.1111/ner.12292

5. Grider JS, Manchikanti L, Carayannopoulos A, Sharma ML, Balog CC, Harned ME, et al. Effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in chronic spinal pain: a systematic review. Pain Physician. (2016) 19:E33–54. doi: 10.36076/ppj/2016.19.E33

6. Lad SP, Petraglia FW, Kent AR, Cook S, Murphy KR, Dalal N, et al. Longer delay from chronic pain to spinal cord stimulation results in higher healthcare resource utilization. Neuromodulation . (2016) 19:469–76. doi: 10.1111/ner.12389

7. Rash JA, Poulin PA, Shergill Y, Romanow H, Freeman J, Taljaard M, et al. Chronic pain in the emergency department: a pilot interdisciplinary program demonstrates improvements in disability, psychosocial function, and healthcare utilization. Pain Res Manag. (2018) 2018:1875967. doi: 10.1155/2018/1875967

8. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain Research C and Education. (2011). “Care of People with Pain,” In: Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

9. Katz JN. Lumbar disc disorders and low-back pain: socioeconomic factors and consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88 Suppl 2. (2006) 21–4. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200604002-00005

10. Crow WT, Willis DR. Estimating cost of care for patients with acute low back pain: a retrospective review of patient records. J Am Osteopath Assoc. (2009) 109:229–33.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

11. Kral LS. Medical Management of Acute Pain [Online]. Practical Pain Management (2019). Available online at: https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/resource-centers/opioid-prescribing-monitoring/medical-management-acute-pain (accessed 3/9/2021).

12. Salduker S, Allers E, Bechan S, Hodgson RE, Meyer F, Meyer H, et al. Practical approach to a patient with chronic pain of uncertain etiology in primary care. J Pain Res. (2019) 12:2651–62. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S205570

13. Croft PR, Macfarlane GJ, Papageorgiou AC, Thomas E, Silman AJ. Outcome of low back pain in general practice: a prospective study. BMJ. (1998) 316:1356–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7141.1356

14. Palmer WE. Spinal injections for pain management. Radiology . (2016) 281:28055. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152055

15. Cahn L. Why is my Doctor recommending I try physical therapy before resorting to surgery? . [Online]. Preferred Physical Therapy (2021). Available online at: https://www.preferredptkc.com/why-is-my-doctor-recommending-i-try-physical-therapy-before-resorting-to-surgery/#:~:text=In%20situations%20where%20other%20treatments ,possible%20break%20could%20be%20suspected. (accessed 3/9/2021).

16. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. (1994) 331:69–73. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199407143310201

17. Phillips JK, Ford MA, Bonnie RJ National Academies of Sciences E.ngineering, Medicine. “Trends in Opioid Use, Harms, and Treatment,” In: F.M. Phillips JK, Bonnie RJ. editors Pain Management and the Opioid Epidemic: Balancing Societal and Individual Benefits and Risks of Prescription Opioid Use , Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. (2017).

Google Scholar

18. Chang WD, Lin HY, Lai PT. Core strength training for patients with chronic low back pain. J Phys Ther Sci. (2015) 27:619–22. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.619

19. Kim B, Yim J. Core stability and hip exercises improve physical function and activity in patients with non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Tohoku J Exp Med. (2020) 251:193–206. doi: 10.1620/tjem.251.193

20. Butryn TB, Marchionni C, Sholevar F. The shortage of psychiatrists and other mental health providers: Causes, current state, and potential solutions. Int J Acad Med . (2017) 3:5–9.

21. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Andersson GB, Berven S, et al. The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine. (2008) 33:2108–15. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318182e390

22. Kumar K, Bishop S. Financial impact of spinal cord stimulation on the healthcare budget: a comparative analysis of costs in Canada and the United States. J Neurosurg Spine. (2009) 10:564–73. doi: 10.3171/2009.2.SPINE0865

23. Kapural L, Yu C, Doust MW, Gliner BE, Vallejo R, Sitzman BT, et al. Novel 10-kHz High-frequency Therapy (HF10 Therapy) Is superior to traditional low-frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain: the SENZA-RCT randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. (2015) 123:851–60. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000774

24. Celestin J, Edwards RR, Jamison RN. Pretreatment psychosocial variables as predictors of outcomes following lumbar surgery and spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review and literature synthesis. Pain Med. (2009) 10:639–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00632.x

25. Patel SK, Gozal YM, Saleh MS, Gibson JL, Karsy M, Mandybur GT. Spinal cord stimulation failure: evaluation of factors underlying hardware explantation. J Neurosurg Spine. (2019) 6:1–6. doi: 10.3171/2019.6.SPINE181099

26. Mekhail NA, Aeschbach A, Stanton-Hicks M. Cost benefit analysis of neurostimulation for chronic pain. Clin J Pain. (2004) 20:462–8. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200411000-00012

27. Leong RK, de Wachter SG, Joore MA, van Kerrebroeck PE. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral neuromodulation and botulinum toxin a treatment for patients with idiopathic overactive bladder. BJU Int. (2011) 108:558–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09905.x

28. Kumar K, Rizvi S. Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation therapy in management of chronic pain. Pain Med. (2013) 14:1631–49. doi: 10.1111/pme.12146

29. North RB, Kidd D, Shipley J, Taylor RS. Spinal cord stimulation versus reoperation for failed back surgery syndrome: a cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis based on a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery. (2007) 61:361–8. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000255522.42579.EA

30. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, Eldabe S, Meglio M, Molet J, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain. (2007) 132:179–88. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.07.028

31. Odonkor CA, Orman S, Orhurhu V, Stone ME, Ahmed S. Spinal cord stimulation vs conventional therapies for the treatment of chronic low back and leg pain: a systematic review of health care resource utilization and outcomes in the last decade. Pain Med. (2019) 20:2479–94. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz185

32. Han JL, Murphy KR, Hussaini SMQ, Yang S, Parente B, Xie J, et al. Explantation rates and healthcare resource utilization in spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodulation. (2017) 20:331–9. doi: 10.1111/ner.12567

33. Han YH, Kim KH, Abdi S, Kim TK. Stem cell therapy in pain medicine. Korean J Pain. (2019) 32:245–55. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2019.32.4.245

34. Chen H, Kelling J. Mild procedure for lumbar decompression: a review. Pain Pract. (2013) 13:146–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00574.x

35. Benyamin RM, Staats PS, Mi D. MILD(R) Is an effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: MiDAS ENCORE randomized controlled trial. Pain Physician. (2016) 19:229–42. doi: 10.36076/ppj/2019.19.229

36. Deer TR, Sayed D, Malinowski MN, Rowe JJ, Jameson JB, Liang K, et al. A review of emerging evidence for utilization of a percutaneous interspinous process decompression device to treat symptomatic lumbar adjacent-segment degeneration. Pain Med. (2019) 20:S9–S13. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz247

37. Hartman J, Granville M, Jacobson RE. The use of vertiflex(r) interspinous spacer device in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and concurrent medical comorbidities. Cureus. (2019) 11:e5374. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5374

38. Tompkins DA, Hobelmann JG, Compton P. Providing chronic pain management in the “Fifth Vital Sign” Era: historical and treatment perspectives on a modern-day medical dilemma. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2017) 173:S11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.12.002

39. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain Research C and Education. (2011). “Pain as a Public Health Challenge,” In: Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

40. Darnall BD, Scheman J, Davin S, Burns JW, Murphy JL, Wilson AC, et al. Pain psychology: a global needs assessment and national call to action. Pain Med. (2016) 17:250–63. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnv095

41. Whitten CE, Donovan M, Cristobal K. Treating chronic pain: new knowledge, more choices. Perm J. (2005) 9:9–18. doi: 10.7812/TPP/05-067

42. Glauser W. Challenges of treating chronic pain contributing to burnout in primary care. CMAJ. (2019) 191:E822–3. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5774

43. Grider JS, Etscheidt MA, Harned ME, Lee J, Smith B, Lamar C, et al. Trialing and maintenance dosing using a low-dose intrathecal opioid method for chronic nonmalignant pain: a prospective 36-month study. Neuromodulation. (2016) 19:206–19. doi: 10.1111/ner.12352

44. Denawa Y, Kurtz W, Conermann T. The social and functional implications of high- versus low-dose opioids on chronic non-cancer pain. Pain Physician. (2019) 22:401–11. doi: 10.36076/ppj/2019.22.401

45. Chou R, Deyo R, Devine B, Hansen R, Sullivan S, Jarvik JG, et al. The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid treatment of chronic pain. Evid Rep Technol Assess. (2014) 218:1–219. doi: 10.23970/AHRQEPCERTA218

46. McAdam-Marx C, Roland CL, Cleveland J, Oderda GM. Costs of opioid abuse and misuse determined from a Medicaid database. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. (2010) 24:5–18. doi: 10.3109/15360280903544877

47. Rigg KK, March SJ, Inciardi JA. Prescription drug abuse and diversion: role of the pain clinic. J Drug Issues. (2010) 40:681–702. doi: 10.1177/002204261004000307

48. Callard A. 10 Ways to Improve Profitability for Pain Management . [Online]. Becker's Spine Review (2011). Available online at: https://www.beckersspine.com/pain/item/10032-10-ways-to-improve-profitability-for-pain-management?oly_enc_id=3181J7239856E7H (accessed 3/9/2021).

49. Brickley JZ, Smith CW. Managerial Economics and Organizational Architecture . New York, NY: McGraw Hill. (2009).

50. McAllister MJ. Profit-Motive and Pain Management . [Online]. Institude for Chronic Pain (ICP) (2014). Available: https://www.instituteforchronicpain.org/providers-and-payers/profit-motive-and-pain-management (accessed 3/9/2021).

51. Depelteau A, Racine-Hemmings F, Lagueux E, Hudon C. Chronic pain and frequent use of emergency department: A systematic review. Am J Emerg Med. (2020) 38:358–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158492

52. Jambunathan J, Chappy S, Siebers JJ, Deda A. Patient-centered care for chronic pain in the emergency department: A qualitative study. Int Emerg Nurs. (2016) 24:22–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2015.05.005

53. Friedman BW, Serrano D, Reed M, Diamond M, Lipton RB. Use of the emergency department for severe headache. A population-based study. Headache. (2009) 49:21–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01282.x

54. Higgins C, Smith BH, Colvin L. Examination of the clinical factors associated with attendance at emergency departments for chronic pain management and the cost of treatment relative to that of other significant medical conditions. Pain. (2021) 162:886–94. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002098

55. Olsen JC, Ogarek JL, Goldenberg EJ, Sulo S. Impact of a Chronic Pain Protocol on Emergency Department Utilization. Acad Emerg Med. (2016) 23:424–32. doi: 10.1111/acem.12942

56. Flowers A, Shade K. Evaluation of a multidisciplinary care coordination program for frequent users of the emergency department. Prof Case Manag. (2019) 24:230–9. doi: 10.1097/NCM.0000000000000368

57. Clark ME. Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary pain treatment: are we there yet? Pain Med. (2009) 10:778–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00659.x

58. Geisinger. Highmark and Geisinger complete joint venture for new health care organization [Online] (2019). Available online at: https://www.geisinger.org/about-geisinger/news-and-media/news-releases/2019/03/12/13/56/highmark-and-geisinger-complete-joint-venture-for-new-health-care-organization (accessed 3/9/2021).

59. Maeng DD, Baylor K, Bulger JB, Han JJ. Impact of a multidisciplinary pain management program on patient care utilization and cost of care. J Pain Res. (2018) 11:2375–83. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S177231

60. Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJ, Ostelo RW, Guzman J, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2014) 9:CD000963. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000963.pub3

61. Dale R, Stacey B. Multimodal Treatment of Chronic Pain. Med Clin North Am. (2016) 100:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2015.08.012

62. Dobscha SK, Corson K, Perrin NA, Hanson GC, Leibowitz RQ, Doak MN, et al. Collaborative care for chronic pain in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA. (2009) 301:1242–52. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.377

63. Kress HG, Aldington D, Alon E, Coaccioli S, Collett B, Coluzzi F, et al. A holistic approach to chronic pain management that involves all stakeholders: change is needed. Curr Med Res Opin. (2015) 31:1743–54. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1072088

64. Bridger C, Prabhala T, Dawson R, Khazen O, MacDonell J, DiMarzio M, et al. Neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain: a single-institution experience with a collaborative team. Neurosurgery . (2020) 88:819–27. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyaa537

65. Rana S, Gupta R, Chaudhary P, Khurana D, Mishra S, Bhatnagar S. Cancer pain management: basic information for the young pain physicians. Indian J Palliat Care. (2011) 17:127–30. doi: 10.4103/0973-1075.84533

66. Cleveland Clinic. Chronic Pain Neurorehabilitation Program [Online] (2021). Available online at: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/neurological/depts/center-for-comprehensive-pain-recovery/chronic-pain-rehab-program (accessed 3/9/2021).

67. Debar LL, Kindler L, Keefe FJ, Green CA, Smith DH, Deyo RA, et al. A primary care-based interdisciplinary team approach to the treatment of chronic pain utilizing a pragmatic clinical trials framework. Transl Behav Med. (2012) 2:523–30. doi: 10.1007/s13142-012-0163-2

68. Vu M, White A, Kelley VP, Hopper JK, Liu C. Hospital and health plan partnerships: the affordable care act's impact on promoting health and wellness. Am Health Drug Benefits. (2016) 9:269–78.

69. Evans M. Hospitals seeing benefits of partnering with insurance companies [Online]. Modern Healthcare (2013). Available online at: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20130828/BLOG/308289999/hospitals-seeing-benefits-of-partnering-with-insurance-companies (accessed 6/25/2021).

70. Choe HM, Lin AT, Kobernik K, Cohen M, Wesolowicz L, Qureshi N, et al. Michigan pharmacists transforming care and quality: developing a statewide collaborative of physician organizations and pharmacists to improve quality of care and reduce costs. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. (2018) 24:373–8. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.4.373

71. Schatman ME. The Demise of multidisciplinary pain management clinics? Pract Pain Manage. (2011) 61:441–59.

72. Force AP. Addressing obstacles to evidence-informed pain care. AMA J Ethics. (2020) 22:E709–717. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2020.709

73. Schatman ME. The role of the health insurance industry in perpetuating suboptimal pain management. Pain Med. (2011) 12:415–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01061.x

74. McKalip D. Achieving moral, high quality, affordable medical care in America through a true free market. Linacre Q. (2016) 83:423–44. doi: 10.1080/00243639.2016.1253277

75. Rosenthal E. “Insurance policy: How an industry shifted from protecting patients to seeking profit,” In: An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back . New York, NY: Penguin Press. (2017).

76. Siemering C. The economics of dishonest insurance companies. Geneva Risk Insur Rev. (2021) 46:1–20. doi: 10.1057/s10713-019-00047-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Dahlhamer J, Lucas J, Zelaya C, Nahin R, Mackey S, DeBar L, et al. “Prevalence of Chronic Pain and High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Adults — United States, 2016”, In: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018 . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018).

78. Meguid C, Ryan CE, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Gajdos C, Boniface M, et al. Establishing a framework for building multidisciplinary programs. J Multidiscip Healthc. (2015) 8:519–26. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S96415

79. Charles AS. Developing universal electronic medical records. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). (2008) 4:193–5.

80. Bresnick J. Are Universal EHRs Key to Healthcare Value, Trust, and AI Adoption? . [Online]. Health IT Analytics xtelligent HEALTHCARE MEDIA (2018). Available online at: https://healthitanalytics.com/news/are-universal-ehrs-key-to-healthcare-value-trust-and-ai-adoption (accessed 6/25/2021).

81. Mehrotra A, Forrest CB, Lin CY. Dropping the baton: specialty referrals in the United States. Milbank Q. (2011) 89:39–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00619.x

82. Yang S, Chang MC. Chronic pain: structural and functional changes in brain structures and associated negative affective states. Int J Mol Sci. (2019) 20:133130. doi: 10.3390/ijms20133130

83. Baicker K, Goldman D. Patient cost-sharing and healthcare spending growth. J Econ Perspect. (2011) 25:47–68. doi: 10.1257/jep.25.2.47

84. Chandra A, Gruber J, McKnight R. The impact of patient cost-sharing on low-income populations: evidence from Massachusetts. J Health Econ. (2014) 33:57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.10.008

85. O'Malley KJ, Cook KF, Price MD, Wildes KR, Hurdle JF, Ashton CM. Measuring diagnoses: ICD code accuracy. Health Serv Res. (2005) 40:1620–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00444.x

86. Salampessy BH, Alblas MM, Portrait FRM, Koolman X, van der Hijden EJE. The effect of cost-sharing design characteristics on use of health care recommended by the treating physician; a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. (2018) 18:797. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3598-4

Keywords: multidisciplinary pain clinic, cost sharing, chronic pain market, chronic pain, acute pain

Citation: Pilitsis JG, Khazen O and Wenzel NG (2021) Multidisciplinary Firms and the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Case Study of Low Back Pain. Front. Pain Res. 2:781433. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2021.781433

Received: 22 September 2021; Accepted: 18 October 2021; Published: 10 November 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Pilitsis, Khazen and Wenzel. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Julie G. Pilitsis, jpilitsis@yahoo.com

Treatment-based classification for low back pain: systematic review with meta-analysis

Affiliations.

• 1 Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
• 2 Research and Study Center, Wilson Mello Institute, Campinas, Brazil.
• PMID: 35067217
• PMCID: PMC9344960
• DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2021.2024677

Objective: To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain.

Methods: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and WHO from inception up to December 2021. We used the PEDro scale, the TIDieR checklist and the GRADE approach to evaluate the risk of bias, quality on reporting and the certainty of the evidence, respectively.

Results: Twenty-three trials (pooled n = 2,649) met the inclusion criteria. We have identified a total of 22 comparisons and 134 estimates of treatment effects. There was a very large heterogeneity with regards to the comparison groups. Most of individual trials had low risk of bias with a mean score of 6.8 (SD = 1.3) on a 0-10 scale. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons was low, which indicates that more high quality and robust trials are needed. We were able to pool the data using a meta-analysis approach for only two comparisons (TBC versus mobility exercises in patients with acute low back pain and traction for patients with sciatica). In general, the TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis. We strongly suggest readers to carefully read our summary of findings table for further details on each comparison.

Conclusion: The TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis.

Keywords: Low back pain; meta-analysis; physical therapy; subgroup; systematic review.

Publication types

• Meta-Analysis
• Systematic Review
• Acute Pain*
• Exercise Therapy
• Low Back Pain* / therapy
• Sciatica* / therapy
• Spinal Stenosis*

Grants and funding

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.318(7191); 1999 Apr 24

Evidence based case report

Low back pain: which is the best way forward.

Mr A, a fit and healthy 62 year old, presented with a 10 year history of intermittent non-specific low back pain. He had been able to control his symptoms with several self help measures, including weight control, regular aerobic activity, a firm mattress, back mobilisation exercises, and a naturally positive attitude. He had an active lifestyle and travelled extensively, but his episodes of acute pain had become increasingly severe and frequent and were starting to interfere with his quality of life. Radiological examination showed degenerative changes in the lumbar spine, predominantly at L4 and L5. A review of Mr A’s medical history and a clinical examination did not give rise to any suspicion that he might have a serious spinal abnormality or nerve root problems.

The clinical question

We considered the following clinical question. Which of the treatments available locally showed the best evidence of limiting acute attacks of low back pain in a patient with a history of chronic back pain? Our specific aim in Mr A’s case was to obtain reliable information as quickly as possible so that we could immediately advise him of the best treatment option.

Our previous experience of reviewing published reports on chronic low back pain had shown that there are many types of treatment, both complementary and conventional. Since our experience is with conventional treatments, we confined our search to these. Four main treatments available locally were relevant to Mr A’s condition: physiotherapy and exercise programmes; spinal manipulation; spinal steroid injections; and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. We decided to research the evidence for these treatments and to look for any other evidence based treatments that might be relevant.

Previous searching of Medline and Embase had shown a profusion of reports on treating low back pain. On closer examination, however, many of these lacked scientific rigour—there were questions over aspects such as randomisation, outcome measures, and duration of follow up. Furthermore, although searching these databases might provide reviews of much of the relevant evidence, the process is relatively time consuming.

Best Evidence 1 is a good starting point for quick identification of quality controlled evidence. Information can be accessed within minutes (or seconds, depending on your keyboard skills), so it is ideally suited for clinical use. Best Evidence is a compilation on CDRom of evidence based reports on articles from the ACP Journal Club and Evidence-Based Medicine . These publications give examples of current best evidence and provide expert commentaries. 2 They aim to select scientifically sound research studies that are relevant clinically and provide definitive evidence. Studies are selected according to predetermined methodological and clinical criteria to ensure their validity. 3 Although searching is speedy, the coverage of journals is selective and information is updated only once a year.

Searching for information on Best Evidence was relatively quick and easy. A full text search using “chronic low back pain” in the selected topic group “therapeutics and prevention” provided nine titles, eight of which seemed to be of direct relevance. As Best Evidence provides a full report, all eight documents were quickly scanned, initially focusing on the authors’ conclusions and expert commentaries, and seven were examined in greater detail.

We also accessed the Cochrane Library to check whether other evidenced based reports were available. The Cochrane Library is a quarterly updated CD Rom compiled by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation that aims to provide quality appraised summaries and systematic reviews of current best practice. If your particular area of interest is covered, the Cochrane Library represents a valuable and time saving resource. It comprises four sections (box).

Components of the Cochrane Library

• Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews—assimilates the findings of scientifically rigorous and broad based trials that use appropriate outcome measures for clinical decision making.
• Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness—is a collection of systematic reviews assembled by the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
• Cochrane Collaboration Trials Registry—provides a more complete list of randomised controlled trials than any of the bibliographic databases
• Cochrane Review Methodology Database—lists protocols of reviews currently in progress and includes contact points for research coordinators, a summary of their study design, and an expected date of publication

Because the Cochrane Library is currently small, a comparatively simple search strategy is sufficient. Using the advanced search option, the medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and text words “back-pain” and “low-back pain” were entered. These terms were then combined with “therapy.” This strategy provided 17 hits under “back-pain” (text word), 143 hits under “low-back pain” (MeSH), and 440 hits under “back-pain” (MeSH). Although these numbers seemed overwhelming, on closer scrutiny it was evident that a hit was recorded every time the relevant word was found, even in references, citations, and bibliographies. Once the search results were displayed, only one complete review was pertinent to the question, together with 12 potentially interesting abstracts in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectivenenss. One summary provided an evaluation of therapeutic evaluations for low back pain. 4 In addition, there were 130 hits in the Cochrane Collaboration Trials Registry. These covered injection therapy (anaesthetics, steroids, or other drugs), manipulation, osteopathy, and chiropractic. It took less than five minutes to perform the search (and become familiar with the software).

Because Best Evidence had been updated eight months previously, we decided to search the websites of ACP Journal Club (incorporating Evidence-Based Medicine ; www.acponline.org .) and Bandolier ( www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier ) for recent updates. Bandolier did not provide any information that was directly relevant, but it did give a lively and amusing commentary with good advice from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group’s guidelines. 5 The ACP Journal Club search did not yield additional relevant studies.

The evidence

One document in the Cochrane Library described several new treatments such as laser therapy and injections of collagen proliferant substances. 4 Though these seem promising, little definitive evidence on their use is currently available. Furthermore, it seemed that attendance at a “back school” alone had little useful effect on pain relief or disability.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews included a review showing that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was better than placebo for relieving pain and restoring function in patients with low back pain that had lasted more than eight weeks. 6 , 7 However, the beneficial effects were not appreciable, and not all patients showed a benefit.

Exercise programmes

A large study comparing the effects of McKenzie-type exercises (repetitive movements of flexion, extension, and side gliding) with education without exercises at a back school showed that exercises were more effective than placebo even after five years. 8 , 9 Of greater interest was a recent study evaluating the effectiveness of a graded exercise programme. 10 , 11 This showed that education combined with physical reconditioning and exercise could help prevent recurrences and improve overall levels of functioning.

Manipulation therapy

A meta-analysis of primary studies of spinal manipulation showed an increased likelihood of recovery after 2-3 weeks of treatment for patients with acute and subacute low back pain. 12 , 13 However, the benefits were lost within a few weeks, consistent with the course of the disease. Unfortunately, there was insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy of manipulation in helping patients with chronic low back pain.

Spinal steroid injections

One large controlled study showed that patients given an injection into the facet joint had slightly less pain and better functional ability after six months than patients who were given a placebo. 14 , 15 Although no patient reported any adverse effects, few patients reported any sustained improvement.

Applying the evidence

The next step was to determine whether these findings could be applied to Mr A, since recommendations from population based studies often have to be adapted to meet the circumstances of individual patients. However, for patients suffering from chronic and painful conditions any intervention that offers any possibility of success is likely to be considered, even when long term benefits have not been proved. For this reason all the possible options and expected outcomes were considered.

From discussion with Mr A, it emerged that previous use of a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation machine had not been beneficial. Regular chiropractic and manipulation therapy was not an option because Mr A could not afford this. Although steroid injections had previously brought good relief from pain, these do not offer any long term solution. After full consideration, Mr A chose a more active rehabilitation programme using an incremental aerobic exercise and fitness programme. He was also advised that recurrences were likely but could be treated in the same manner.

The evidence showed what we had suspected, that general awareness and education about back care combined with a regular exercise programme is probably the best option at present. One useful discovery we made was the Cochrane Review Methodology Database, which highlighted all reviews currently in progress. This is a convenient way of tracking the latest updates in any field of interest, and is certainly something we will use in the future.

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor David Sackett and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments.

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

• ASH Foundation
• Log in or create an account
• Publications
• Diversity Equity and Inclusion
• Global Initiatives
• Resources for Hematology Fellows
• American Society of Hematology
• Hematopoiesis Case Studies

Case Study: 36-Year-Old Man with Severe Low Back Pain and BCP-ALL

• Agenda for Nematology Research
• Precision Medicine
• Genome Editing and Gene Therapy
• Immunologic Treatment
• Research Support and Funding

A 36-year-old man presents to the emergency department complaining of severe low back pain. He reports a six-week history of progressive fatigue and worsening night sweats, and he notes gingival bleeding when he brushes his teeth. Physical examination is notable for borderline tachycardia and scattered ecchymoses on the extremities. His laboratory results reveal the following:

White blood cell differential is notable for 82 percent blasts. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy is performed, revealing a hypercellular marrow involved with B cell precursor (BCP) acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), with malignant lymphocytes comprising 65 percent of total cellularity. Cytogenetics reveal a single abnormality — the t(11;19)(q23;p13.3)/MLL-ENL fusion — associated with a poorer prognosis in BCP-ALL. The patient has no other significant medical history and is in excellent physical health. Prior to his presentation, he was very active, engaging in high-intensity exercise four times weekly. He is admitted to the hospital to initiate induction chemotherapy for ALL.

Based on new and emerging studies, which of the following approaches to ALL therapy is most likely to result in the highest likelihood of long-term cure in this patient?

• A regimen incorporating intensive use of myelosuppressive agents including daunorubicin, cytarabine, and cyclophosphamide, with allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission.
• A regimen incorporating intensive use of myelosuppressive agents including daunorubicin, cytarabine, and cyclophosphamide, with addition of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib.
• A regimen incorporating a backbone of glucocorticoids, vincristine, asparaginase, early and frequent CNS prophylaxis, and prolonged maintenance therapy.
• A regimen utilizing glucocorticoids and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor dasatinib as the primary anti-leukemic agents.

This approach to ALL therapy describes the so-called Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (BFM) backbone of pediatric ALL therapy. In the modern era, long-term survival for children with ALL now exceeds 80 percent. Unfortunately, adults, including older adolescents and young adults (AYAs), have historically had inferior outcomes, with long-term survival in the 30 to 40 percent range. The National Cancer Institute has defined the AYA population as those patients with cancer between age 15 and 39 years. Most AYAs had previously been treated similarly to other adults with ALL, receiving regimens incorporating intensive use of myelosuppressive agents including daunorubicin, cytarabine, and cyclophosphamide, with allogeneic stem cell transplantation in first remission (answer choice A); use of these approaches has yielded the historic survival numbers in the sub-50 percent range. Recognition of this has led to a number of trials in the past decade examining the use of “pediatric-inspired” regimens in the treatment of AYA patients with ALL, given the dramatic differences in long-term outcome between children and adults with ALL. A central hypothesis in these trials was the concept that the difference in outcome between adults and children with ALL may not be fully explained by biological differences in the disease between the two groups, and rather may be significantly impacted by the differences in therapy. Pediatric regimens are more intensive and therefore associated with higher levels of toxicity and reduced tolerability. Despite this, multiple prospective, randomized studies have now shown that pediatric-inspired regimens utilized in AYA patients have resulted in event-free survival rates approaching 70 percent.

Answer choices B and D describe ALL treatment protocols for patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) ALL. The patient described in the vignette has Philadelphia chromosome negative (Ph–) ALL, as shown by the cytogenetics performed on the bone marrow sample. While there are cytogenetic abnormalities other than the BCR-ABL1 fusion in which ABL kinase inhibitors are used in treatment of ALL, such as the NUP214- ABL1 fusion, ABL kinase inhibitors would not be expected to have activity in treating BCP-ALL with an MLL rearrangement, as in the case given in the vignette.

Case study submitted by Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

References 

• Curran E, Stock W. How I treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia in older adolescents and young adults . Blood. 2015; 125:3702-3710
• DeAngelo DJ, Stevenson KE, Dahlberg SE, et al. Long-term outcome of a pediatric-inspired regimen used for adults aged 18-50 years with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia . Leukemia. 2015; 29:526-534.
• Duployez N, Grzych G, Ducourneau B, et al. NUP214-ABL1 fusion defines a rare subtype of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia that could benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitors . Haematologica. 2016; 101:e133-e134.

American Society of Hematology. (1). Case Study: 36-Year-Old Man with Severe Low Back Pain and BCP-ALL. Retrieved from https://www.hematology.org/education/trainees/fellows/case-studies/male-severe-low-back-pain-and-bcp-all .

American Society of Hematology. "Case Study: 36-Year-Old Man with Severe Low Back Pain and BCP-ALL." Hematology.org. https://www.hematology.org/education/trainees/fellows/case-studies/male-severe-low-back-pain-and-bcp-all (label-accessed June 05, 2024).

"American Society of Hematology." Case Study: 36-Year-Old Man with Severe Low Back Pain and BCP-ALL, 05 Jun. 2024 , https://www.hematology.org/education/trainees/fellows/case-studies/male-severe-low-back-pain-and-bcp-all .

Citation Manager Formats