Associations Between Relative Value Units and Patient-Reported Back Pain and Disability

Objective: To describe associations between health care utilization measures and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Method: Primary data were collected from patients ≥65 years with low back pain visits from 2011 to 2013. Six PROs of pain and functionality were collected 12 and 24 months after the index visits and total and spine-specific relative value units (RVUs) from electronic health records were tabulated over 1 year. We calculated correlation coefficients between RVUs and 12- and 24-month PROs and conducted linear regressions with each 12- and 24-month PRO as the outcome variables and RVUs as predictors of interest. Results: We observed very weak correlations between worse PROs at 12 and 24 months and greater 12-month utilization. In regression analyses, we observed slight associations between greater utilization and worse 12- and 24-month PROs. Discussion: We found that 12-month health care utilization is not strongly associated with PROs at 12 or 24 months

How well does neonatal neuroimaging correlate with neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy?

BACKGROUND: In newborns with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), the correlation between neonatal neuroimaging and the degree of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) is unclear. METHODS: Infants with HIE enrolled in a randomized controlled trial underwent neonatal MRI/MR spectroscopy (MRS) using a harmonized protocol at 4-6 days of age. The severity of brain injury was measured with a validated scoring system. Using proportional odds regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for the associations between MRI/MRS measures of injury and primary ordinal outcome (i.e., normal, mild NDI, moderate NDI, severe NDI, or death) at age 2 years. RESULTS: Of 451 infants with MRI/MRS at a median age of 5 days (IQR 4.5-5.8), outcomes were normal (51%); mild (12%), moderate (14%), severe NDI (13%); or death (9%). MRI injury score (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05, 1.07), severe brain injury (aOR 39.6, 95% CI 16.4, 95.6), and MRS lactate/n-acetylaspartate (NAA) ratio (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4,1.8) were associated with worse primary outcomes. Infants with mild/moderate MRI brain injury had similar BSID-III cognitive, language, and motor scores as infants with no injury. CONCLUSION: In the absence of severe injury, brain MRI/MRS does not accurately discriminate the degree of NDI. Given diagnostic uncertainty, families need to be counseled regarding a range of possible neurodevelopmental outcomes. IMPACT: Half of all infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) enrolled in a large clinical trial either died or had neurodevelopmental impairment at age 2 years despite receiving therapeutic hypothermia. Severe brain injury and a global pattern of brain injury on MRI were both strongly associated with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. Infants with mild or moderate brain injury had similar mean BSID-III cognitive, language, and motor scores as infants with no brain injury on MRI. Given the prognostic uncertainty of brain MRI among infants with less severe degrees of brain injury, families should be counseled regarding a range of possible neurodevelopmental outcomes

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. 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

The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions: Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results: We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged \u3e60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455

INvestigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous vertebroplasty

Background: The treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures has historically been limited to several weeks of bed rest, anti-inflammatory and analgesic medications, calcitonin injections, or external bracing. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (the injection of bone cement into the fractured vertebral body) is a relatively new procedure used to treat these fractures. There is increasing interest to examine the efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty and to study the possibility of a placebo effect or whether the pain relief is from local anesthetics placed directly on the bone during the vertebroplasty procedure. Methods/Designs: Our goal is to test the hypothesis that patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures who undergo vertebroplasty have less disability and pain at 1 month than patients who undergo a control intervention. The control intervention is placement of local anesthesia near the fracture, without placement of cement. One hundred sixty-six patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures will be recruited over 5 years from US and foreign sites performing the vertebroplasty procedure. We will exclude patients with malignant tumor deposit (multiple myeloma), tumor mass or tumor extension into the epidural space at the level of the fracture. We will randomly assign participants to receive either vertebroplasty or the control intervention. Subjects will complete a battery of validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health related quality of life at baseline and at post-randomization time points (days 1, 2, 3, and 14, and months 1, 3, 6, and 12). Both subjects and research interviewers performing the follow-up assessments will be blinded to the randomization assignment. Subjects will have a clinic visit at months 1 and 12. Spine X-rays will be obtained at the end of the study (month 12) to determine subsequent fracture rates. Our co-primary outcomes are the modified Roland score and pain numerical rating scale at 1 month. Discussion: Although extensively utilized throughout North America for palliation of pain, vertebroplasty still has not undergone rigorous study. The study outlined above represents the first randomized, controlled study that can account for a placebo effect in the setting of vertebroplasty. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81871888.The source of funding for the study and all authors for this publication was National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. OBJECTIVE: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. INTERVENTION: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. RESULTS: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work

Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial: a protocol for the pragmatic randomised study of appendicitis treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Several European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy. OBJECTIVES: The Comparing Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial for acute appendicitis aims to determine whether the antibiotic treatment strategy is non-inferior to appendectomy. METHODS/ANALYSIS: CODA is a randomised, pragmatic non-inferiority trial that aims to recruit 1552 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis. Participants are randomised to appendectomy or 10 days of antibiotics (including an option for complete outpatient therapy). A total of 500 patients who decline randomisation but consent to follow-up will be included in a parallel observational cohort. The primary analytic outcome is quality of life (measured by the EuroQol five dimension index) at 4 weeks. Clinical adverse events, rate of eventual appendectomy, decisional regret, return to work/school, work productivity and healthcare utilisation will be compared. Planned exploratory analyses will identify subpopulations that may have a differential risk of eventual appendectomy in the antibiotic treatment arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial was approved by the University of Washington\u27s Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02800785