Two conservative interventions are effective for treating acute and subacute spine pain, new research suggests.
Results from the SPINE CARE randomized controlled trial showed that 6-8 weeks of an individualized postural therapy (IPT) or a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention known as ICE (identify, coordinate, and enhance) that includes physical therapy were associated with small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months compared with usual care.
In addition, spine-related health care spending did not differ significantly between ICE and usual care. However, IPT significantly increased spending compared with usual care.
– long after the interventions were over,” lead author Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA.
Common complaint
Spine pain is defined as pain that occurs in the neck or back, the investigators noted. It “accounted for more health spending than any other health condition in the U.S. in 2016,” they added.
“Spine pain is an exceptionally common reason for patients to visit their primary care providers,” Dr. Choudhry said.
The SPINE CARE trial enrolled 2,971 adults (60% were women; mean age was 51 years) with back or neck pain that had lasted less than 12 weeks. All were randomly allocated to usual care (no intervention, n = 992) or to the ICE (n = 829) or IPT (n = 1150) interventions.
The ICE care model stratifies patients on the basis of their risk of progression from acute to chronic pain and addresses biopsychosocial contributors to pain. Low-risk patients received one physical therapy (PT) visit and one coaching call, while higher-risk patients received three PT visits, three coaching calls, and one e-consultation.
The IPT intervention, which was delivered in 8 weekly sessions, focuses on postural realignment. IPT also emphasizes self-efficacy and self-management, including daily exercises to improve postural control, coordination, and muscle balance.
Results at 3 months showed that both the ICE and IPT groups improved significantly more in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores than in the usual care group (ICE, 31.2 to 15.4; IPT, 29.3 to 15.4; usual care, 28.9 to 19.5).
At 3 months, the absolute difference in ODI score vs. usual care was −5.8 for ICE (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.7 to −3.9; P < .001) and −4.3 for IPT (95% CI, −5.9 to −2.6; P < .001) for IPT.
Both interventions reduced resource utilization, such as diagnostic imaging, procedures, and specialist visits, Dr. Choudhry reported. “Because of this, both reduced spending unrelated to the interventions themselves,” he added.
When the intervention costs were included, ICE resulted in lower costs overall than those of usual care ($139 less), while overall spending for IPT was higher than for usual care (by $941).
“We tested the interventions in a way that was integrated into primary care, so implementing them in other practice settings should be quite straightforward,” Dr. Choudhry said.
He noted that the ICE model does not currently exist as a complete program – but its components, such as physical therapy or specialist e-consults, do. “And we think that our results justify exploring how to set this up more broadly,” he said.
Dr. Choudhry added that IPT was tested using a specific provider (Egoscue), “which has locations in a variety of places in the U.S. and internationally, and so should also be straightforward to integrate into routine practice.”
However, other important factors, such as insurance coverage, will need to be explored in the future, he said.