his research indicates that chiropractic is 457% more effective than medicine for chronic low back pain.

Low Back Pain:

Chiropractic Adjustments vs. Muscle Relaxants

by Mark Studin DC, FASBE(C), DAAPM, DAAMLP

 

Chiropractic had a better outcome in 24% of the patients

 

Low back pain is one of the most common maladies among the general population and the incidence of occurrence was reported by Ghaffari, Alipour, Farshad, Yensen, and Vingard (2006) to be between 15% and 45% yearly. Hoiriis et al. (2004) reported it to be between 75% and 85% over an adult lifetime in the United States. Chou (2010) writes that, "Back pain is also the fifth most common reason for office visits in the US, and the second most common symptomatic reason..." (p. 388). Historically and based upon this authors 3+ decades of treating low back pain with treatment options that range from heating pads, ice packs, over-the-counter drugs, prescription drugs, surgery, acupuncture and beyond, the most important questions are, "What works? What's proven and what has the best results with the least side effects allowing the patient to regain a normal lifestyle as quickly as possible."
Muscle relaxers are a common drug that has been prescribed by medical doctors for years for nonspecific low back pain. According to Chou (2010), " The term ‘skeletal muscle relaxants’ refers to a diverse collection of pharmacologically unrelated medications, grouped together because they are approved by regulatory agencies for treatment of spasticity or for musculoskeletal conditions such as tension headache or back pain." They are drugs that has been long studied and the effects and side effects have been well documented. Van Tudlar, Touray, Furlan, Solway, and Bouter (2003) concluded that, "Muscle relaxants are effective in the management of nonspecific low back pain, but the adverse effects require that they be used with caution"(p. 1978).
Chou (2010) also stated that, "Skeletal muscle relaxants are an option for acute nonspecific low back pain, although not recommended as first-line therapy because of a high prevalence of adverse effects" (p. 397). He reported that muscle relaxants had a moderate success rate defined by a 1-2 decrease in pain scales rated out of 10. Simply put, if a patient had a pain scale of 9, one could expect the muscle relaxers prescribed to bring the pain to an 8 or 7 at best and include all of the side effects. According to Drugs.com, side effects of muscle relaxants include:
More common
Blurred or double vision or any change in vision; dizziness or lightheadedness; drowsiness
Less common
Fainting; fast heartbeat; fever; hive-like swellings (large) on face, eyelids, mouth, lips, and/or tongue; mental depression; shortness of breath, troubled breathing, tightness in chest, and/or wheezing; skin rash, hives, itching, or redness; slow heartbeat (methocarbamol injection only); stinging or burning of eyes; stuffy nose and red or bloodshot eyes
Less common or rare
Abdominal or stomach cramps or pain; clumsiness or unsteadiness; confusion; constipation; diarrhea; excitement, nervousness, restlessness, or irritability; flushing or redness of face; headache; heartburn; hiccups; muscle weakness; nausea or vomiting; pain or peeling of skin at place of injection (methocarbamol only); trembling; trouble in sleeping; uncontrolled movements of eyes (methocarbamol injection only)
Rare
Blood in urine; bloody or black, tarry stools; convulsions (seizures) (methocarbamol injection only); cough or hoarseness; fast or irregular breathing; lower back or side pain; muscle cramps or pain (not present before treatment or more painful than before treatment); painful or difficult urination; pain, tenderness, heat, redness, or swelling over a blood vessel (vein) in arm or leg (methocarbamol injection only); pinpoint red spots on skin; puffiness or swelling of the eyelids or around the eyes; sores, ulcers, or white spots on lips or in mouth; sore throat and fever with or without chills; swollen and/or painful glands; unusual bruising or bleeding; unusual tiredness or weakness; vomiting of blood or material that looks like coffee grounds; yellow eyes or skin.(http://www.drugs.com/cons/skeletal-muscle-relaxants.html)
　
When comparing chiropractic spinal adjustments to muscle relaxants for low back pain, it first must be clarified that we are not discussing physical therapy or osteopathic manipulation. While different specialists render tremendous benefits to patients specific to various diagnoses, this research review is limited to a chiropractic spinal adjustment.
Wilkey, Gregory, Byfield, & McCarthy (2008) studied randomized clinical trials comparing chiropractic care to medical care in a pain clinic. "The treatment regimens employed by the pain clinic in this study consisted of standard pharmaceutical therapy (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, and gabapentin), facet joint injection, and soft-tissue injection. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) machines were also employed. These modalities were used in isolation or in combination with any of the other treatments. Chiropractic group subjects followed an equally unrestricted and normal clinical treatment regimens for the treatment of [chronic low back pain] were followed. All techniques that were employed are recognized within the chiropractic profession as methods used for the treatment of [low back pain]. Many of the methods used are common to other manual therapy professions" (p. 466-467).

After 8 weeks of treatment, the 95% confidence intervals based on the raw scores showed improvement was 1.99 for medicine and 9.03 for the chiropractic group. This research indicates that chiropractic is 457% more effective than medicine for chronic low back pain.
Within that group of 457% falls patients cared for by muscle relaxants.
Hoiriis et al. (2004) reported in their raw data that the chiropractic groups responded 24% better in reducing pain and concluded that, "Statistically, the chiropractic group responded significantly better than the control group with respect to a decrease in pain scores" (p. 396). This was done in "blinded, randomized clinical trials [which] are considered the gold standard of experimental design" (Hoiriis et al., 2004, p. 396).
　
REFERENCES
1. Ghaffari, M., Alipour, A., Farshad, A. A., Yensen, I., & Vingard, E.(2006).Incidence and recurrence of disabling low back pain and neck-shoulder pain. Spine, 31(21), 2500-2506.
2. Hoiriis, K. T., Pfleger, B., McDuffie, F. C., Cotsonis, G., Elsangak, O., Hinson, R., & Verzosa, G. T. (2004). A randomized clinical trial comparing chiropractic adjustments to muscle relaxants for subacute low back pain. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 27(6), 388-398.
3. Chou, R. (2010). Pharmacological management of low back pain. Drugs, 70(4) 387-402.
4. van Tudlar, M. W., Touray, T., Furlan, A. D., Solway, S., & Bouter, L. M. (2003). Muscle relaxants for nonspecific low back pain: A systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration. Spine, 28(17), 1978-1992.
5. Drugs.com, (2004). Skeletal muscle relaxants (systemic). Retrieved from http://www.drugs.com/cons/skeletal-muscle-relaxants.html
6. Wilkey, A., Gregory M., Byfield, D., & McCarthy, P. W. (2008). A comparison between chiropractic management and pain clinic management for chronic low-back pain in a national health service outpatient clinic. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 14(5), 465-473.

Chiropractic Care Saves Money

Work Related Injuries, Recurring Low Back Pain, Chronic Care and Chiropractic Treatment:

A Proven Solution to Save Federal, State and Private Insurers $2,871,485,223

 

by Mark Studin DC, FASBE(C), DAAPM, DAAMLP

Published in Dynamic Chiropractic 8/26/2011 

　

Low back pain and its treatment are a worldwide epidemic in human suffering and as a result, an economic burden to federal, state, public and self-insured risk takers who insure the injured. In 2009, Russo, Weir and Elixhauser reported that hospital stays for low back pain were 3.9 out of every 1000 people aged 55-64 years. That was rated as the #8 reason for hospital stays and fell closely behind cardiac conditions and degenerative arthritis. While low back pain has been well chronicled, recurring low back pain and the necessity for chronic care is now beginning to realize results that necessitate the proper approach to mitigate its frequency, duration and economic impact as sequella.
A very significant component of low back patient is its recurrence after initial care has been rendered as well as complications that ensue. Wasiak, Kim and Pransky reported in 2006 that, "Recent studies suggest that acute low back pain evolves into a chronic or recurrent condition more often than previously suspected" (p. 220). They went on to report that 40% of individuals with recurring low back pain sought additional care when the pain recurred and 42.9% of those had continued care and work disability lasting more than 201 days, underscoring the significance of the problem.
According to Dagenais, Caro and Haldeman in 2007, "The economic burden of a disease is the sum of all costs associated with that condition which would not otherwise be incurred if that disease did not exist. Given the many categories of costs that must be considered, it can be challenging to fully estimate the economic burden of an illness as data are often unavailable. The term 'cost' in health economics refers to the value of the consequences of using a particular good or service rather than its price...Despite this example, it should be made clear that estimating the economic burden of a disease is not simply a matter of tabulating the amount reimbursed for all clinician services related to a particular diagnosis. The total cost of illness—or economic burden—has three components: (1) direct (medical and nonmedical) costs; (2) indirect costs; and (3) intangible costs" (p. 9). Although indirect and intangible costs are significant burdens, this paper will focus solely on direct costs.
When considering direct costs for work related claims, studies indicate that non-work related indemnity plans should be included for work related low back injuries. Lipscomb, Dement, Silverstein, Cameron, and Glazner reported in 2009 that, "The private health insurance payment rates for workers with one work-related injury were 40% higher than for those with no history of work injury..." (p. 1188). The reasons are simple; indemnity carriers are victims of many workers' compensation carrier tactics created by the indemnity carriers, as reported by Griffin (2007), to deny, delay and defend. Patients need care and will access any system at their disposal so they can get necessary care and return to a normal, pain free lifestyle, leaving the indemnity carriers to absorb those financial costs. Although this is a significant factor, it is difficult to assign numbers and amounts that are directly tied to work related injuries, although those statistics undoubtedly tally in the billions.
Utilizing the Joint Report to the Governor by New York State Workers’ Compensation Board in 2009 as a reference, in 2004 the total number of claims in New York was 143,667 and out of those claims, 19.3% were low back related. The total costs for treating low back was $579,675,476.96, calculated for inflation to 2011 (Tom's Inflation Calculator, 1997-2011, http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html). This equates to $29.88 per resident to treat work related low back pain. Nationally, this equates to $9,262,855,559 based upon US Census statistics.
Cifuentes, Willets and Wasiak (2011) compared the treatment of recurrent or chronic low back pain. They considered any condition recurrent or chronic if there was a recurrent disability after a 15 day absence and return to disability. Anyone with less than a 15 day absence was excluded from the study.
The study concluded that chiropractic care during the health maintenance care period resulted in:
16% Decrease in disability duration of first episode compared to physical therapy
240% Decrease in disability duration of first episode compared to medical physician's care
6.6% Decrease in opioid (narcotic) use during maintenance care compared to physical therapy care
17.2% Decrease in opioid (narcotic) use during maintenance care compared medical physician's care
32% Decrease in average weekly cost of medical expenses during disability episode compared to physical therapy care
21% Decrease in average weekly cost of medical expenses during disability episode compared to medical physician's care
The study concluded that chiropractic care during the disability episode resulted in:
24% Decrease in disability duration of first episode compared to physical therapy
250% Decrease in disability duration of first episode compared to medical physician's care
5.9% Decrease in opioid (narcotic) use during maintenance care compared to physical therapy care
30.3% Decrease in opioid (narcotic) use during maintenance care compared medical physician's care
19% Decrease in average weekly cost of medical expenses during disability episode compared to physical therapy care
43% Decrease in average weekly cost of medical expenses during disability episode compared to medical physician's care
Based upon the Joint Report to the Governor (2009) and the statistics rendered by Cifuentes et al. (2011), the savings with chiropractic care utilized exclusive from medicine and physical therapy ranges from $1,759,942,556 with physical therapy to $3,983,027,890 with medicine. Understanding that most medical physicians utilize physical therapy as a primary tool for back related pain, we will average the savings to $2,871,485,223 by utilizing chiropractic care.
Cifuentes et. al (2011) started by stating, "Given chiropractors are proponents of health maintenance care...patients with work related Low back pain who are treated by chiropractors would have a lower risk of recurrent disability because that specific approach would be used (p. 396). They concluded by stating, " After controlling for demographic factors and multiple severity indicators, patients suffering nonspecific work-related LBP who received health services mostly or only from a chiropractor had a lower risk of recurrent disability than the risk of any other provider type (Cifuentes et. al, 2011, p. 404).
References
1. Russo, A., Wier, L. M., & Elixhauser, A. (2009, September). Hospital utilization among near-elderly adults, ages 55 to 64 years, 2007. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Retrieved from http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb79.jsp
2. Wasiak, R., Kim, J., & Pransky, G. (2006). Work disability and costs caused by recurrence of low back pain: Longer and more costly than in first episodes. Spine, 31(2), 219-225.
3. Dagenais, S., Caro, J., & Haldeman, S. (2008). A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine, 8(1), 8-20.
4. Lipscomb, H., Dement, J., Silverstein, B., Cameron, W., & Glazner J. (2009). Who is paying the bills? Health care costs for musculoskeletal back disorders, Washington State Union Carpenters, 1989-2003. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51(10), 1185-1192.
5. Griffin, D. (2007, February 7). Insurance companies fight paying billions in claims. Anderson Cooper Blog 360°, Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2007/02/ insurance-companies-fight-paying.html
6. New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (2009, March). Joint report to the Governor, From the Superintendant of Insurance and Chair, Workers' Compensation Board, summarizing and benchmarking workers' compensation data and examining progress on prior recommendations for improvement in data collection, Retrieved from http://www.wcb.state.ny.us/content/main/TheBoard/ 2009DataCollectionReport.pdf
7. Halfhill, T. R. (1997-2011). Tom's Inflation Calculator. Retrieved from http://www.halfhill.com/ inflation.html
8. U.S. Census Bureau (2010, December 22). U.S. POPClock Projection, Retrieved from http:// www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
9. Cifuentes, M., Willets, J., & Wasiak, R. (2011). Health maintenance care in work-related low back pain and its association with disability recurrence. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(4), 396-404.