Search

BackgroundAcupuncture and chiropractic care are evidence-based pain management alternatives to opioids. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides this care in some VA facilities, but also refers patients to community providers. We aimed to determine if patient-reported outcomes differ for acupuncture and chiropractic care from VA versus community providers.Materials and methodsWe conducted an observational study using survey outcome data and electronic medical record utilization data for acupuncture and chiropractic care provided in 18 VA facilities or in community facilities reimbursed by VA. Study participants were users of VA primary care, mental health, pain clinic, complementary and integrative therapies, coaching or education services in 2018-2019. Patients received 1) 4+ acupuncture visits (N = 201) or 4+ chiropractic care visits (N = 178) from a VA or community provider from 60 days prior to baseline to six-months survey and 2) no acupuncture or chiropractic visits from 1 year to 60 days prior to baseline. Outcomes measured included patient-reported pain (PEG) and physical health (PROMIS) at baseline and six-month surveys. Multivariate analyses examined outcomes at six months, adjusting for baseline outcomes and demographics.ResultsIn unadjusted analyses, pain and physical health improved for patients receiving community-based acupuncture, while VA-based acupuncture patients experienced no change. Unadjusted analyses also showed improvements in physical health, but not pain, for patients receiving VA-based chiropractic care, with no changes for community-based chiropractic care patients. Using multivariate models, VA-based acupuncture was no different from community-based acupuncture for pain (-0.258, p = 0.172) or physical health (0.539, p = 0.399). Similarly, there were no differences between VA- and community-based chiropractic care in pain (-0.273, p = 0.154) or physical health (0.793, p = 0.191).ConclusionsAcupuncture and chiropractic care were associated with modest improvements at six months, with no meaningful differences between VA and community providers. The choice to receive care from VA or community providers could be based on factors other than quality, like cost or convenience.

Objective Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) conducted a large demonstration project of a holistic Whole Health approach to care in 18 medical centers, which included making complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies more widely available. This evaluation examines patterns of service use among Veterans with chronic pain, comparing those with and without PTSD. Methods We assessed the use of Whole Health services in a cohort of Veterans with co-occurring chronic pain and PTSD ( n = 1698; 28.9%), comparing them to Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain only (n = 4170; 71.1%). Data was gathered from VA electronic medical records and survey self-report. Whole Health services were divided into Core Whole Health services (e.g., Whole Health coaching) and CIH services (e.g., yoga). Logistic regression was used to determine whether Veterans with co-occurring chronic pain and PTSD utilized more Whole Health services compared to Veterans with chronic pain but without PTSD. Results A total of 40.1% of Veterans with chronic pain and PTSD utilized Core Whole Health services and 53.2% utilized CIH therapies, compared to 28.3% and 40.0%, respectively, for Veterans with only chronic pain. Adjusting for demographics and additional comorbidities, Veterans with comorbid chronic pain and PTSD were 1.24 ( 95% CI : 1.12, 1.35, P ≤ .001) times more likely than Veterans with chronic pain only to use Core Whole Health services, and 1.23 ( 95% CI: 1.14, 1.31, P ≤ .001) times more likely to use CIH therapies. Survey results also showed high interest levels in Core Whole Health services and CIH therapies among Veterans who were not already using these services. Conclusion Early implementation efforts in VHA led to high rates of use of Core Whole Health and CIH therapy use among Veterans with co-occurring chronic pain and PTSD. Future assessments should examine how well these additional services are meeting the needs of Veterans in both groups.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive form of malignant glioma in adults with a median overall survival (OS) time of 16–18 months and a median age of diagnosis at 64 years old. Recent work has suggested that depression and psychosocial distress are associated with worse outcomes in patients with GBM. We therefore hypothesized that the targeted neutralization of psychosocial distress with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant treatment would be associated with a longer OS among patients with GBM. To address this hypothesis, we retrospectively studied the association between adjuvant SSRI usage and OS in GBM patients treated by Northwestern Medicine-affiliated providers. The medical records of 497 GBM patients were analyzed after extraction from the Northwestern Medicine Enterprise Data Warehouse. Data were retrospectively studied using a multivariable Cox model with SSRI use defined as a time-dependent variable for estimating the association with OS. Of the 497 patients, 315 individuals died, while 182 were censored due to the loss of follow-up or were alive at the end of our study. Of the 497 patients, 151 had a recorded use of SSRI treatment during the disease course. Unexpectedly, SSRI usage was not associated with an OS effect in both naïve (HR ​= ​0.81, 95% CI ​= ​0.64–1.03) and adjusted time-dependent (HR ​= ​1.26, 95% CI ​= ​0.97–1.63) Cox models. Ultimately, we failed to find an association between SSRI treatment and an improved OS of patients with GBM. Additional work is necessary for understanding the potential therapeutic effects of SSRIs when combined with other treatment approaches, and immunotherapies in particular, for subjects with GBM.