Search

Mindy Hong,1 Jeffrey Krauss,1 Grace Wang,2 Ken Cohen,3 Christine E Chaisson,4 Amitabh Gulati5 1Hinge Health, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2Weitzman Institute, Middletown, CT, USA; 3Optum Care Center for Research and Innovation, Eden Prairie, MN, USA; 4Yale University Center for Clinical Investigation, New Haven, CT, USA; 5Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Mindy Hong, Email mindy.hong@hingehealth.comPurpose: Physical therapy (PT) and conservative care are recommended first-line treatments for musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. While essential to high-quality care, these solutions often do not provide immediate or sufficient pain relief. Traditional transcutaneous electronic nerve stimulation (TENS) devices are often recommended; however, there is mixed evidence behind their effectiveness. A novel approach called hybrid form impulse therapy (HFIT) incorporates a priming pulse with a traditional TENS pulse width and frequency. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFIT versus traditional TENS versus usual care among members of a digital MSK program.Patients and Methods: A three-arm RCT comparing HFIT versus TENS versus usual care was conducted. A total of 325 people with chronic back or knee pain who were members of a digital MSK program consisting of PT-guided exercise therapy, education, and coaching were randomized. Outcomes including pain, function, anxiety, and depression were examined at 1, 2, and 4 weeks (primary endpoint). Engagement was measured through exercise therapy (ET) sessions completed. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic generalized estimating equations were conducted.Results: Adjusted per-protocol results at 4 weeks showed significantly lower odds of achieving pain improvement for both TENS (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.92]) and usual care (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.72]) groups, compared to HFIT group. Both HFIT and usual care users had significantly higher engagement than the TENS users (p=0.026 and p=0.002, respectively). No adverse events were reported throughout the study.Conclusion: More participants of a digital MSK program who were randomized to the HFIT group experienced meaningful pain improvement at 4 weeks than participants who used TENS and usual care. HFIT can be an effective, non-pharmaceutical solution for relief as a complement to first-line treatments for patients with chronic back and knee pain.Keywords: HFIT, pain, chronic pain, neuromodulation, noninvasive treatment

Objective: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are increasingly used for long-term rhythm monitoring after ischaemic and cryptogenic stroke, with the goal of detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) and subsequent initiation of oral anticoagulation to reduce risk of adverse clinical outcomes. There is a need to determine the effectiveness of different rhythm monitoring strategies in this context., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of individuals with commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance in Optum Labs Data Warehouse who had incident ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke and no prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2021. Patients were stratified by rhythm monitoring strategy: ILR, long-term continuous external cardiac monitor (>48 hours to 30 days) or Holter monitor (≤48 hours). The primary outcome was risk-adjusted all-cause mortality at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulation, bleeding, and costs., Results: Among 48 901 patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, 9235 received an ILR, 29 103 long-term continuous external monitor and 10 563 Holter monitor only. Mean age was 69.9 (SD 11.9) years and 53.5% were female. During the 12-month follow-up period, patients who received ILRs compared with those who received long-term continuous external monitors had a higher odds of new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulant initiation (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 2.09 to 2.48). Compared with patients who received long-term continuous external monitors, those who received ILRs had similar 12-month mortality (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12), with approximately $13 000 higher costs at baseline (including monitor cost) and $2500 higher costs during 12-month follow-up., Conclusions: In this large real-world study of patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, ILR placement resulted in more diagnosis of AF and initiation of oral anticoagulation, but no difference in mortality compared with long-term continuous external monitors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SSD also receives research support from the Department of Veterans Affairs. SSD and RFR report serving on the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) California Technology Assessment Forum. JM is a full-time employee of UnitedHealth Group and OA and KC (currently) and CEC (previously) are full-time employees of Optum Health, an arm of UnitedHealth Group and own stock in the company. OA had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)