Whedon James M, Anderson Brian, Mackenzie Todd A, Grout Leah, Moonaz Steffany, Lurie Jon D, Haldeman Scott
Clinical & Health Services Research, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, California.
Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, Iowa.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2025 Sep 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2025.07.002.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of selected adverse outcomes for older adults with a new episode of neck pain (NP) receiving chiropractic care compared to those receiving primary medical care with Prescription Drug Therapy (PDT) or primary care without medication.
Through analysis of Medicare claims data, we designed a retrospective cohort study including 291 604 patients with a new office visit for NP in 2019. We developed 3 mutually exclusive exposure groups: the Chiropractic Manipulative Therapy (CMT) group received spinal manipulative therapy from a chiropractor with no primary care visits; the PDT group visited primary care and filled an analgesic prescription within 7 days without chiropractic care, and the Primary Care Only (PCO) group visited primary care without chiropractic care or analgesic prescriptions. We analyzed possible complications, including adverse drug events, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and other selected adverse outcomes, calculating incidence rate ratios over 24 months using Poisson regression with robust standard errors and inverse propensity weighing to balance the exposure groups regarding patient characteristics.
Among 291 604 patients, 182 596 (63%) received chiropractic care. For CMT vs PDT, the rate for any measured adverse outcome was 20% lower; for CMT vs PCO, the rate was 14% lower, and for PDT vs PCO, the rate was 6% higher. PDT had the highest risk of any measured adverse outcome.
For Medicare Part B beneficiaries with new onset NP, management with chiropractic care was associated with lower rates of adverse events than primary medical care. The PDT group had the highest risk of any measured adverse outcome.
本研究旨在评估新出现颈部疼痛(NP)的老年人接受整脊治疗与接受处方药治疗(PDT)的初级医疗护理或无药物治疗的初级护理相比,发生特定不良后果的风险。
通过分析医疗保险索赔数据,我们设计了一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了2019年因新发NP首次就诊的291604名患者。我们创建了3个相互排斥的暴露组:整脊手法治疗(CMT)组接受整脊师的脊柱手法治疗,无初级护理就诊;PDT组就诊于初级护理并在7天内开具了止痛处方,未接受整脊治疗;仅初级护理(PCO)组就诊于初级护理,未接受整脊治疗或止痛处方。我们分析了可能的并发症,包括药物不良事件、椎基底动脉供血不足和其他特定不良后果,使用具有稳健标准误的泊松回归和逆倾向加权法计算24个月内的发病率比,以平衡各暴露组的患者特征。
在291604名患者中,182596名(63%)接受了整脊治疗。CMT组与PDT组相比,任何测量的不良后果发生率低20%;CMT组与PCO组相比,发生率低14%;PDT组与PCO组相比,发生率高6%。PDT组发生任何测量的不良后果的风险最高。
对于新发NP的医疗保险B部分受益人,整脊治疗管理的不良事件发生率低于初级医疗护理。PDT组发生任何测量的不良后果的风险最高。