Literature DB >> 29977715

Precision Spine Care: A New Era of Discovery, Innovation, and Global Impact.

Dino Samartzis1, Mauro Alini2, Howard S An1, Jaro Karppinen3, S Rajasekaran4, Luiz Vialle5, Jeffrey C Wang6, Marinus de Kleuver7.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29977715      PMCID: PMC6022953          DOI: 10.1177/2192568218774044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Global Spine J        ISSN: 2192-5682


× No keyword cloud information.
Currently, government resources and initiatives, such as the White House Precision/Personalized Medicine platform and large-scale biobank cohorts located in Asia, Europe, and the United States focusing on big data biometrics (eg, genetics, blood biomarkers, imaging, tissue, and clinical profiles) have declared the urgent need for more precise medical care on an unprecedented level to improve health care utilization and patient outcomes. As such, we have now entered an era of “precision” medical care. However, such a platform has largely focused on cardiovascular disease, diabetes or cancer whereby targeted therapeutic drugs based on patient profiling and genetic variation have dramatically improved patient outcomes and led to more cost-effectiveness.[1] Although such platforms have seen substantial success, the health care community has to date overlooked the more debilitating disorders of the musculoskeletal system, in particular as they relate to the spine. According to the recent Global Burden of Disease Study, low back pain (LBP) is the world’s most disabling condition, affecting every population worldwide.[2] Individuals with LBP have noted decreased daily function, diminished quality of life, work disability, and psychological distress.[3] Studies have even noted that individuals with chronic LBP have significant loss of brain tissue that can affect cognitive function.[4] Such pain is associated with tremendous socioeconomic and health-care consequences. Indirect and direct costs related to the treatment of LBP are estimated to be approximately US$90 billion per year in the United States with similar adjusted rates in other countries worldwide.[5] Nonetheless, proper diagnosis of LBP and identification of pain mechanisms are questionable, outcomes of LBP treatments are often tenuous and have been criticized, and prognostication potential of various pain and disability dimensions as well as management options have limitations. As a result, such limitations have led to increased health care costs to the patient and medical provider with often unsatisfactory patient outcomes. In fact, spine specialists have been often challenged by the popular press, patients, and insurance providers globally because of their frequently poor outcomes in treating patients with LBP. Importantly, although numerous generalized protocols/algorithms and guidelines for the treatment of LBP have been proposed, these often fail to account for more “personalized” or “precise” patient variation with regards to lifestyle, occupation, underlining systemic conditions (eg, patient psychological profile, blood chemistry/inflammatory biomarkers, genetics, etc), patterns of imaging findings and other biometrics that have tremendous potential in the management of LBP.[6,7] For example, we now know that specific pain genes may predict outcomes following treatments for various spine disorders, and that such genetic make-up provides further insight into pain intensity and disability.[8] Such systemic conditions and others have been found to assist in identifying subtypes of pain that may be more amenable to various treatments, understanding patientspain thresholds and perceptions, predicting outcomes, and further identifying specific pain generators to assist in more tailor-made or “precise” treatments.[9] In fact, the same applies for other spine conditions, whose occurrence, diagnosis, treatments, and outcomes remain uncertain. For example, disc degeneration is a common condition that affects individuals in every population.[10] It still remains speculative why an individual develops disc degeneration and overall different patterns of spinal changes. Nonetheless, it has been a long-held belief that severe disc changes may lead to pain in the low back or in the neck.[11] However, not everyone who has disc degeneration is painful and not every individual who has neck pain or LBP has severe disc changes.[12] Moreover, it remains a mystery as to who may progress to more severe forms of disc degeneration or who may develop disc herniations and resolution of such conditions. Regenerative therapies to treat disc degeneration have taken center stage in the past decade. However, outcomes in human subjects have remained short from stellar with often unsatisfactory results. It remains unknown as to which patients may benefit from such therapy and/or predict their outcomes with some certainty.[13] In fact, regenerative biologics have yet to account for the overall personalized profile of an individual to fine-tune therapeutic dose, approach, and effectiveness to not only regenerate the disc but also to delay progression or protect its integrity. The above not only applies to “de novo” degeneration, but it is also relevant to degeneration/disease that may develop adjacent to an operated disc. Such a condition may also necessitate future conservative treatment (eg, physical therapy, medication, injections, etc) or surgery. However, who may be more prone to develop such conditions, how to prevent and manage them, and predict their outcomes is poorly understood. Furthermore, spinal deformities, such as adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, can be life-altering conditions. Who may progress to more severe deformity and additional comorbidities, respond to conservative treatment (eg, bracing) or obtain optimal surgical outcomes continues to perplex the spine specialist. Preventative measures for such patients continue to remain speculative. Moreover, in general, not all individuals who undergo conservative management for various spine conditions have favorable outcomes. In other words, the “one-size-fits-all” guideline- and protocol-based approach to treating patients with spine-related conditions, is no longer adequate. More precise approaches to identifying the “right” patient for the “right” treatment as well discovering/developing targeted therapies based on more detailed or personalized patient profiling is needed. Understanding with certainty in advance as to who may have a good or bad response to a treatment would be invaluable to all stakeholders. To combat the massive global burden of LBP and other spine-related conditions, health care systems must develop coherent policies with more “precision-based” management algorithms to maximize proper diagnosis, preventative measures, tailor novel therapeutics, predict outcomes with more certainty (eg, risk assessment, predictive modeling), and overall improve patient outcomes and function. Precision medicine strategies aim to have treatments tailored specifically to the patients’ individual needs based on their genetic, immune system status, and overall systemic biomarker omics profile as well as additional phenotype information (eg, imaging, lifestyle) with the goal of improving outcomes and reducing adverse reactions via a wholistic fingerprint and oftentimes big data approach. This may lead to improved quality of life for patients, reduction in noneffective treatments and more cost-effective outcomes, translating into more productive societies. Prioritization of research and clinical applications in precision spine care can only be achieved via a more precision-based approach fueled by an interdisciplinary platform of clinicians and scientists symbiotically working together to facilitate unprecedented discovery and innovation that can ultimately develop tools to identify the right patients for the most appropriate intervention to obtain the best outcomes while simultaneously decreasing health care costs to all stakeholders for global impact. A precision spine care approach reliant on big data interconnecting numerous platforms of biometrics will be key to realize such aspirations. As such, the onus to move the spine field forward rests on the shoulders of all spine specialists, clinicians, and scientists alike. As a spine community, we need to come together on a large-scale basis to address the platform of precision spine care and its massive potential. It is via collaboration and team work that we can elevate the status quo of the spine discipline to new heights and make an impact that will resonate for generations to come.
  13 in total

1.  Associations between serum biomarkers and pain and pain-related function in older adults with low back pain: a pilot study.

Authors:  Gwendolyn A Sowa; Subashan Perera; Bernard Bechara; Vikas Agarwal; John Boardman; Wan Huang; Alejandra Camacho-Soto; Nam Vo; James Kang; Debra Weiner
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 5.562

2.  Systemic blood plasma CCL5 and CXCL6: Potential biomarkers for human lumbar disc degeneration.

Authors:  S Grad; C Bow; J Karppinen; K D Luk; K M Cheung; M Alini; D Samartzis
Journal:  Eur Cell Mater       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.942

Review 3.  A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally.

Authors:  Simon Dagenais; Jaime Caro; Scott Haldeman
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Chronic Back Pain Is Associated With Decreased Prefrontal and Anterior Insular Gray Matter: Results From a Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Hans-Christian Fritz; James H McAuley; Katharina Wittfeld; Katrin Hegenscheid; Carsten O Schmidt; Sönke Langner; Martin Lotze
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 5.820

5.  Does lumbar disc degeneration on magnetic resonance imaging associate with low back symptom severity in young Finnish adults?

Authors:  Jani Takatalo; Jaro Karppinen; Jaakko Niinimäki; Simo Taimela; Simo Näyhä; Pertti Mutanen; Roberto Blanco Sequeiros; Eero Kyllönen; Osmo Tervonen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 6.  Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations.

Authors:  W Brinjikji; P H Luetmer; B Comstock; B W Bresnahan; L E Chen; R A Deyo; S Halabi; J A Turner; A L Avins; K James; J T Wald; D F Kallmes; J G Jarvik
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 7.  Novel diagnostic and prognostic methods for disc degeneration and low back pain.

Authors:  Dino Samartzis; Ari Borthakur; Inna Belfer; Cora Bow; Jeffrey C Lotz; Hai-Qiang Wang; Kenneth M C Cheung; Eugene Carragee; Jaro Karppinen
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 8.  Low back pain in older adults: risk factors, management options and future directions.

Authors:  Arnold Yl Wong; Jaro Karppinen; Dino Samartzis
Journal:  Scoliosis Spinal Disord       Date:  2017-04-18

9.  Refined Phenotyping of Modic Changes: Imaging Biomarkers of Prolonged Severe Low Back Pain and Disability.

Authors:  Juhani H Määttä; Jaro Karppinen; Markus Paananen; Cora Bow; Keith D K Luk; Kenneth M C Cheung; Dino Samartzis
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Spine Degenerative Conditions and Their Treatments: National Trends in the United States of America.

Authors:  Zorica Buser; Brandon Ortega; Anthony D'Oro; William Pannell; Jeremiah R Cohen; Justin Wang; Ray Golish; Michael Reed; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-04-07
View more
  6 in total

1.  Low back pain in children: a rising concern.

Authors:  Jennifer Hwang; Philip K Louie; Frank M Phillips; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Artificial intelligence in predicting early-onset adjacent segment degeneration following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Authors:  Samuel S Rudisill; Alexander L Hornung; J Nicolás Barajas; Jack J Bridge; G Michael Mallow; Wylie Lopez; Arash J Sayari; Philip K Louie; Garrett K Harada; Youping Tao; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Matthew W Colman; Frank M Phillips; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 2.721

Review 3.  Mechanisms and clinical implications of intervertebral disc calcification.

Authors:  Uruj Zehra; Marianna Tryfonidou; James C Iatridis; Svenja Illien-Jünger; Fackson Mwale; Dino Samartzis
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 32.286

Review 4.  Recent advances and new discoveries in the pipeline of the treatment of primary spinal tumors and spinal metastases: a scoping review of registered clinical studies from 2000 to 2020.

Authors:  Julio C Furlan; Jefferson R Wilson; Eric M Massicotte; Arjun Sahgal; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 13.029

Review 5.  Quantum Computing: The Future of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence in Spine.

Authors:  G Michael Mallow; Alexander Hornung; Juan Nicolas Barajas; Samuel S Rudisill; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2022-02-10

6.  Development of a standardized histopathology scoring system for human intervertebral disc degeneration: an Orthopaedic Research Society Spine Section Initiative.

Authors:  Christine L Le Maitre; Chitra L Dahia; Morgan Giers; Svenja Illien-Junger; Claudia Cicione; Dino Samartzis; Gianluca Vadala; Aaron Fields; Jeffrey Lotz
Journal:  JOR Spine       Date:  2021-07-19
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.