Dr. Moroz attended the NYU School of Medicine and remained at NYU-Rusk Rehabilitation for residency training, and subsequently, his first and only job. He rose through the faculty ranks and currently is Director of Residency Training and Vice Chair for Education. Dr. Moroz sought out additional training and became a New York State certified acupuncturist, and is directing the Integrative Sports Medicine program, which includes an 18-month track for PM&R residents leading them to becoming certified physician acupuncturists.
Dr. Brian Sunwoo is a current administrative chief resident in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation residency program at NYU Langone Health. He attended Rowan School of Osteopathic Medicine, where he received the Dean's Recognition Award and will begin a fellowship in Interventional Spine after completing residency. As an NYU resident, he has served on the Rusk Health Equity, GME Diversity and Inclusion, and House Staff Leadership Committees. Dr. Sunwoo currently is completing his clinical acupuncture certification through the NYU PM&R residency program with plans to incorporate its use in his future practice.
The following items were discussed in Part 1: number of participants in the residency program at NYU using acupuncture with patients; professional qualifications deemed necessary to use acupuncture in treating patients; insurance company coverage of acupuncture treatment; role of patients’ age in achieving desired clinical outcomes involving acupuncture; different kinds of instruments used by acupuncture practitioners; acupuncture as a lone intervention and also as an adjunct to western medicine; contributions that acupuncture can make in dealing with problems, such as stroke; and possible differences among clinicians in different health professions regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture treatments?
Dr. Byron Schneider is currently an associate professor with the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and serves as the Director of the Interventional Spine and Musculoskeletal Medicine Fellowship. Previously, he completed his residency and interventional spine fellowship at Stanford University. He has nearly 100 publications, with a research focus on the safety and outcomes of interventional spine procedures. He has given over 100 lectures at national and international meetings. He currently is on the Spine Intervention Society Board of Directors as the Chair of Research, and within the North American Spine Society is Chair of the Interventional Spine and Musculoskeletal Section as well as Co-Chair for the Coverage Committee.
In Part 2 of his presentation, he indicated that the study by Wolf and his group was observational and retrospective, so there are some missing data. They enrolled patients based on provocation discography, which you hope would result in better outcomes. He stated that this number, 50 percent of people saying that they are 50 percent better is very common in pain literature. He wouldn’t say it is favorable. Over and over, these are the numbers we see that turn out to be dead ends. These are non-compelling data unless we are able to show they are non-placebo. You need RCTs to do that. He is a huge proponent of observational studies. They can give you very meaningful clinical information, but unfortunately for a new technology like this, we need at least some evidence that these things are doing something beyond placebo. Next, he indicated the discussion in his presentation would shift to discussing some RCTs that have been published more recently. As of right now, however, the totality of evidence because of the negative RCTs in the research done today, stem cells do not work as a treatment for disc-related low back pain. He then described four new RCTs that came out in the last two years that will shed some new light. The first study involved a comparison with saline treatment. Unwanted side effects, such as infections and other complications have occurred as a result of the treatments in the four studies. Safety continues to be a concern in developing effective treatments using stem cell and PRP approaches.
Dr. Byron Schneider is currently an associate professor with the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and serves as the Director of the Interventional Spine and Musculoskeletal Medicine Fellowship. Previously, he completed his residency and interventional spine fellowship at Stanford University. He has nearly 100 publications, with a research focus on the safety and outcomes of interventional spine procedures. He has given over 100 lectures at national and international meetings. He currently is on the Spine Intervention Society Board of Directors as the Chair of Research, and within the North American Spine Society is Chair of the Interventional Spine and Musculoskeletal Section as well as Co-Chair for the Coverage Committee.
In Part 1 of his presentation, the focus was on a systematic review that was done of how stem cells and PRP pertain to back pain. He began by going over the history and regulations. Traditionally as it pertains to all biologics, they were largely exempt from the pathway of the FDA. Because they did not go through that process, these medicines were allowed to be done, but really did not have any insurance coverage. They became a cash cow for those offering fee-for-service treatment for things that did not have a lot of evidence behind them yet. It led to much public confusion, but that gap has shrunk in recent years. The FDA began issuing more restrictive language in 2020 regarding treatments that were not approved by that agency. The primary purpose of the aforementioned review was to look at 50 or more percent relief of low back pain at a six-month outcome. Based on those criteria, the number of citations was whittled down from 3,000 citations reviewed to 37, then finally down to only 12 that actually met the criteria. Those results should be alarming given that hundreds of clinics in the U.S. were providing treatments for cash payments that were based on only 12 research papers. Only one paper was on PRPs and one on stem cell treatment. He then described a study on PRP in 2015. He also provided summaries of other investigations that entailed PRP and stem cell treatments.