Cognitive functional therapy with or without movement sensor biofeedback versus usual care for chronic, disabling low back pain (RESTORE): a randomised, controlled, three-arm, parallel group, phase 3, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally, but most interventions have only short-lasting, small to moderate effects. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is an individualised approach that targets unhelpful pain-related cognitions, emotions, and behaviours that contribute to pain and disability. Movement sensor biofeedback might enhance treatment effects. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and economic efficiency of CFT, delivered with or without movement sensor biofeedback, with usual care for patients with chronic, disabling low back pain. METHODS: RESTORE was a randomised, controlled, three-arm, parallel group, phase 3 trial, done in 20 primary care physiotherapy clinics in Australia. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with low back pain lasting more than 3 months with at least moderate pain-related physical activity limitation. Exclusion criteria were serious spinal pathology (eg, fracture, infection, or cancer), any medical condition that prevented being physically active, being pregnant or having given birth within the previous 3 months, inadequate English literacy for the study's questionnaires and instructions, a skin allergy to hypoallergenic tape adhesives, surgery scheduled within 3 months, or an unwillingness to travel to trial sites. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via a centralised adaptive schedule to usual care, CFT only, or CFT plus biofeedback. The primary clinical outcome was activity limitation at 13 weeks, self-reported by participants using the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Participants in both interventions received up to seven treatment sessions over 12 weeks plus a booster session at 26 weeks. Physiotherapists and patients were not masked. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001396213. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2018 and Aug 3, 2020, we assessed 1011 patients for eligibility. After excluding 519 (51·3%) ineligible patients, we randomly assigned 492 (48·7%) participants; 164 (33%) to CFT only, 163 (33%) to CFT plus biofeedback, and 165 (34%) to usual care. Both interventions were more effective than usual care (CFT only mean difference -4·6 [95% CI -5·9 to -3·4] and CFT plus biofeedback mean difference -4·6 [-5·8 to -3·3]) for activity limitation at 13 weeks (primary endpoint). Effect sizes were similar at 52 weeks. Both interventions were also more effective than usual care for QALYs, and much less costly in terms of societal costs (direct and indirect costs and productivity losses; -AU$5276 [-10 529 to -24) and -8211 (-12 923 to -3500). INTERPRETATION: CFT can produce large and sustained improvements for people with chronic disabling low back pain at considerably lower societal cost than that of usual care. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Curtin University.

Opioid analgesia for acute low back pain and neck pain (the OPAL trial): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are commonly used for acute low back pain and neck pain, but supporting efficacy data are scarce. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a judicious short course of an opioid analgesic for acute low back pain and neck pain. METHODS: OPAL was a triple-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) presenting to one of 157 primary care or emergency department sites in Sydney, NSW, Australia, with 12 weeks or less of low back or neck pain (or both) of at least moderate pain severity. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using statistician-generated randomly permuted blocks to guideline-recommended care plus an opioid (oxycodone-naloxone, up to 20 mg oxycodone per day orally) or guideline-recommended care and an identical placebo, for up to 6 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity at 6 weeks measured with the pain severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (10-point scale), analysed in all eligible participants who provided at least one post-randomisation pain score, by use of a repeated measures linear mixed model. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned eligible participants. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000775516). FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, 2016, and March 10, 2022, 347 participants were recruited (174 to the opioid group and 173 to the placebo group). 170 (49%) of 346 participants were female and 176 (51%) were male. 33 (19%) of 174 participants in the opioid group and 25 (15%) of 172 in the placebo group had discontinued from the trial by week 6, due to loss to follow-up and participant withdrawals. 151 participants in the opioid group and 159 in the placebo group were included in the primary analysis. Mean pain score at 6 weeks was 2·78 (SE 0·20) in the opioid group versus 2·25 (0·19) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference 0·53, 95% CI -0·00 to 1·07, p=0·051). 61 (35%) of 174 participants in the opioid group reported at least one adverse event versus 51 (30%) of 172 in the placebo group (p=0·30), but more people in the opioid group reported opioid-related adverse events (eg, 13 [7·5%] of 174 participants in the opioid group reported constipation vs six [3·5%] of 173 in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Opioids should not be recommended for acute non-specific low back pain or neck pain given that we found no significant difference in pain severity compared with placebo. This finding calls for a change in the frequent use of opioids for these conditions. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, and SafeWork SA.

What a pain in the back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium.

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient's condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.

A Study of 60 Patients with Low Back Pain to Compare Outcomes Following Magnetotherapy, Ultrasound, Laser, and Electrotherapy with and without Lumbosacral Kinesiotherapy.

BACKGROUND This study of 60 patients with low back pain (LBP) aimed to compare outcomes following magnetotherapy, ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, and electrotherapy, with and without lumbosacral kinesiotherapy, and used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OLBPDQ). This was a randomized actively controlled intervention trial of adding kinesiotherapy to a standard physiotherapy for LBP. MATERIAL AND METHODS The research included 60 participants with a diagnosis of chronic non-specific lumbar pain syndrome (CNSLPS) (mean±SD age 58.3±15.4 years, 37 women) LBP randomly assigned (1: 1) to 2 treatment groups. In Group 1, 30 patients were treated with magnetotherapy, ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, and electrotherapy. In Group 2, 30 patients received the same treatments as in Group 1, and also performed kinesiotherapy exercises affecting the lumbosacral spine and adjacent muscles. At baseline and at the end of the study, all participants completed the RMDQ and the OLBPDQ. RESULTS Both groups had significant improvement after therapy. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that at the end of treatment there was significantly greater progress and symptom reduction (P<0.001) in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 had a pain reduction of 52.5%, while Group 1 had 25.4% pain reduction (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS For treatment of disability caused by CNSLPS, physical therapy combined with kinesiotherapy should be a treatment of choice.

Acupuncture Versus Oral Medications for Acute/Subacute Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pharmacologic intervention do not always achieve benefits in the treatment of acute/subacute non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). We assessed efficacy and safety of acupuncture for acute/subacute NSLBP as alternative treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Epistemonikos, CNKI, Wan Fang Database, VIP database, CBMLD, CSTJ, clinical trials, EUCTR, World WHO ICTRP, and ChiCTR for randomized controlled trials, cross-over studies, and cohort studies of NSLBP treated by acupuncture versus oral medication from inception to 23th April 2022. A total of 6 784 records were identified, and 14 studies were included 1 263 participants in this review. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture therapy was slightly more effective than oral medication in improving pain (P < 0.00001, I2 = 92%, MD = -1.17, 95% CI [-1.61, -0.72]). According to the results of the meta-analysis, acupuncture therapy exhibited a significant advantage over oral medication with a substantial effect (P < 0.00001, I2 = 90%, SMD = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.22, -0.62]). Based on the results of the meta-analysis, acupuncture therapy was associated with a 12% improvement rate compared to oral medication in patients with acute/subacute NSLBP (P < 0.0001, I2 = 54%, RR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.05, 1.18]). Acupuncture is more effective and safer than oral medication in treating acute/subacute NSLBP. This systematic review is poised to offer valuable guidance to clinicians treating acute/subacute NSLBP and potentially benefit the afflicted patients. REGISTRATION: This review was registered in PROSPERO ( http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ) with registration number CRD42021278346.

Interventional treatments for low back pain due to sacroiliac joint dysfunction: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to report the current evidence in the literature about the efficacy of interventional treatments in the management of low back pain (LBP) due to sacroiliac joint dysfunction. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and CENTRAL bibliographic databases were searched. The search was performed from October to December 2021, and articles from the inception of the database to December 2021 were searched. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Five studies used the traditional radiofrequency approach (tRF), five studies used cooled radiofrequency approach (cRF), one study used botulinum toxin (BT), two studies used steroid injection, triamcinolone (TA) and local anesthetics injections, and one study used pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) denervation. Two studies used sham as a comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Cooled radiofrequency seems to be the most effective treatment in improving pain and functionality, while intra-articular injections are helpful only as diagnostic tools. However, due to the lack of high-quality studies, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions.

Extravertebral low back pain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for consultation in general practice. Currently, LBP is categorised into specific and non-specific causes. However, extravertebral causes, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm or pancreatitis, are not being considered. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library, complemented by a handsearch. Studies conducted between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2020, where LBP was the main symptom, were included. RESULTS: The literature search identified 6040 studies, from which duplicates were removed, leaving 4105 studies for title and abstract screening. Subsequently, 265 publications were selected for inclusion, with an additional 197 publications identified through the handsearch. The majority of the studies were case reports and case series, predominantly originating from specialised care settings. A clear distinction between vertebral or rare causes of LBP was not always possible. A range of diseases were identified as potential extravertebral causes of LBP, encompassing gynaecological, urological, vascular, systemic, and gastrointestinal diseases. Notably, guidelines exhibited inconsistencies in addressing extravertebral causes. DISCUSSION: Prior to this review, there has been no systematic investigation into extravertebral causes of LBP. Although these causes are rare, the absence of robust and reliable epidemiological data hinders a comprehensive understanding, as well as the lack of standardised protocols, which contributes to a lack of accurate description of indicative symptoms. While there are certain disease-specific characteristics, such as non-mechanical or cyclical LBP, and atypical accompanying symptoms like fever, abdominal pain, or leg swelling, that may suggest extravertebral causes, it is important to recognise that these features are not universally present in every patient. CONCLUSION: The differential diagnosis of extravertebral LBP is extensive with relatively low prevalence rates dependent on the clinical setting. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for extravertebral aetiologies, especially in patients presenting with atypical accompanying symptoms.

Identifying latent subgroups in the older population seeking primary health care for a new episode of back pain - findings from the BACE-N cohort.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the number one condition contributing to years lived with disability worldwide, and one of the most common reasons for seeking primary care. Research on this condition in the ageing population is sparse. Further, the heterogeneity of patients with back pain complicates the management in clinical care. It is possible that subgrouping people with similar characteristics would improve management. This paper aimed to identify latent classes based on demographics, pain characteristics, psychosocial behavior, and beliefs and attitudes about back pain, among older patients seeking primary care with a new episode of back pain, and to examine if there were differences regarding the classes' first point-of-contact. METHODS: The study was part of the international BACE (Back complaints in elders) consortium and included 435 patients aged ≥ 55 years seeking primary care (general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors) in Norway from April 2015 to March 2020. A latent class analysis was performed to identify latent classes. The classes were described in terms of baseline characteristics and first point-of-contact in primary care. RESULTS: Four latent classes were identified. The mean age was similar across groups, as were high expectations towards improvement. Class 1 (n = 169, 39%), the "positive" class, had more positive attitudes and beliefs, less pain catastrophizing and shorter duration of current pain episode. Class 2 (n = 31, 7%), the "fearful" class, exhibited the most fear avoidance behavior, and had higher mean pain intensity. Class 3 (n = 33, 8%), the "distressed" class, had the highest scores on depression, disability, and catastrophizing. Finally, class 4 (n = 202, 46%), the "hopeful" class, showed the highest expectations for recovery, although having high pain intensity. The identified four classes showed high internal homogeneity, sufficient between-group heterogeneity and were considered clinically meaningful. The distribution of first point-of-contact was similar across classes, except for the positive class where significantly more patients visited chiropractors compared to general practitioners and physiotherapists. CONCLUSIONS: The identified classes may contribute to targeting clinical management of these patients. Longitudinal research on these latent classes is needed to explore whether the latent classes have prognostic value. Validation studies are needed to evaluate external validity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04261309.

MyBack - effectiveness and implementation of a behavior change informed exercise programme to prevent low back pain recurrences: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common health condition and the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most LBP episodes have a favourable prognosis, but recurrences within a year are common. Despite the individual and societal impact related to LBP recurrences, there is limited evidence on effective strategies for secondary prevention of LBP and successful implementation of intervention programmes in a real-world context. The aim of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of a tailored exercise and behavioural change programme (MyBack programme) in the secondary prevention of LBP; and evaluate acceptability, feasibility and determinants of implementation by the different stakeholders, as well as the implementation strategy of the MyBack programme in real context. METHODS: This protocol describes a hybrid type I, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of MyBack programme in the context of primary health care. The Behaviour Change Wheel framework and FITT-VP principles will inform the development of the behaviour change and exercise component of MyBack programme, respectively. Patients who have recently recovered from an episode of non-specific LBP will be randomly assigned to MyBack and usual care group or usual care group. The primary outcome will be the risk of LBP recurrence. The secondary outcomes will include disability, pain intensity, musculoskeletal health, and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed monthly for 1 year. Costs data related to health care use and the MyBack programme will be also collected. Implementation outcomes will be assessed in parallel with the effectiveness study using qualitative methods (focus groups with participants and health providers) and quantitative data (study enrolment and participation data; participants adherence). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the effectiveness and implementation of a tailored exercise and behaviour change programme for prevention of LBP recurrences. Despite challenges related to hybrid design, it is expected that data on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of the MyBack programme may contribute to improve health care in patients at risk of LBP recurrences, contributing to direct and indirect costs reduction for patients and the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05841732.

Comparison of positional distraction with stabilisation exercises versus stabilisation exercises alone in the management of lumbar radiculopathy: A randomized controlled-trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of positional distraction with stabilisation exercises versus stabilisation exercises alone in the management of lumbar radiculopathy. METHODS: The randomised controlled trial was conducted from July to December 2020 at the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Dow University of Health Sciences, and the Neurosurgery ward of Civil Hospital, Karachi, and comprised individuals of either gender with lumbar radiculopathy pain who were randomised into positional distraction with stabilisation exercises group A and stabilisation exercise group B. The treatment duration was 3 sessions per week for 8 weeks. Intensity of pain and disability were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, respectively. Data was analysed using SPSS 21. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients, 63(63%) were males and 37(37%) were females. Overall, 89(89%) were married. There were 50(50%) subjects in group A with mean age 39.42±6.36 years and 50(%) in group B with mean age 38.80±6.69 years. There was no significant difference in terms of age, gender and marital status between the groups (p>0.05). The study was completed by 96(96%) patients; 48(50%) in each of the 2 groups. Intragroup improvement post-intervention compared to baseline was significant (p<0.001) in both groups. Outcomes in group A were significantly better than in group B (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of positional distraction to stabilisation exercises was found to have superior effects compared to stabilisation exercise alone on pain and functional disability among patients with lumbar radiculopathy. Clinical Trial Number: NCT04427423 dated 27th April 2020.

[Physiotherapy in rehabilitation of patients with degenerative disk diseases from positions of evidence-based medicine: a literature review]. / Fizioterapiya v reabilitatsii bol'nykh s degenerativnymi zabolevaniyami pozvonochnika s pozitsii dokazatel'noi meditsiny: obzor literatury.

Back pain is one of the most urgent problems of rehabilitation. Patients with this pathology have a leading place among neurological patients in terms of the number of days of disability. The high economic costs in society are explained by the need for lumbar surgery (discectomy, spinal fusion and disc prosthesis) and rehabilitation after it. The effectiveness of rehabilitative measures is determined both by the patient's rehabilitative potential and by the choice of rehabilitative methods. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of physiotherapy in patients with degenerative disk diseases from positions of evidence-based medicine according to the scientific and technical literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The analysis of scientific and technical literature sources and the study of materials of meta-analyses, systematic reviews (depth of search was 20 years) on the evaluation of effectiveness of physiotherapeutical methods in the rehabilitation of patients with degenerative disk diseases have been conducted. RESULTS: The ability of pulsed magnetic field to reduce the intensity of pain and improve the functional capacities of the spine in patients with low back pain has been identified. There was a pronounced analgesic end-point of low-level laser therapy in acute and chronic back pain at short and medium-term (up to 12 months) observation, as well as the ability of the method to reduce temporary disability in degenerative disk diseases. CONCLUSION: The use of magnetotherapy and low-level laser therapy can be recommended for the treatment of patients with degenerative disk diseases (C grade of recommendations, 3rd level of evidence). The recommendation is based on the results of 10 RCTs (1.111 patients with degenerative disk diseases), 3 meta-analyses, 1 systematic review and 1 Cochrane review (a total of 3.431 patients).

Yoga Versus Education for Veterans with Chronic Low Back Pain: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Yoga is effective for chronic low back pain (cLBP) in civilians but understudied among Veterans. OBJECTIVE: Determine whether yoga is more effective than an educational book for improving disability and pain among Veterans with cLBP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Veterans diagnosed with cLBP at a VA medical center enrolled in a randomized controlled trial from March to December of 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Twelve weekly hatha yoga classes or education using The Back Pain Helpbook. MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were changes from baseline at 12 weeks in back-related disability on the modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and pain on the Defense & Veterans Pain Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes were global improvement, patient satisfaction, pain medication use, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. An intention-to-treat approach was used in primary analyses. RESULTS: One hundred twenty Veterans (mean age, 55.5 [SD = 16.9]; 11 [9%] women; mean number of chronic conditions, 5.5) were randomized to yoga (n = 62) and education (n = 58). At 12 weeks, reductions in back-related disability in yoga (mean difference [MD] = - 3.50, 95% CI: - 5.03, - 1.97) were not significantly different than education (MD = - 2.55, 95% CI: - 4.10, - 0.99; between-group difference: - 0.95 [95% CI: - 3.14, 1.23], p = 0.39). For pain, there was no significant difference between yoga (MD = - 1.01, 95% CI: - 1.67, - 0.35) and education (MD = - 0.81, 95% CI: - 1.36, - 0.27; between-group difference: - 0.20, 95% CI: - 1.06, 0.66, p = 0.65). More yoga than education participants reported being very much or extremely improved (39% vs 19%, OR = 3.71, 95% CI: 1.37, 10.02, p = 0.01) and very satisfied with treatment (60% vs 31%, OR = 4.28, 95% CI: 1.70, 10.77, p = 0.002). No differences in pain medication use or post-traumatic stress symptoms were observed at 12 weeks. No serious adverse events were reported in either group. CONCLUSION: Twelve weekly yoga classes were not more effective than an education intervention for improving pain or disability outcomes among mostly older male Veterans with cLBP and multiple comorbid health conditions. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02224183.

Percutaneous Spinal Interventions for Chronic Pain Management.

Chronic neck and back pain are two of the most common and disabling complaints seen in primary care and neurology practices. Most commonly these come in the form of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar spinal stenosis, and cervical and lumbar facet arthropathy. Treatment options are widespread and include nonpharmacological, pharmacological, surgical, and interventional options. The focus of this review will be to discuss the most common interventional procedures performed for chronic cervical and lumbar back pain, common indications for performing these interventions, as well as associated benefits and risks. These interventions alone may not suffice to improve the quality of life in those suffering from chronic pain. However, an understanding of the interventional pain options available and the evidence behind performing these interventions can help providers incorporate these into a multimodal approach to provide effective pain management that may allow patients an improved quality of life.

The health and economic burden of musculoskeletal disorders in Belgium from 2013 to 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NKP), osteoarthritis (OST) and rheumatoid arthritis (RHE) are among the musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders causing the greatest disability in terms of Years Lived with Disability. The current study aims to analyze the health and economic impact of these MSK disorders in Belgium, providing a summary of morbidity and mortality outcomes from 2013 to 2018, as well as direct and indirect costs from 2013 to 2017. METHODS: The health burden of LBP, NKP, OST and RHE in Belgium from 2013 to 2018 was summarized in terms of prevalence and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) using data from the Belgian health interview surveys (BHIS), the INTEGO database (Belgian registration network for general practitioners) and the Global Burden of Diseases study 2019. The economic burden included estimates of direct medical costs and indirect costs, measured by cost of work absenteeism. For this purpose, data of the respondents to the BHIS-2013 were linked with the national health insurance data (intermutualistic agency [IMA] database) 2013-2017. RESULTS: In 2018, 2.5 million Belgians were affected by at least one MSK disorder. OST represented the disorder with the highest number of cases for both men and women, followed by LBP. In the same year, MSK disorders contributed to a total of 180,746 DALYs for female and 116,063 DALYs for men. LBP appeared to be the largest contributor to the health burden of MSK. Having at least one MSK disorder costed on average 3 billion € in medical expenses and 2 billion € in indirect costs per year, with LBP being the most costly. CONCLUSION: MSK disorders represent a major health and economic burden in Belgium. As their burden will probably continue to increase in the future, acting on the risk factors associated to these disorders is crucial to mitigate both the health and economic burden.

Protocol for Biospecimen Collection and Analysis Within the BACPAC Research Program.

The Biospecimen Collection and Processing Working Group of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) HEAL Initiative BACPAC Research Program was charged with identifying molecular biomarkers of interest to chronic low back pain (cLBP). Having identified biomarkers of interest, the Working Group worked with the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Center for Biospecimen Research and Development-funded by the Early Phase Pain Investigation Clinical Network Data Coordinating Center-to harmonize consortium-wide and site-specific efforts for biospecimen collection and analysis. Biospecimen collected are saliva, blood (whole, plasma, serum), urine, stool, and spine tissue (paraspinal muscle, ligamentum flavum, vertebral bone, facet cartilage, disc endplate, annulus fibrosus, or nucleus pulposus). The omics data acquisition and analyses derived from the biospecimen include genomics and epigenetics from DNA, proteomics from protein, transcriptomics from RNA, and microbiomics from 16S rRNA. These analyses contribute to the overarching goal of BACPAC to phenotype cLBP and will guide future efforts for precision medicine treatment.

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Effect of a Multimodal Supervised Therapeutic Exercise Program on Quality of Life, Pain, and Lumbopelvic Impairments in Women With Endometriosis Unresponsive to Conventional Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of "Physio-EndEA", a multimodal nine-week supervised exercise intervention, on quality of life, pain, and lumbopelvic impairments in women with endometriosis unresponsive to conventional therapy. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Outcomes were measured at baseline, post-intervention, and at 1 year. SETTING: Two Public University Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: This trial included 31 women with endometriosis (N=31) randomly allocated to "Physio-EndEA" group (n=16) or control group (n=15). Four participants dropped out of the study for causes unrelated to the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: The "Physio-EndEA" program consisted of a 1-week lumbopelvic stabilization learning phase followed by an 8-week phase of stretching, aerobic, and resistance exercises focused on the lumbopelvic area. It was sequentially instructed and supervised by a trained physiotherapist (with volume and intensity progression) and adapted daily to the potential of each participant. Control group received the usual treatment stipulated by their gynecologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, pressure pain thresholds, pain-related catastrophic thoughts, abdominal and back strength, lumbopelvic stability, and muscle architecture. RESULTS: Adherence rate was 90.6% and mean (±standard deviation) satisfaction was 9.44±0.73 out of 10. No remarkable health problems were reported during the trial. In comparison with controls, the quality of life was improved post-intervention and at 1 year in the Physio-EndEA group with large effect sizes (d>0.80). This group also evidenced: a reduced intensity of dyspareunia, catastrophic thoughts; an increase in pelvic, lumbar, and distal pressure pain thresholds; increases in abdominal and back strength and lumbopelvic stability; and increased thickness of transversus abdominis (right side) and width of lumbar multifidus (left side). CONCLUSION: A 9-week program of multimodal supervised therapeutic exercise is a feasible and effective intervention to improve QoL in women with endometriosis. This program also offers benefits in terms of pain/sensitization and lumbopelvic impairments.

Effects of a concurrent exercise training program on low back and sciatic pain and pain disability in late pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the influence of a concurrent exercise (aerobic + resistance) training program, from the 17th gestational week (g.w.) until birth on low back and sciatic pain, and pain disability. A total of 93 pregnant women divided into exercise (n = 49) and control (n = 44) groups followed a 60-min, 3 days/week, concurrent exercise training. METHODS: Low back and sciatic pain were measured with a Visual Analogic Scale (VAS). The disability resulting from pain was assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Measures were performed at the 16th and 34th g.w. RESULTS: The exercise group increased 21.9 mm less the VAS low back (between-group differences (B): 95% CI: -33.6 to -10.2; p < 0.001) and 12.9 mm less the VAS sciatica score (between-group differences: 95% CI (B): -21.8 to -4.0; p = 0.005) than the control group. Regarding the ODI questionnaire, the exercise group increased 0.7, 0.5, and 0.7 less than the control group in pain while sleeping (between-group differences (B): 95% CI: -1.4 to -0.01; p = 0.025), pain while lifting weight (between-group differences (B): 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.01; p = 0.016), and limitations of the social life due to pain (between-group differences(B): 95% CI: -1.3 to -0.06; p = 0.032). Furthermore, the exercise group suffered 6.9% less pain than the control group in the ODI total score (between-group differences (B): 95% CI: -13.9 to 0.053; p = 0.052). CONCLUSION: This concurrent exercise training program adapted to pregnant women improved pain compared to controls.

The effect of a workplace wellness program on disability, function and pain in healthcare providers workers with low back pain-outcomes of 3040 academic health center employees.

PURPOSE: (1) Identification of musculoskeletal risk factors for healthcare providers suffering low back pain (LBP) and the creation of risk profiles for those individuals and (2) analyze the impact of a workplace wellness program on healthcare providers who suffer from low back pain. METHODS: A total of 3040 employees at an academic healthcare center underwent a computer-adaptive survey of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), biometric tests, and a disability and functional movement assessment as part of the workplace wellness program (WWP). Clinical interventions with a rehabilitation specialist were offered to employees identified as at risk for low back pain. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive methods and multivariable regressions to address the study objectives. RESULTS: Of the 3040 healthcare providers enrolled in this study, 77% identified with non-specific LBP with greater weakness, numbness, reduced flexibility, and physical activity. The major predictive risk factors for LBP were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference score, PROMIS fatigue, previous work injury, flexibility, numbness, PROMIS social function, level of education, and BMI. Healthcare providers with LBP who completed the WWP improved in most dimensions of HRQOL and disability and functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of healthcare providers suffer from LBP as a result of the nature of their work. Disability and functional outcomes measurements and PROMIS results quantitatively assess healthcare providers with LBP. Organizations can develop injury mitigation programs to target employees at high risk of LBP using the risk factors we identify. Completion of the WWP was associated with improvements in disability, HRQOL and functional measures.