[Evidence-based interventions to treat chronic low back pain: treatment selection for a personalized medicine approach : German version]. / Evidenzbasierte Interventionen zur Behandlung von chronischem Schmerz im unteren Rücken ­ Therapieauswahl für einen personalisierten Behandlungsansatz : Deutsche Fassung.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is highly prevalent in the United States and globally, resulting in functional impairment and lowered quality of life. While many treatments are available for cLBP, clinicians have little information about which specific treatment(s) will work best for individual patients or subgroups of patients. The Back Pain Research Consortium, part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM (HEAL) Initiative, will conduct a collaborative clinical trial, which seeks to develop a personalized medicine algorithm to optimize patient and provider treatment selection for patients with cLBP. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this article is to provide an update on evidence-based cLBP interventions and describe the process of reviewing and selecting interventions for inclusion in the clinical trial. METHODS: A working group of cLBP experts reviewed and selected interventions for inclusion in the clinical trial. The primary evaluation measures were strength of evidence and magnitude of treatment effect. When available in the literature, duration of effect, onset time, carryover effect, multimodal efficacy, responder subgroups, and evidence for the mechanism of treatment effect or biomarkers were considered. CONCLUSION: The working group selected 4 leading, evidence-based treatments for cLBP to be tested in the clinical trial and for use in routine clinical treatment. These treatments include (1) duloxetine, (2) acceptance and commitment therapy, (3) a classification-based exercise and manual therapy intervention, and (4) a self-management approach. These interventions each had a moderate to high level of evidence to support a therapeutic effect and were from different therapeutic classes.

The Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program: Structure, Research Priorities, and Methods.

In 2019, the National Health Interview survey found that nearly 59% of adults reported pain some, most, or every day in the past 3 months, with 39% reporting back pain, making back pain the most prevalent source of pain, and a significant issue among adults. Often, identifying a direct, treatable cause for back pain is challenging, especially as it is often attributed to complex, multifaceted issues involving biological, psychological, and social components. Due to the difficulty in treating the true cause of chronic low back pain (cLBP), an over-reliance on opioid pain medications among cLBP patients has developed, which is associated with increased prevalence of opioid use disorder and increased risk of death. To combat the rise of opioid-related deaths, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated the Helping to End Addiction Long-TermSM (HEAL) initiative, whose goal is to address the causes and treatment of opioid use disorder while also seeking to better understand, diagnose, and treat chronic pain. The NIH Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program, a network of 14 funded entities, was launched as a part of the HEAL initiative to help address limitations surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of cLBP. This paper provides an overview of the BACPAC research program's goals and overall structure, and describes the harmonization efforts across the consortium, define its research agenda, and develop a collaborative project which utilizes the strengths of the network. The purpose of this paper is to serve as a blueprint for other consortia tasked with the advancement of pain related science.

Evidence-based interventions to treat chronic low back pain: treatment selection for a personalized medicine approach.

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is highly prevalent in the United States and globally, resulting in functional impairment and lowered quality of life. While many treatments are available for cLBP, clinicians have little information about which specific treatment(s) will work best for individual patients or subgroups of patients. The Back Pain Research Consortium, part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM (HEAL) Initiative, will conduct a collaborative clinical trial, which seeks to develop a personalized medicine algorithm to optimize patient and provider treatment selection for patients with cLBP. Objective: The primary objective of this article is to provide an update on evidence-based cLBP interventions and describe the process of reviewing and selecting interventions for inclusion in the clinical trial. Methods: A working group of cLBP experts reviewed and selected interventions for inclusion in the clinical trial. The primary evaluation measures were strength of evidence and magnitude of treatment effect. When available in the literature, duration of effect, onset time, carryover effect, multimodal efficacy, responder subgroups, and evidence for the mechanism of treatment effect or biomarkers were considered. Conclusion: The working group selected 4 leading, evidence-based treatments for cLBP to be tested in the clinical trial and for use in routine clinical treatment. These treatments include (1) duloxetine, (2) acceptance and commitment therapy, (3) a classification-based exercise and manual therapy intervention, and (4) a self-management approach. These interventions each had a moderate to high level of evidence to support a therapeutic effect and were from different therapeutic classes.

Genes, Race, and Causation: US Public Perspectives About Racial Difference.

Concerns have been raised that the increase in popular interest in genetics may herald a new era within which racial inequities are seen as 'natural' or immutable. In the following study, we provide data from a nationally representative survey on how the US population perceives general ability, athleticism, and intellect being determined by race and/or genetics and whether they believe racial health inequities to be primarily the product of genetic or social factors. We find that self-described race is of primary importance in attributing general ability to race, increasing age is a significant factor in attributing athleticism and intellect to genes and race, and education is a significant factor in decreasing such racially and genetically deterministic views . Beliefs about the meaning of race are statistically significantly associated with respect to the perception of athletic abilities and marginally associated with the perception of racial health inequalities being either socially or genetically derived. Race, education, socioeconomic status, and concepts of race were frequently found to be multiplicative in their statistical effects. The persistent acceptance of a genetically and racially deterministic view of athleticism among the White and older population group is discussed in respect to its social impact, as is the high level of agreement that general abilities are determined by race among non-White respondents and those of lower socioeconomic status. We argue that these findings highlight that both biological and non-biological forms of understanding race continue to play a role into the politics of race and social difference within contemporary US society.

Design of the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS).

The North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS) was designed in collaboration with stakeholders to compare the effectiveness of different treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Using the Rapid Case Ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, 1,419 patients (57% of eligible) with newly-diagnosed localized prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 to June 2013, on average 5 weeks after diagnosis. All participants were enrolled prior to treatment and this population-based cohort is sociodemographically diverse. Prospective follow-up continues to collect data on treatments received, disease control, survival and patient-reported outcomes. This study highlights several important considerations regarding stakeholder involvement, study design and generalizability regarding comparative effectiveness research in prostate cancer.