Secular trends in gabapentinoid dispensing by compensated workers with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The increase in gabapentinoid prescribing is paralleling the increase in serious harms. To describe the low back pain workers compensation population whose management included a gabapentinoid between 2010 and 2017, and determine secular trends in, and factors associated with gabapentinoid use. METHODS: We analysed claim-level and service-level data from the Victorian workers' compensation programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 for workers with an accepted claim for a low back pain injury and who had programme-funded gabapentinoid dispensing. Secular trends were calculated as a proportion of gabapentinoid dispensings per year. Poisson, negative binomial and Cox hazards models were used to examine changes over time in incidence and time to first dispensing. RESULTS: Of the 17 689 low back pain claimants, one in seven (14.7%) were dispensed at least one gabapentinoid during the first 2 years (n=2608). The proportion of workers who were dispensed a gabapentinoid significantly increased over time (7.9% in 2010 to 18.7% in 2017), despite a reduction in the number of claimants dispensed pain-related medicines. Gabapentinoid dispensing was significantly associated with an opioid analgesic or anti-depressant dispensing claim, but not claimant-level characteristics. The time to first gabapentinoid dispensing significantly decreased over time from 311.9 days (SD 200.7) in 2010 to 148.2 days (SD 183.1) in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of claimants dispensed a gabapentinoid more than doubled in the period 2010-2017; and the time to first dispensing halved during this period.

Deprescribing interventions for gabapentinoids in adults: A scoping review.

The emerging issue of rising gabapentinoid misuse is being recognized alongside the lack of current evidence supporting the safe and effective deprescribing of gabapentinoids. This scoping review aimed to assess the extent and nature of gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, either in reducing dosages, or prescribing of, gabapentinoids. Electronic databases were searched on 23 February 2022 without restrictions. Eligible studies included randomized, non-randomized and observational studies that assessed an intervention aimed at reducing/ceasing the prescription/use of a gabapentinoid in adults for any indication in a clinical setting. The research outcomes investigated the type of intervention, prescribing rates, cessations, patient outcomes and adverse events. Extracted outcome data were categorized as either short (≤3 months), intermediate (>3 but <12 months) or long (≥12 months) term. A narrative synthesis was conducted. The four included studies were conducted in primary and acute care settings. Interventions were of dose-reducing protocols, education and/or pharmacological-based approaches. In the randomized trials, gabapentinoid use could be ceased in at least one third of participants. In the two observational trials, gabapentinoid prescribing rates decreased by 9%. Serious adverse events and adverse events specifically related to gabapentinoids were reported in one trial. No study included patient-focused psychological interventions in the deprescribing process, nor provided any long-term follow-up. This review highlights the lack of existing evidence in this area. Due to limited available data, our review was unable to make any firm judgements on the most effective gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, highlighting the need for more research in this area.

Pain, pain management and related outcomes following pelvic exenteration surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for example the management of pain, the relationship between pain and the extent of surgery and the impact of pain on short-term outcomes. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2021. We included interventional studies of adults with any indication for pelvic exenteration surgery that also reported pain outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-1. RESULTS: The search found 21 studies that reported pain following pelvic exenteration [n = 1317 patients, mean age 58.4 years (SD 4.8)]. Ten studies were judged to be at moderate risk of bias. Before pelvic exenteration, pain was reported by 19%-100% of patients. Five studies used validated measures of pain intensity. No study measured pain at all three time points in the surgical journey. The presence of pain before surgery predicted postoperative adverse pain outcomes, and pain is more likely to be experienced in those who require wider resections, including bone resection. CONCLUSION: Considering that pain following pelvic exenteration is commonly described by patients, the literature suggests that this symptom is not being measured and therefore addressed.

Effectiveness of Opioid Analgesic Medicines Prescribed in or at Discharge From Emergency Departments for Musculoskeletal Pain : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative benefits and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) are uncertain. PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and registries from inception to 7 February 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any opioid analgesic compared with placebo or a nonopioid analgesic administered or prescribed to adults in or on discharge from the ED. DATA EXTRACTION: Pain and disability were rated on a scale of 0 to 100 and pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-two articles were included (n = 6128). In the ED, opioids were statistically but not clinically more effective in reducing pain in the short term (about 2 hours) than placebo and paracetamol (acetaminophen) but were not clinically or statistically more effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or local or systemic anesthetics. Opioids may carry higher risk for harms than placebo, paracetamol, or NSAIDs, although evidence is very uncertain. There was no evidence of difference in harms associated with local or systemic anesthetics. LIMITATIONS: Low or very low GRADE ratings for some outcomes, unexplained heterogeneity, and little information on long-term outcomes. CONCLUSION: The risk-benefit balance of opioids versus placebo, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and local or systemic anesthetics is uncertain. Opioids may have equivalent pain outcomes compared with NSAIDs, but evidence on comparisons of harms is very uncertain and heterogeneous. Although factors such as route of administration or dosage may explain some heterogeneity, more work is needed to identify which subgroups will have a more favorable benefit-risk balance for one analgesic over another. Longer-term pain management once dose thresholds are reached is also uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42021275293).

Health literacy, pain-related interference and pain-related distress of patients with musculoskeletal pain.

The present study aimed to compare pain-related interference and pain-related distress in patients with musculoskeletal pain and differing levels of health literacy. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 243 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults classified the level of health literacy. Outcome measures included pain-related interference (pain intensity and functional limitation) and pain-related distress (psychosocial factors). Analysis of variance methods were used. One hundred twenty-three (50.62%) participants were classified as adequate, 24 (9.88%) as marginal and 96 (39.50%) as inadequate health literacy. Patients with inadequate health literacy had higher values of pain severity compared to the other groups, when controlled for age. The group adequate health literacy showed less kinesiophobia compared to their counterparts. Functional limitations and other psychosocial factors were similar among groups. Pain severity and kinesiophobia had disadvantageous findings in participants with inadequate health literacy. Still, the results of pain severity must be approached cautiously because the differences were observed when controlled for age solely.

Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance.

Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.

The Prevalence of Opioid Analgesic Use in People with Chronic Noncancer Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To review studies examining the proportion of people with chronic noncancer pain who report consuming opioids and characteristics associated with their use. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched databases from inception to February 8, 2020, and conducted citation tracking. We included observational studies reporting the proportion of adults with chronic noncancer pain who used opioid analgesics. Opioids were categorized as weak (e.g., codeine) or strong (e.g., oxycodone). Study risk of bias was assessed, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations provided a summary of the overall quality. Results were pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression determined factors associated with opioid use. RESULTS: Sixty studies (N=3,961,739) reported data on opioid use in people with chronic noncancer pain from 1990 to 2017. Of these 46, 77% had moderate risk of bias. Opioid use was reported by 26.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1-30.8; moderate-quality evidence) of people with chronic noncancer pain. The use of weak opioids (17.3%; 95% CI 11.9-24.4; moderate-quality evidence) was more common than the use of strong opioids (9.8%; 95% CI, 6.8-14.0; low-quality evidence). Meta-regression determined that opioid use was associated with geographic region (P=0.02; lower in Europe than North America), but not sampling year (P=0.77), setting (P=0.06), diagnosis (P=0.34), or disclosure of funding (P=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Our review summarized data from over 3.9 million people with chronic noncancer pain reporting their opioid use. Between 1990 and 2017, one-quarter of people with chronic noncancer pain reported taking opioids, and this proportion did not change over time.

Healthcare expenditure and its predictors in a cohort of Australians living with sciatica.

PURPOSE: To estimate the healthcare resource utilisation of an Australian cohort of people with sciatica and explore individual-level factors associated with expenditure. METHODS: Healthcare utilisation (services and medication) data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica (n = 185) were analysed to estimate healthcare expenditure of participants over 12 months. Associations between key baseline socio-economic, pain and quality of life characteristics and healthcare expenditure were examined using generalised linear imputation models. RESULTS: On average, participants accessed AUD$1,134 of healthcare over the year, predominantly made up of $114 of medication and $914 of health services, which included $418 of physiotherapy services. Participants randomised to receive pregabalin incurred higher expenditure ($1,263 compared to $1,001 for placebo), which was largely driven by pregabalin ($158) and greater health services ($107). Healthcare expenditure was significantly higher for participants prescribed pregabalin, earning greater than $1,700 per week ($88,400 per year) and reporting poorer quality of life (physical and mental). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest inefficiency in the use of healthcare resources due to increased healthcare resource utilisation in people with sciatica treated with pregabalin, compared to placebo. Costs of treating sciatica varied based on individual quality of life and socio-economic characteristics.

Trial of Pregabalin for Acute and Chronic Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica can be disabling, and evidence regarding medical treatments is limited. Pregabalin is effective in the treatment of some types of neuropathic pain. This study examined whether pregabalin may reduce the intensity of sciatica. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either pregabalin at a dose of 150 mg per day that was adjusted to a maximum dose of 600 mg per day or matching placebo for up to 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the leg-pain intensity score on a 10-point scale (with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the worst possible pain) at week 8; the leg-pain intensity score was also evaluated at week 52, a secondary time point for the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the extent of disability, back-pain intensity, and quality-of-life measures at prespecified time points over the course of 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients underwent randomization, of whom 108 received pregabalin and 101 received placebo; after randomization, 2 patients in the pregabalin group were determined to be ineligible and were excluded from the analyses. At week 8, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.7 in the pregabalin group and 3.1 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 1.2; P=0.19). At week 52, the mean unadjusted leg-pain intensity score was 3.4 in the pregabalin group and 3.0 in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 1.0; P=0.46). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to any secondary outcome at either week 8 or week 52. A total of 227 adverse events were reported in the pregabalin group and 124 in the placebo group. Dizziness was more common in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pregabalin did not significantly reduce the intensity of leg pain associated with sciatica and did not significantly improve other outcomes, as compared with placebo, over the course of 8 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PRECISE Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12613000530729 .).

The Variation of Cross-Sectional Area of the Sciatic Nerve in Flexion-Distraction Technique: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve in different positions of spinal manipulation using flexion-distraction technique. METHODS: Thirty healthy participants were assessed in 6 different flexion-distraction technique positions of varying lumbar, knee, and ankle positions. Participants stood in the following 3 positions with the lumbar in the neutral position: (A) with knee extended, (B) with knee flexed, and (C) with the knee extended and ankle dorsiflexion. Participants then stood in the following 3 positions with the lumbar flexed: (D) with the knee extended, (E) with the knee flexed, and (F) with knee extended and ankle dorsiflexion. The cross-sectional area (CSA) of the sciatic nerve was measured with ultrasound imaging in transverse sections in the posterior medial region of the left thigh. The CSA values measured at each position were compared. RESULTS: We analyzed 180 ultrasound images. The cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve (in mm2) in position B (mean; standard deviation) (59.71-17.41) presented a higher mean cross-sectional area value compared with position D (51.18-13.81; P =.005), position F (48.71-15.16; P = .004), and position C (48.37-16.35; P = .009). CONCLUSION: The combination of knee extension and ankle dorsiflexion reduced the CSA of the sciatic nerve, and flexing the knee and keeping the ankle in the neutral position increased it.

Anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of anticonvulsants (e.g., gabapentin, pregabalin) to treat low back pain has increased substantially in recent years despite limited supporting evidence. We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain compared with placebo. METHODS: A search was conducted in 5 databases for studies comparing an anticonvulsant to placebo in patients with nonspecific low back pain, sciatica or neurogenic claudication of any duration. The outcomes were self-reported pain, disability and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, and quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Data were pooled and treatment effects were quantified using mean differences for continuous and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Nine trials compared topiramate, gabapentin or pregabalin to placebo in 859 unique participants. Fourteen of 15 comparisons found anticonvulsants were not effective to reduce pain or disability in low back pain or lumbar radicular pain; for example, there was high-quality evidence of no effect of gabapentinoids versus placebo on chronic low back pain in the short term (pooled mean difference [MD] -0.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8 to 0.7) or for lumbar radicular pain in the immediate term (pooled MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.5). The lack of efficacy is accompanied by increased risk of adverse events from use of gabapentinoids, for which the level of evidence is high. INTERPRETATION: There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that anticonvulsants are ineffective for treatment of low back pain or lumbar radicular pain. There is high-quality evidence that gabapentinoids have a higher risk for adverse events. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42016046363.

Worsening trends in analgesics recommended for spinal pain in primary care.

PURPOSE: Limited evidence exists on secular trends of analgesics for spinal pain. We investigated general practitioner's (GP) recommendations of analgesic medicines for spinal pain and investigated characteristics associated with their recommendation. METHODS: We accessed data on spinal pain consultations from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) database, a nationally representative database on GP activity in Australia. Data extracted included consultation details and management provided. Medicines recommended were grouped as simple analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics or neuropathic pain medicines. Multivariate logistic regression determined if patient characteristics and GP characteristics were associated with medication recommendations. RESULTS: We analysed BEACH data for 9100 GPs who managed 39,303 patients with spinal pain between 2004 and 2014. Over the decade, analgesic recommendations increased. After accounting for patient and GP characteristics, there was a significant increase in the rate single-ingredient opioid analgesics [annual relative increase of 6% (RR 1.06 (95% CI 1.05-1.07), P < 0.001)] and neuropathic pain medicines [annual relative increase of 19% (RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.16-1.22), P < 0.001)] were recommended; and a significant decrease in the rate NSAIDs were recommended [annual relative decrease of 4% (RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97), P < 0.001)]. Logistic regression identified several patient and GP characteristics associated with medicine recommendations, e.g. stronger opioids were less likely recommended for Indigenous patients [odds ratio 0.15 (95% CI 0.04-0.56)]. CONCLUSIONS: GP's analgesic recommendations for spinal pain have become increasingly divergent from guideline recommendations over time.

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms. AIM: This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting. METHOD: This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP. CONCLUSION: GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

Questionnaires assessing knowledge and beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions are potentially suitable for use, but further research is needed: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO - ID: CRD42022303111. Electronic databases, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and contact with experts were used to identify studies. Eligible studies were reports developing or assessing a measurement property of a PROM measuring musculoskeletal condition specific-knowledge and/or beliefs. We assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of included studies. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each PROM. RESULTS: The literature search was performed from inception to 11th September 2023. Sixty records were included, reporting 290 individual studies, and provided information on 25 PROMs. Five PROMs presented sufficient structural validity, three presented sufficient cross-cultural validity, ten presented sufficient reliability, three presented sufficient criterion validity, six presented sufficient hypothesis-testing, and four presented sufficient responsiveness. No PROM presented sufficient evidence for content validity, internal consistency, and measurement error. Based on the available evidence, no PROM was classified as suitable for use according to the COSMIN recommendations. Twenty-four PROMs are potentially suitable for use, and one PROM is not recommended for use. CONCLUSION: No PROM designed to assess knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions meets the COSMIN criteria of suitable for use. Most PROMs identified in this systematic review were considered as potentially suitable for use and need further high-quality research to assess their measurement properties.

Paracetamol Combination Therapy for Back Pain and Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis. METHODS: Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) - 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4 to -2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD - 4.7, 95% CI - 8.3 to - 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD - 15.1, 95% CI - 18.5 to - 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD - 11.7, 95% CI - 19.2 to - 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD - 6.8, 95% CI - 12.7 to -0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator.

Pain-related interference and pain-related psychosocial factors of three different subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) subgroup identification and management are a research priority. The clarification of subgroup differences could assist clinicians in clinical decisions contributing to a tailored treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare pain-related interference and pain-related psychosocial factors among subgroups of chronic low back pain (localised low back pain, peripheral neuropathic back pain, and widespread pain). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 444 participants with chronic low back pain. Pain-related interference was investigated by the Brief Pain Inventory and Patient-Specific Functional Scale. Pain-related psychosocial factors assessment included psychosocial factors from Brief Screening Questions and maladaptive beliefs from Back Beliefs Questionnaire, self-efficacy, and expectation questions. Participants' characteristics, pain-related interference, and pain-related psychosocial factors were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: A one-way ANCOVA presented statistically significant differences among the groups for current pain intensity [F(2,441) = 6.77, p = 0.001], pain duration [F(2,425) = 9.83, p < 0.001], pain-related interference by Brief Pain Inventory [F(2,441) = 11.97, p < 0.001], and pain-related psychosocial factors regarding symptoms of anxiety [F(2,441) = 3.85, p = 0.022], symptoms of depression [F(2,441) = 6.74, p = 0.001], social isolation [F(2,441) = 6.54, p = 0.002], catastrophising [F(2,441) = 9.72, p < 0.001], perceived stress [F(2,441) = 3.93, p = 0.020], maladaptive beliefs [F(2,441) = 6.89, p = 0.001], and expectation [F(2,441) = 6.66, p = 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Participants with widespread pain presented higher pain-related interference and pain-related psychosocial factors compared to the localised low back pain group. Participants with peripheral neuropathic back pain and widespread pain presented with similar characteristics.

Benefits and harms of treatments for chronic nonspecific low back pain without radiculopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Currently, there are no published studies that compare nonpharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide summary statistics for benefits and harms. PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of treatments for the management of chronic low back pain without radiculopathy and to report the findings in a format that facilitates direct comparison (Benefit-Harm Scale: level 1 to 7). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including trial registries, from electronic databases up to 23rd May 2022. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adults with chronic nonspecific low back pain, excluding radicular pain, in any clinical setting. OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of pain at immediate-term (≤2 weeks) and short-term (>2 weeks to ≤12 weeks) and serious adverse events using the Benefit-Harm Scale (level 1 to 7). METHODS: This was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Interventions included nonpharmacological (acupuncture, spinal manipulation), pharmacological and invasive treatments compared to placebo. Best evidence criteria was used. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. RESULTS: The search retrieved 17,362 records. Three studies provided data on the benefits of interventions, and 30 provided data on harms. Studies included interventions of acupuncture (n=8); manipulation (n=2); pharmacological therapies (n=9), including NSAIDs and opioid analgesics; surgery (n=8); and epidural corticosteroid injections (n=3). Acupuncture (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.14, n=1 trial, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 3) and manipulation (SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.21, n=2 trials, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 5) were effective in reducing pain intensity compared to sham. The benefit of the other interventions was scored as uncertain due to not being effective, statistical heterogeneity preventing pooling of effect sizes, or the absence of relevant trials. The harms level warnings were at the lowest (eg, indicating rarer risk of events) for acupuncture, spinal manipulation, NSAIDs, combination ingredient opioids, and steroid injections, while they were higher for single ingredient opioid analgesics (level 4) and surgery (level 6). CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of all the interventions reviewed due to the lack of trials conducted in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain without radiculopathy. From the limited trials conducted, nonpharmacological interventions of acupuncture and spinal manipulation provide safer benefits than pharmacological or invasive interventions. However, more research is needed. There were high harms ratings for opioids and surgery.

Opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review of international guidelines.

ABSTRACT: In response to the overuse of prescription opioid analgesics, clinical practice guidelines encourage opioid deprescribing (ie, dose reduction or cessation) in patients with chronic noncancer pain. Therefore, this study evaluated and compared international clinical guideline recommendations on opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom), and MAGICapp databases from inception to June 4, 2021, with no language or publication restrictions. In addition, we searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and International Guideline Network databases from inception to December 2018. Two independent reviewers conducted the initial title and abstract screening. After discrepancies were resolved through discussion, 2 independent reviewers conducted the full-text screening of each potentially eligible reference. Four independent reviewers completed the prepiloted, standardized data extraction forms of each included guideline. Extracted information included bibliographical details; strength of recommendations; and the outcomes, such as when and how to deprescribe, managing withdrawal symptoms, additional support, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. A narrative synthesis was used to present the results. This study found that clinical practice guidelines agree on when and how to deprescribe opioid analgesics but lack advice on managing a patient's withdrawal symptoms, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. Quality assessment of the guidelines suggests that greater discussion on implementation and dissemination is needed.