Examination of a Subgroup of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Likely to Benefit More From Pilates-Based Exercises Compared to an Educational Booklet.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether 2 previously published classification approaches, the updated treatment-based classification system and a Pilates subgroup defined by a preliminary clinical prediction rule, could identify patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from Pilates exercises compared to an educational booklet. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-two patients received advice and were randomly allocated to a group that received an educational booklet with no additional treatment (n = 74) or a group that received Pilates-based exercise treatment (n = 148) 2 or 3 times a week. At baseline, using a treatment-based classification system, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive movement control) or a poor prognosis. Similarly, using the Pilates clinical prediction rule, patients were classified as having a good prognosis (positive) or a poor prognosis (negative). The analysis was conducted using linear regression models to analyze the interaction between subgroup characteristics and treatment effect size, with changes in pain and disability from baseline to 6 weeks after randomization as dependent variables. RESULTS: None of the interaction terms for pain and disability were statistically significant. The treatment effect of Pilates versus an educational booklet was similar in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The treatment-based classification system and the Pilates clinical prediction rule did not differentiate subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain who were more or less likely to benefit more from Pilates compared to an educational booklet. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(4):189-197. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8839.

Different doses of Pilates-based exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-utility of the addition of different doses of Pilates to an advice for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) from a societal perspective. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: Physiotherapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: 296 patients with NSCLBP. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received advice and were randomly allocated to four groups (n=74 per group): booklet group (BG), Pilates once a week (Pilates group 1, PG1), Pilates twice a week (Pilates group 2, PG2) and Pilates three times a week (Pilates group 3, PG3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were pain and disability at 6-week follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with the BG, all Pilates groups showed significant improvements in pain (PG1, mean difference (MD)=-1.2, 95% CI -2.2 to -0.3; PG2, MD=-2.3, 95% CI -3.2 to -1.4; PG3, MD=-2.1, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.1) and disability (PG1, MD=-1.9, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.1; PG2, MD=-4.7, 95% CI -6.4 to -3.0; PG3, MD=-3.3, 95% CI -5.0 to -1.6). Among the different doses, PG2 showed significant improvements in comparison with PG1 for pain (MD=-1.1, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.1) and disability (MD=-2.8, 95% CI -4.5 to -1.1). The cost-utility analysis showed that PG3 had a 0.78 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Adding two sessions of Pilates exercises to advice provided better outcomes in pain and disability than advice alone for patients with NSCLBP; non-specific elements such as greater attention or expectation might be part of this effect. The cost-utility analysis showed that Pilates three times a week was the preferred option. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02241538, Completed.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Different Weekly Frequencies of Pilates for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Pilates method has been recommended to patients with low back pain, but the evidence on effectiveness is inconclusive. In addition, there is still no evidence for the cost-effectiveness of this method or for the ideal number of sessions to achieve the highest effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study will be to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Pilates method with different weekly frequencies in the treatment of patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial with blinded assessor. SETTING: This study will be conducted at a physical therapy clinic in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred ninety-six patients with nonspecific low back pain between the ages of 18 and 80 years will be assessed and randomly allocated to 4 groups (n=74 patients per group). INTERVENTION: All groups will receive an educational booklet. The booklet group will not receive additional exercises. Pilates group 1 will follow a Pilates-based program once a week, Pilates group 2 will follow the same program twice a week, and Pilates group 3 will follow the same program 3 times a week. The intervention will last 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: A blinded assessor will evaluate pain, quality-adjusted life-years, general and specific disability, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, and global perceived effect 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after randomization. LIMITATIONS: Therapists and patients will not be blinded. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first study to investigate different weekly frequencies of treatment sessions for nonspecific low back pain. The results of this study will contribute to a better definition of treatment programs for this population.