Reduction of Chronic Primary Low Back Pain by Spinal Manipulative Therapy is Accompanied by Decreases in Segmental Mechanical Hyperalgesia and Pain Catastrophizing: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Dual-blind Mixed Experimental Trial.

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) refers to low back pain that persists over 3 months, that cannot be explained by another chronic condition, and that is associated with emotional distress and disability. Previous studies have shown that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is effective in relieving CPLBP, but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. This randomized placebo-controlled dual-blind mixed experimental trial (NCT05162924) aimed to investigate the efficacy of SMT to improve CPLBP and its underlying mechanisms. Ninety-eight individuals with CPLBP and 49 controls were recruited. Individuals with CPLBP received SMT (n = 49) or a control intervention (n = 49), 12 times over 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were CPLBP intensity (0-100 on a numerical rating scale) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pressure pain thresholds in 4 body regions, pain catastrophizing, Central Sensitization Inventory, depressive symptoms, and anxiety scores. Individuals with CPLBP showed widespread mechanical hyperalgesia (P < .001) and higher scores for all questionnaires (P < .001). SMT reduced pain intensity compared with the control intervention (mean difference: -11.7 [95% confidence interval, -11.0 to -12.5], P = .01), but not disability (P = .5). Similar mild to moderate adverse events were reported in both groups. Mechanical hyperalgesia at the manipulated segment was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05). Pain catastrophizing was reduced after SMT compared with the control intervention (P < .05), but this effect was not significant after accounting for changes in clinical pain. Although the reduction of segmental mechanical hyperalgesia likely contributes to the clinical benefits of SMT, the role of pain catastrophizing remains to be clarified. PERSPECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial found that 12 sessions of SMT yield greater relief of CPLBP than a control intervention. These clinical effects were independent of expectations, and accompanied by an attenuation of hyperalgesia in the targeted segment and a modulation of pain catastrophizing.

Mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for patients with chronic primary low back pain: protocol for a mechanistic randomised placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Identifying subgroups of patients afflicted with CLBP is a current research priority, for which a classification system based on pain mechanisms was proposed. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is recommended for the management of CLBP. Yet, little data are available regarding its mechanisms of action, making it difficult to match this intervention to the patients who may benefit the most. It was suggested that SMT may influence mechanisms associated with central sensitisation. Therefore, classifying patients with CLBP according to central sensitisation mechanisms may help predict their response to SMT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a randomised placebo-controlled trial aiming to examine which variables linked to central sensitisation may help predict the clinical response to SMT in a cohort of patients with CLBP. One hundred patients with chronic primary low back pain will be randomised to receive 12 sessions of SMT or placebo SMT over a 4-week period. Pain intensity and disability will be assessed as primary outcomes after completing the 4-week treatment (primary endpoint), and at 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. Baseline values of two pain questionnaires, lumbar pressure pain thresholds, concentrations of an inflammatory cytokine and expectations of pain relief will be entered as predictors of the response to SMT in a multiple regression model. Changes in these variables after treatment will be used in a second multiple regression model. The reference values of these predictors will be measured from 50 age and sex-matched healthy controls to allow interpretation of values in patients. Mixed analyses of variance will also be conducted to compare the primary outcomes and the predictors between groups (SMT vs placebo) over time (baseline vs post-treatment). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Fundación Jiménez Díaz Clinical Research Ethics Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05162924.

Presence of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha in Urine Samples of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Undergoing Chiropractic Care: Preliminary Findings From a Prospective Cohort Study.

Background and aims: Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Chiropractors employ different interventions to treat low back pain, including spinal manipulative therapy, although the mechanisms through which chiropractic care improves low back pain are still unclear. Clinical research and animal models suggest that spinal manipulation might modulate plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines, which have been involved in different stages of low back pain. More specifically, serum levels of Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-α) have been found to be elevated in patients with chronic low back pain. We aimed to investigate whether urine from chronic low back pain patients could be an appropriate medium to measure concentrations of TNF-α and to examine possible changes in its levels associated to chiropractic care. Methods: Urine samples were collected from 24 patients with chronic low back pain and TNF-α levels were analyzed by ELISA before and after 4-6 weeks of care compared to a reference value obtained from 5 healthy control subjects, by means of a Welch's t-test. Simultaneously, pain intensity and disability were also evaluated before and after care. Paired t-tests were used to compare mean pre and post urinary concentrations of TNF-α and clinical outcomes. Results: Significantly higher baseline levels of urinary TNF-α were observed in chronic low back pain patients when compared to our reference value (p < 0.001), which were significantly lower after the period of chiropractic treatment (p = 0.03). Moreover, these changes were accompanied by a significant reduction in pain and disability (both p < 0.001). However, levels of urinary TNF-α were not correlated with pain intensity nor disability. Conclusion: These results suggest that urine could be a good milieu to assess TNF-α changes, with potential clinical implications for the management of chronic low back pain.

Pain catastrophizing mediates rapid benefits of accessing in-person chiropractic care during the COVID-19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Spanish government to declare a state of emergency. A stringent lockdown was enforced, restricting access to healthcare services, including chiropractic. Reduced access to care provision in combination with psychological stress, social isolation and physical inactivity during the lockdown were shown to negatively influence pain conditions. However, data on strategies to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on these conditions are lacking. METHODS: Upon easing of restrictions in May 2020, 51 chiropractic clinics throughout Spain pseudo-randomly invited patients, recruiting a total of 385 participants. During a 14-day period, participants were exposed to in-person chiropractic care in either one (n = 177) or multiple encounters (n = 109) or to no care (n = 99). The effects of access to chiropractic care on patients' pain-related and psychological outcomes were assessed online through validated self-reported questionnaires before and after the period of care. Coprimary outcomes included pain intensity, pain interference and pain cognitions. RESULTS: When comparing to participants without access to care, pain intensity and interference were significantly decreased at follow-up, irrespective of the number of encounters. Kinesiophobia was also significantly reduced at follow-up, though only after multiple encounters. The relationship between fear of movement, changes in pain intensity and interference was mediated by catastrophizing. CONCLUSION: Access to in-person chiropractic care may provide pain relief, associated with reductions in interference and pain cognitions. Prioritizing in-person care for patients with maladaptive pain cognitions may help dampen the detrimental consequences of the pandemic on physical and psychological well-being.

Neurophysiological mechanisms of chiropractic spinal manipulation for spine pain.

Together, neck pain and back pain are the first cause of disability worldwide, accounting for more than 10% of the total years lived with disability. In this context, chiropractic care provides a safe and effective option for the management of a large proportion of these patients. Chiropractic is a healthcare profession mainly focused on the spine and the treatment of spinal disorders, including spine pain. Basic studies have examined the influence of chiropractic spinal manipulation (SM) on a variety of peripheral, spinal and supraspinal mechanisms involved in spine pain. While spinal cord mechanisms of pain inhibition contribute at least partly to the pain-relieving effects of chiropractic treatments, the evidence is weaker regarding peripheral and supraspinal mechanisms, which are important components of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review highlights the most relevant mechanisms of pain relief by SM and provides a perspective for future research on SM and spine pain, including the validation of placebo interventions that control for placebo effects and other non-specific effects that may be induced by SM. SIGNIFICANCE: Spinal manipulation inhibits back and neck pain partly through spinal segmental mechanisms and potentially through peripheral mechanisms regulating inflammatory responses. Other mechanisms remain to be clarified. Controls and placebo interventions need to be improved in order to clarify the contribution of specific and non-specific effects to pain relief by spinal manipulative therapy.

Combined Chiropractic and Podiatric Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain Concomitant With a Unilateral Pronated Foot: Protocol for a Multicenter Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: The purpose of this article is to describe a protocol to examine the feasibility of combining podiatric orthotic treatment with multimodal chiropractic treatment to treat chronic low back pain (CLBP) in those with a functional short leg on the same side as a unilateral pronated foot. Methods: This is a protocol for a multicenter feasibility 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. One hundred and thirty-two adults with CLBP and a functional short leg on the same side as a unilateral pronated foot are to be recruited in Melbourne, Australia, and Madrid and Seville, Spain. Forty-four participants at each site are to be randomized to multimodal chiropractic treatment including spinal manipulation or to multimodal chiropractic treatment also involving spinal manipulation, together with podiatric custom-made orthoses. Chiropractic visits are to comprise 12 treatments over 4 weeks. Outcome measures will be recruitment, compliance, costs, CLBP-related disability, and perceived low back pain. Results: Feasibility results will be reported in text format and the clinical data reported using descriptive statistics focusing on any clinically significant results. Conclusion: This protocol describes a feasibility study for assessing the combination of podiatric orthotic treatment with multimodal chiropractic treatment to treat CLBP in those with a functional short leg on the same side as a unilateral pronated foot.

Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain.

Spine pain is a highly prevalent condition affecting over 11% of the world's population. It is the single leading cause of activity limitation and ranks fourth in years lost to disability globally, representing a significant personal, social, and economic burden. For the vast majority of patients with back and neck pain, a specific pathology cannot be identified as the cause for their pain, which is then labeled as non-specific. In a growing proportion of these cases, pain persists beyond 3 months and is referred to as chronic primary back or neck pain. To decrease the global burden of spine pain, current data suggest that a conservative approach may be preferable. One of the conservative management options available is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), the main intervention used by chiropractors and other manual therapists. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the most relevant and up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness (as it compares to other interventions in more pragmatic settings) and efficacy (as it compares to inactive controls under highly controlled conditions) of SMT for the management of neck pain and low back pain. Additionally, a perspective on the current recommendations on SMT for spine pain and the needs for future research will be provided. In summary, SMT may be as effective as other recommended therapies for the management of non-specific and chronic primary spine pain, including standard medical care or physical therapy. Currently, SMT is recommended in combination with exercise for neck pain as part of a multimodal approach. It may also be recommended as a frontline intervention for low back pain. Despite some remaining discrepancies, current clinical practice guidelines almost universally recommend the use of SMT for spine pain. Due to the low quality of evidence, the efficacy of SMT compared with a placebo or no treatment remains uncertain. Therefore, future research is needed to clarify the specific effects of SMT to further validate this intervention. In addition, factors that predict these effects remain to be determined to target patients who are more likely to obtain positive outcomes from SMT.

Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Prevents Secondary Hyperalgesia Induced by Topical Capsaicin in Healthy Individuals.

Background and Aims: Spinal manipulation (SM) is currently recommended for the management of back pain. Experimental studies indicate that the hypoalgesic mechanisms of SM may rely on inhibition of segmental processes related to temporal summation of pain and, possibly, on central sensitization, although this remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether experimental back pain, secondary hyperalgesia, and pain-related brain activity induced by capsaicin are decreased by segmental SM. Methods: Seventy-three healthy volunteers were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups: SM at T5 vertebral level (segmental), SM at T9 vertebral level (heterosegmental), placebo intervention at T5 vertebral level, or no intervention. Topical capsaicin was applied to the area of T5 vertebra for 40 min. After 20 min, the interventions were administered. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed outside the area of capsaicin application at 0 and 40 min to examine secondary hyperalgesia. Capsaicin pain intensity and unpleasantness were reported every 4 min. Frontal high-gamma oscillations were also measured with electroencephalography. Results: Pain ratings and brain activity were not significantly different between groups over time (p > 0.5). However, PPTs were significantly decreased in the placebo and control groups (p < 0.01), indicative of secondary hyperalgesia, while no hyperalgesia was observed for groups receiving SM (p = 1.0). This effect was independent of expectations and greater than placebo for segmental (p < 0.01) but not heterosegmental SM (p = 1.0). Conclusions: These results indicate that segmental SM can prevent secondary hyperalgesia, independently of expectations. This has implications for the management of back pain, particularly when central sensitization is involved.