Does the intensity of pain and disability affect health-related quality of life of older adults with back pain? Multilevel analysis between Brazil and Netherlands: a cross-sectional study of the BACE consortium.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of back pain (BP) in the older adults is less favorable than in younger adults and progress to adverse outcomes and consequent worsening of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The present study aimed to verify the association between BP intensity, disability and HRQoL in older adults residents in Brazil and Netherlands, and to evaluate whether the country of residence influences the associations. METHODS: Data were collected from 602 Brazilian and 675 Dutch participants with a new episode of BP from the Back Complaints in Elders (BACE) consortium. For the present study, a cross section was used. Pain intensity and disability were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), respectively. HRQoL was assessed using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire. Age, sex, and education were descriptive variables. Pain intensity (NPS score) and country were the independent variables and quality of life assessed by each SF domain - 36 was the dependent variable. Analysis of models at the individual level was performed to verify the association between pain and disability, also HRQoL in Netherlands and Brazil in the total sample. The multilevel model was used to verify whether the older adults person's country of residence influenced this relationship. RESULTS: The average age of the participants was 67.00 (7.33) years. In the total sample, linear regression analysis adjusted for sex and age showed a significant association between BP intensity scores and HRQoL, for all domains. There was no association between disability and HRQoL. In the multilevel analysis, there was an association between BP intensity and HRQoL in all domains and an association between the country of residence and HRQoL, influencing the effect of pain, in all domains, except for the physical functioning. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic and cultural aspects of different countries can affect the perception of the elderly about their HRQoL in the presence of BP. Pain and disability in Brazilian and Dutch older adults ones are experienced differently in relation to their HRQoL.

External validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the leading causes of disability in most countries and it is likely to increase further. Numerous prognostic models for people with neck pain have been developed, few have been validated. In a recent systematic review, external validation of three promising models was advised before they can be used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to externally validate three promising models that predict neck pain recovery in primary care. METHODS: This validation cohort consisted of 1311 patients with neck pain of any duration who were prospectively recruited and treated by 345 manual therapists in the Netherlands. Outcome measures were disability (Neck Disability Index) and recovery (Global Perceived Effect Scale) post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up. The assessed models were an Australian Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) model (Amodel), a multicenter WAD model (Mmodel), and a Dutch non-specific neck pain model (Dmodel). Models' discrimination and calibration were evaluated. RESULTS: The Dmodel and Amodel discriminative performance (AUC < 0.70) and calibration measures (slope largely different from 1) were poor. The Mmodel could not be evaluated since several variables nor their proxies were available. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of promising prognostic models for neck pain recovery was not successful and their clinical use cannot be recommended. We advise clinicians to underpin their current clinical reasoning process with evidence-based individual prognostic factors for recovery. Further research on finding new prognostic factors and developing and validating models with up-to-date methodology is needed for recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Sciatica: An Abridged Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic with meta-analysis OBJECTIVES.: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection in reducing leg pain and disability in patients with sciatica. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Conservative treatments, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, are typically the first treatment options for sciatica but the evidence to support their use is limited. The overall quality of evidence found by previous systematic reviews varies between moderate and high, which suggests that future trials may change the conclusions. New placebo-controlled randomized trials have been published recently which highlights the importance of an updated systematic review. METHODS: The searches were performed without language restrictions in the following databases from 2012 to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and trial registers. We included placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with sciatica. The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcomes were adverse events, overall pain, and back pain intensity. We grouped similar trials according to outcome measures and their respective follow-up time points. Short-term follow-up (>2 weeks but ≤3 months) was considered the primary follow-up time point due to the expected mechanism of action of epidural corticosteroid injection. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and conducted the analyses using random effects. RESULTS: We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) providing data for a total of 2470 participants with sciatica, an increase of six trials when compared to the previous review. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably more effective than placebo in reducing short-term leg pain (MD -4.93, 95% CI -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0-100 scale), short-term disability (MD -4.18, 95% CI: -6.04 to -2.17 on a 0-100 scale) and may be slightly more effective in reducing short-term overall pain (MD -9.35, 95% CI -14.05 to -4.65 on a 0-100 scale). There were mostly minor adverse events (i.e., without hospitalization) after epidural corticosteroid injections and placebo injections without difference between groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91-1.42). The quality of evidence was at best moderate mostly due to problems with trial design and inconsistency. CONCLUSION: A review of 25 placebo-controlled trials provides moderate-quality evidence that epidural corticosteroid injections are effective, although the effects are small and short-term. There is uncertainty on safety due to very low-quality evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010. METHOD: The searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Back Complaints in the Elders in Brazil and the Netherlands: a cross-sectional comparison.

Background: although back pain is most prevalent in older adults, there is a paucity of studies investigating back pain in older people. Our objective was to characterize and compare Brazilian and Dutch older adults presenting to primary care with a new episode of back pain. We also aimed to investigate whether socio-demographic characteristics were associated with pain severity and disability. Methods: we sourced data on 602 Brazilian and 675 Dutch participants aged ≥55 years with a new episode of back pain from the Back Complaints in the Elders consortium. We analyzed country differences in participants' characteristics, and associations between socio-demographic/clinical characteristics and pain severity and pain-related disability. Results: the two populations differed in most characteristics. More Dutch participants were smokers, heavy drinkers, and reported back stiffness. More Brazilian participants were less educated, had higher prevalence of comorbidities; higher levels of pain intensity, disability and psychological distress. When controlling for the effect of country, being female and having altered quality of sleep were associated with higher pain intensity. Altered quality of sleep, having two or more comorbidities and physical inactivity were associated with higher disability. Higher educational levels were negatively associated with both pain and disability outcomes. Conclusions: back pain is disabling in the older population. Our country comparison has shown that country of residence is an important determinant of higher disability and pain in older people with back pain. Irrespective of country, women with poor sleep quality, comorbidities, low education and who are physically inactive report more severe symptoms.

What triggers an episode of acute low back pain? A case-crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate a range of transient risk factors for an episode of sudden-onset, acute low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This case-crossover study recruited 999 subjects with a new episode of acute LBP between October 2011 and November 2012 from 300 primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Each participant was asked to report exposure to 12 putative triggers over the 96 hours preceding the onset of back pain. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) expressing the magnitude of increased risk with exposure to each trigger. RESULTS: Exposure to a range of physical and psychosocial triggers significantly increased the risk of a new onset of LBP; ORs ranged from 2.7 (moderate or vigorous physical activity) to 25.0 (distracted during an activity or task). Age moderated the effect of exposure to heavy loads and sexual activity. The ORs for heavy loads for people ages 20, 40, or 60 years were 13.6, 6.0, and 2.7, respectively. The risk of developing back pain was greatest between 7:00 AM and noon. CONCLUSION: Transient exposure to a number of modifiable physical and psychosocial triggers substantially increases risk for a new episode of LBP. Triggers previously evaluated in occupational injury studies, but never in LBP, have been shown to significantly increase risk. These results aid our understanding of the causes of LBP and can inform the development of new prevention approaches.

Effect of weather on back pain: results from a case-crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of various weather conditions on risk of low back pain. METHODS: We conducted a case-crossover study in primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. A total of 993 consecutive patients with a sudden, acute episode of back pain were recruited from October 2011 to November 2012. Following the pain onset, demographic and clinical data about the back pain episode were obtained for each participant during an interview. Weather parameters (temperature, relative humidity, air pressure, wind speed, wind gust, wind direction, and precipitation) were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for the entire study period. Weather exposures in the case window (time when participants first noticed their back pain) were compared to exposures in 2 control time windows (same time duration, 1 week and 1 month before the case window). RESULTS: Temperature, relative humidity, air pressure, wind direction, and precipitation showed no association with onset of back pain. Higher wind speed (odds ratio [OR] 1.17 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.04-1.32], P = 0.01 for an increase of 11 km/hour) and wind gust (OR 1.14 [95% CI 1.02-1.28], P = 0.02 for an increase of 14 km/hour) increased the odds of pain onset. CONCLUSION: Weather parameters that have been linked to musculoskeletal pain such as temperature, relative humidity, air pressure, and precipitation do not increase the risk of a low back pain episode. Higher wind speed and wind gust speed provided a small increase in risk of back pain, and although this reached statistical significance, the magnitude of the increase was not clinically important.

Primary care research priorities in low back pain: an update.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey report. OBJECTIVE: To reassess an existing list of research priorities in primary care low back pain (LBP) and to develop a new research agenda. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Primary care LBP researchers developed an agenda of research priorities in 1997 at an international conference. In 2009, a survey was conducted to re-evaluate the 1997 research priorities and to develop a new research agenda. METHODS: Two-phase, Internet-based survey of participants in one of the LBP primary care research fora. The first phase collected information on importance, feasibility, and progress for the 1997 priorities; during this phase, the respondents were also asked to list the 5 most important current primary care-relevant LBP research questions. The second phase ranked these current research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 179 persons responded to the first phase, representing 30% of those surveyed. Rankings of the 1997 priorities were somewhat similar compared with 2009, although research on beliefs and expectations and improving the quality of LBP research became more important, and research on guidelines and psychosocial interventions became less important. Organizing more effective primary care for LBP, implementing best practices, and translating research to practice were ranked higher compared with 1997. Most priorities were also ranked as relatively feasible. The new agenda was similar, and included subgroup-based treatment and studies on causes and mechanisms of LBP as new top priorities. CONCLUSION: Changes in research priorities seem to reflect recent advances, new opportunities, and limitations in our ability to improve care.