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.

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.

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.

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).

Clinical Observation, Management and Function Of low back pain Relief Therapies (COMFORT): A cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient-participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient-participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001505796.

Prevalence of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Prescribed for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Our systematic review aimed to investigate the proportion of participants with osteoarthritis who were prescribed nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by their health care provider. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for observational studies reporting NSAID prescribing to participants with diagnosed osteoarthritis of any region. Risk of bias was assessed using a tool designed for observational studies measuring prevalence. Random and fixed-effects meta-analysis was used. Meta-regression investigated study-level factors associated with prescribing. The overall evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included, published between 1989 and 2022, with 6,494,509 participants. The mean age of participants was 64.7 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 62.4, 67.0; n = 34 studies). Most studies were from Europe and Central Asia (n = 23 studies), and North America (n = 12 studies). Most studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (75%). Heterogeneity was eliminated when removing studies with a high risk of bias, to give a pooled estimate of NSAIDs prescribing to participants with osteoarthritis of 43.8% (95% CI 36.8, 51.1; moderate quality of evidence). Meta-regression determined that prescribing was associated with year (decreased prescribing over time; P = 0.05) and geographic region (P = 0.03; higher in Europe and Central Asia and in South Asia than in North America) but not with clinical setting. CONCLUSION: Data from over 6.4 million participants with osteoarthritis between 1989 and 2022 indicate that NSAID prescribing has decreased over time and that prescribing differs between geographic locations.

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-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.

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.

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.

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.

Content and sentiment analysis of gabapentinoid-related tweets: An infodemiology study.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing number of gabapentinoid (pregabalin and gabapentin) harms, including deaths observed across countries is concerning to health-care professionals and policy makers. However, it is unclear if the public shares these concerns. This study aimed to describe posts related to gabapentinoids, conduct a content analysis to identify common themes and describe adverse events or symptoms. METHODS: Keywords of 'pregabalin' or 'Lyrica' or 'gabapentin' or 'Neurontin' were used to search for related tweets posted by people in the community between 8 March and 7 May 2021. Eligible tweets included a keyword in the post. We extracted de-identified data which included descriptive data of the total number of posts over time; and data on individual tweets including date, number of re-tweets and post content. Data were exported separately for pregabalin- and gabapentin-related tweets. A 20% random sample was used for the thematic analysis. RESULTS: There were 2931 pregabalin-related tweets and 2736 gabapentin-related tweets. Thematic analysis revealed three themes (sharing positive experiences and benefits of taking gabapentinoids, people voicing their negative experiences, and people seeking opinions and sharing information). Positive experiences of gabapentinoids were related to sharing stories and giving advice. This was contrasted to negative experiences including ineffectiveness, withdrawals, side effects and frustration related to cost and insurance coverage. Brain fog was the most common adverse symptom reported. Gabapentinoid-related deaths were only mentioned in three tweets. DISCUSSION: The increasing public health concern of gabapentinoid-related deaths was not translated to Twitter discussions.

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).

Opioid deprescribing: Qualitative perspectives from those with chronic non-cancer pain.

AIM: Deprescribing is the systematic process of discontinuing medications when the harms outweigh the benefits. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators in people with chronic non-cancer pain when deprescribing opioid analgesics, and their views on resources that assist with deprescribing. METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit 19 adults with chronic non-cancer pain from the community who were, or had been, on long-term opioid therapy. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. A five-step framework and thematic analysis method identified themes for each study aim. RESULTS: Themes identifying barriers to opioid deprescribing raised challenges of a lack of available alternatives, managing opioid dependency and withdrawal symptoms or inability to function without opioids when in extreme pain. Facilitating themes described the value of support networks, including a trusting doctor-patient relationship and finding individual coping strategies to address deprescribing barriers. We explored a variety of resources from electronic forms such as websites and apps to paper-based or face to face. Participants expressed that whatever the form, resources need to be educational but also simple and engaging. CONCLUSIONS: Most people suffering from chronic non-cancer pain expressed dissatisfaction with being on opioids but most were still unwilling to deprescribe due to insufficient alternatives, a lack of support from their doctors and lack of information about the deprescribing process. Deprescribing can be facilitated by improving supportive networks and strategies and providing simple and positive educational resources.

Continued opioid use following an emergency department presentation for low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the proportion of patients with low back pain who receive an opioid analgesic prescription on hospital discharge, the proportion using opioid analgesics 4 weeks after discharge, and to identify predictors of continued opioid analgesic use at 4 weeks after an ED presentation in opioid-naïve patients. METHODS: An observational cohort study nested within a randomised controlled trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were adults who presented to the ED with non-specific low back pain or low back pain with lower limb neurological signs and symptoms. Electronic medical records supplemented the patient-reported pain and use of opioid analgesics at 4-week follow up. RESULTS: Of the 104 patients included, 33 (31.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.9-41.6) received an opioid analgesic prescription at hospital discharge and 38 (36.5%, 95% CI 27.3-46.6) reported taking an opioid analgesic for pain 4 weeks after the ED presentation. Among opioid-naïve patients (n = 85), older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, P = 0.031) was the only predictor for continued opioid analgesic use at 4 weeks post-ED presentation. CONCLUSION: About one-third of patients who present to the ED with low back pain receive an opioid analgesic prescription on discharge and are taking an opioid analgesic 4 weeks later. These findings justify future research to identify strategies to reduce the risk of long-term opioid use in patients who present to the ED with low back pain.

Which psychosocial factors are related to severe pain and functional limitation in patients with low back pain?: Psychosocial factors related to severe low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a global public health issue. Psychosocial factors are linked to LBP. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the relation of psychosocial factors to clinical outcomes of patients with severe LBP. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between specific psychosocial factors with severe pain and functional limitation of patients with LBP. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 472 participants with LBP was conducted. Participants completed self-reported questionnaires, including psychosocial factors, characteristics of pain, and functional limitations. Two multivariable logistic regression models were performed with severe pain intensity (≥ 7 out of 10) and functional limitation (≥ 7 out of 10) (dependent variables) and 15 psychosocial factors (independent variables). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five (26.5%) participants had severe LBP. Patients with catastrophising symptoms were 2.21 [95%Confidence Interval (CI): 1.30, 3.77] times more likely to have severe pain and 2.72 (95%CI: 1.75, 4.23) times more likely to have severe functional limitation than patients without catastrophising symptoms. Patients with maladaptive beliefs about rest were 2.75 (95%CI: 1.37, 5.52) times more likely to present with severe pain and 1.72 (95%CI: 1.04, 2.83) times more likely to have severe functional limitation. Patients with kinesiophobia were 3.34 (95%CI: 1.36, 8.24) times more likely to present with severe pain, and patients with social isolation were 1.98 (95%CI: 1.25, 3.14) times more likely to have severe functional limitation. CONCLUSION: Catastrophising, kinesiophobia, maladaptive beliefs about rest, and social isolation are related to unfavourable clinical outcomes of patients with LBP.

Neural management plus advice to stay active on clinical measures and sciatic neurodynamic for patients with chronic sciatica: Study protocol for a controlled randomised clinical trial.

Advice to stay active is the primary management strategy for sciatica. Other conservative treatments such as neural management techniques may also contribute to sciatica recovery, but currently, the effects have not been robustly assessed. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the effects of adding neural management to advice to stay active versus advice to stay active alone in improving pain intensity and functional limitation. Secondarily, to compare the effects of the experimental intervention in the sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. A parallel-group, controlled, examiner-blinded superiority clinical trial randomised at a 1:1 allocation will be conducted in 210 participants with chronic sciatica. Patients will be recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics and community advertisements. The experimental group will receive neural mobilisation techniques and soft tissue mobilisation techniques for 30 minutes per session, 10 weekly sessions, plus advice to stay active on their activities of daily living, information on physical activity, imaging tests, and sciatica for 5 biweekly sessions lasting 25-30 minutes. The control group will receive advice to stay active only. The re-evaluation will be performed out after 5 weeks, 10 weeks, and 26 weeks after randomisation and primary endpoints will be pain intensity and functional limitation at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include neuropathic symptoms, sciatic neurodynamic, pain modulation, and psychosocial factors. Adverse events and patient satisfaction will be assessed. Ethical approval has been granted from an Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee. Trial registration: Trial was prospectively registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (number: RBR-3db643c).

Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices. OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public's perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains. RESULTS: From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains 'beliefs about consequences', 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences' and 'emotion' were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains 'skills' and 'beliefs about capabilities' were more salient for HCPs. CONCLUSION: Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140784.