Temporal relationships between pain, functioning, and human assumed central sensitization in patients with chronic low back pain; a single-case design.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR) aims to improve functioning in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and is not primary aimed at pain reduction. Many patients however also report a decrease in pain. An explanation could be that IPR results in a decrease in Central Sensitization (CS). As CS is not directly assessable in humans the term Human Assumed Central Sensitization (HACS) is used in this study. It is unknown whether a decrease in HACS precedes a decrease in pain and improved functioning or vice versa. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to gain understanding into the temporal relationships between changes in pain, functioning, and HACS in patients with CLBP during IPR. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational small-N-study. METHOD: Twelve patients filled in frequently repeated self-reports 1 week before, during the 12-week IPR program, and 2 weeks after IPR. Pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale for pain (daily), functioning by Pain Disability Index (weekly) and Work Ability Score (daily), and HACS by Central Sensitization Inventory part A (bi-weekly). Analyses were performed by visual inspection and time series cross-correlation analyses. RESULTS: Visual inspection showed large fluctuations within and between individual participants in patterns over time. Cross-correlation analyses showed that in most participants, relationships between pain, functioning, and HACS were strongest when analyzed at the same time (55% of comparisons). Strength and direction of (strongest) correlations showed high interindividual variability (neg: 0.33-0.97; pos: 0.22-0.99). CONCLUSION: Overall, relationships between pain, functioning, and HACS did not show consistent temporality in patients with CLBP.

Maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test in patients with chronic low back pain: feasibility, tolerance and relation with central sensitization. An observational study.

PURPOSE: To analyze the feasibility of and pain-related tolerance to a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), and the relationship between the aerobic capacity and central sensitization (CS) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: An observational study, combining a cross-sectional and a prospective 24-hour follow-up was performed. Participants underwent a maximal CPET on a cycle ergometer and were assessed with three measures of CS (CS Inventory, quantitative sensory testing and heart rate variability). Before the CPET, immediately afterwards and 24 h after, the Pain Response Questionnaire (PRQ) was filled out. The CPET was considered feasible when >80% performed maximally, and tolerable when <20% reported relevant pain increase, body reactions and additional pain medication use in the PRQ. Multiple regression analyses were applied to assess the relationship between the aerobic capacity (VO2max) and CS measures, corrected for confounders. RESULTS: 74 patients with CLBP participated of which 30 were male, mean age was 40.4 years (SD: 12.4) and median VO2max was 23.9 ml/kg/min (IQR: 18.2-29.4). CPET was completed by 92%. No serious adverse events occurred. A relevant pain increase was reported in the upper legs by 40% immediately after CPET and by 28% 24 h afterwards, 27% reported body reactions after 24 h, and 22% increased pain medication use 24 h after CPET. Very weak and not significant relations (rpartial=-0.21 to 0.05; p > 0.10) were observed between aerobic capacity and CS measures. CONCLUSIONS: A maximal CPET is feasible in patients with CLBP. Most, but not all, tolerated it well. CS was not related to aerobic capacity.Implications for rehabilitationMaximal CPET is feasible in patients with CLBP and well tolerated by most patients.Maximal CPET can be safely applied to assess the aerobic capacity of patients with CLBP.Aerobic capacity is unrelated to central sensitization.Outcomes of a maximal CPET and the pain response to straining activity can be used to provide valid information for the decision-making of exercise therapy.

Early termination in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation: numbers, timing, and reasons. A mixed method study.

PURPOSE: To analyse the number of, timing of, and reasons for early termination of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR). METHODS: A multicentre study in two Dutch rehabilitation centres with a mixed method design. Quantitative part: retrospective patient file review of all IPR patients. Qualitative part: 20 semi-structured patient interviews with early IPR terminators. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven of 428 participants (31.3%) had terminated IPR early, of which almost 30% had a positive reason. Of a planned treatment duration of 12 weeks, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) reduction was 5.3 week (3.0; 8.0). Over 80% of the early terminators with negative reasons stopped in the first half of IPR, whereas approximately 55% of the early terminators with positive reasons stopped in the final quarter of IPR. A discrepancy between patient expectations of the aim and content and the actual IPR was mentioned as a negative reason for early termination. Many of the positive early terminators were able to self-manage. CONCLUSIONS: Previously reported figures on early termination were confirmed. Early termination of IPR should not be considered negative per se, because a substantial proportion of early terminations have a positive reason. Negative early terminators tend to stop earlier during IPR, compared to positive terminators.Implications for rehabilitationSubstantial rates of patients (31%) terminate interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR) earlier than planned.Early IPR termination should not be considered negative per se, because a substantial proportion of early terminations have a positive reason (i.e. goals achieved early).Although patients receive extensive personalised information about aim and content of IPR before starting, early terminators with a negative reason often have different expectations about the aim and content of treatment.Clinicians and researchers should be focused on how to explain IPR to the patient and check whether the patient has understood it well and is convinced of its credibility.