Economic burden and dosing trends of buprenorphine buccal film and transdermal patch in chronic low back pain.

Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.

What is this article about? This retrospective study included patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and commercial insurance in the USA. Only patients treated with Belbuca®, a buprenorphine buccal film, or a buprenorphine transdermal patch were included. Patients were observed 6 months prior to and 12 months after the first buprenorphine prescription. Healthcare costs, cost trends, resource use and buprenorphine treatment characteristics were explored.What were the results? Patients with cLBP on buccal film had lower costs, stable cost trends and less healthcare resources used. Also, they had higher buprenorphine daily doses.What do the results mean? The results imply that buccal film is less costly for cLBP patients than patches. The buccal film had more flexible dosing with higher daily doses, which might be associated with better pain control.

Assessing a potential therapeutic effect of cannabidiol for lower back pain, requires appropriately designed studies.

We read with interest the article by Kulesza et al. about a narrative review on the question of whether cannabidiol is really effective in treating lower back pain [1]. After a literature search using suitable search terms and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the authors included 10 studies in the analysis [1]. One of the articles included was an editorial and four papers were reviews [1]. Cannabidiol has been found to be ineffective in treating lower back pain and further studies are needed to answer the question of interest. The review is impressive, but several points require discussion.

Spinal Dural Arteriovenous Fistula with Low Back Pain as the Only Symptom at Onset: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Spinal cord arteriovenous fistula that only manifests as lower back pain is easily misdiagnosed as myofasciitis, lumbar spondylosis, and other diseases, and incorrect treatment such as glucocorticoid blockade might be given, leading to worsening of the condition. CASE REPORT We analyze the clinical characteristics of a patient with spinal dural arteriovenous fistula who presented with chronic-onset low back pain. A patient with spinal dural arteriovenous fistula presented with chronic-onset low back pain as the only symptom, and was misdiagnosed as having myofasciitis. We assessed the paraclinical data, clinical reasoning, and course of treatment. The patient was an elderly man with low back pain for 1 year. He was diagnosed with myofasciitis in a local hospital and received local blocking treatment using glucocorticoid, and left lower-limb weakness appeared after that. After he was admitted to our hospital, enhanced thoracic and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging and selective spinal angiography were performed, and the results indicated the diagnosis of spinal dural arteriovenous fistula. After surgical treatment, the low back pain and lower-limb weakness were alleviated, and the patient is still under follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The possibility of spinal dural arteriovenous fistula should not be overlooked among patients with chronic low back pain, and caution should be taken when using glucocorticoids for treatment of chronic low back pain.

Prognostic factors for long-term improvement in pain and disability among patients with persistent low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic research in low back pain (LBP) is essential for understanding and managing the condition. This study aimed to, (1) describe the proportions with mild-moderate and severe pain and disability at baseline, 1-year and 4-year follow-up, and (2) investigate prognostic factors for improvement in pain and disability over 4 years in a cohort of secondary care LBP patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cohort of patients with LBP aged 18-40 years recruited from a non-surgical outpatient spine clinic between March 2011 and October 2013 (n = 1037). Questionnaires were collected at baseline, 1-year, and 4-year follow-up. Disability was assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ 0-100) and pain intensity using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS 0-10). 'Mild-moderate pain' was defined as NRS < 7 and 'severe pain' as NRS ≥ 7. Likewise, 'mild-moderate disability' was defined as RMDQ < 58.3, and 'severe disability' was RMDQ ≥ 58.3. In the prognostic analysis, improvement in pain and disability over 4 years was defined as meeting both criteria: decrease of ≥ 2 on the NRS and of ≥ 20.8 on the RMDQ. Sixteen candidate prognostic factors were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among patients with information available at all three time points (n = 241), 54%/48% had persistent mild-moderate pain/disability, while only 7%/15% had persistent severe pain/disability. Of patients included in the multivariate prognostic analysis regarding improvement over 4 years (n = 498), 32% had improved in pain and disability after 4 years. Positive associations were found for pain intensity (OR 1.34 [95%CI: 1.17-1.54]), disability (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.02]), and regular employment or studying (OR 1.67 [1.06-2.64]), and negative associations for episode duration (OR 0.99 [0.99-1.00]) and risk of persistent pain (OR 0.58 [0.38-0.88]). CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent LBP in secondary care had mostly mild-moderate pain and disability consistently at all three time points, with few having consistently severe symptoms over 4 years. Moreover, approximately half of the included patients improved in pain and disability. We found that pain intensity, disability, episode duration, regular employment or studying, and risk of persistent pain predicted a long-term improvement. However, the limited availability of complete follow-up data may affect generalisability.

A Secondary Analysis of Gender Respiratory Features for Ultrasonography Bilateral Diaphragm Thickness, Respiratory Pressures, and Pulmonary Function in Low Back Pain.

The aim of the present study was to determine the gender respiratory differences of bilateral diaphragm thickness, respiratory pressures, and pulmonary function in patients with low back pain (LBP). A sample of 90 participants with nonspecific LBP was recruited and matched paired by sex (45 women and 45 men). Respiratory outcomes included bilateral diaphragm thickness by ultrasonography, respiratory muscle strength by maximum inspiratory (MIP) and expiratory (MEP) pressures, and pulmonary function by forced expiratory volume during 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and FEV1/FVC spirometry parameters. The comparison of respiratory outcomes presented significant differences (p < 0.001), with a large effect size (d = 1.26-1.58) showing means differences (95% CI) for MIP of -32.26 (-42.99, -21.53) cm H2O, MEP of -50.66 (-64.08, -37.25) cm H2O, FEV1 of -0.92 (-1.18, -0.65) L, and FVC of -1.00 (-1.32, -0.69) L, with lower values for females versus males. Gender-based respiratory differences were presented for maximum respiratory pressures and pulmonary function in patients with nonspecific LBP. Women presented greater inspiratory and expiratory muscle weakness as well as worse lung function, although these differences were not linked to diaphragm thickness during normal breathing.

Evaluating the STarTBack stratified treatment approach for low back pain: exploring study-level factors potentially explaining differences in results of studies - a literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results. DESIGN: A literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: 11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.

Low back pain self-management mobile applications: a systematic review on digital platforms.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze the features and quality of self-management support of mobile applications available in Brazil for chronic low back pain in adults. METHOD: A systematic review on the Apple Store® and Google Play® digital platforms. The Self-Management Support Assessment Tool scale was used to assess self-management support and the Institute for Healthcare Informatics Functionality Score scale was used to assess functionality. RESULTS: Seventeen applications were selected, which included around seven self-management skills. The applications that met the majority of self-management support skills were Pathways, Branch, Pancea, Pain Navigator, and Curable. The Curable, Branch and MoovButh applications had the highest scores, with ten features on the functionality scale. CONCLUSION: Some applications have the potential to complement in-person treatment in terms of validity, acceptability and clinical usefulness in pain management. However, barriers such as lack of partnership between healthcare providers and patients, limited evidence-based content, social support, cultural relevance, cost, language, security and privacy can limit their sustained use. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022382686.

Usual care for low back pain and barriers to best practice: A cross-sectional study in Danish general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current content of low back pain (LBP) care in Danish general practice, the patients' self-management activities, and the clinicians' experienced barriers to providing best practice care. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included adults with LBP seeking care in Danish general practice from August 2022 to June 2023. Patient-reported information included demographics, pain intensity, medical history, treatments, and self-management strategies. Clinicians provided data specific to each consultation, detailing the content of these consultations, and barriers to best practice in the specific cases. RESULTS: The study involved 71 clinicians from 42 general practice clinics, with patient-reported data from 294 patients, and clinician-reported data from 283 (95%) consultations. The mean age for the included patients was 53 years, 56% were female, and 31% had been on sick leave for LBP during the previous 3 months. Moreover, 44% had seen two or more healthcare professionals in the previous month, 55% had previously undergone diagnostic imaging for LBP, 81% reported using any type of analgesics, and 14% reported using opioids. The majority (91%) reported engaging in self-management activities to alleviate pain. Consultations typically included a physical examination (84%), information about the cause of the pain (74%), and management advice (68%), as reported by clinicians or patients. In general, clinicians reported consultation elements more frequently than patients. Clinicians reported providing best practice care in 84% of cases, with time constraints (23%) and patient expectations (10%) being the most common barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides detailed insights into the management of LBP in Danish general practice. It reveals a complex landscape of patient engagement, varying management strategies, and differing perceptions of care content between patients and clinicians. Patients were often engaged in self-management activities and clinicians reported few barriers to providing best practice care.

Effects of Gluteal Muscle Strengthening Exercise-Based Core Stabilization Training on Pain and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.

Background: The World Health Organization reports that back pain is a major cause of disorder worldwide. It is the most common musculoskeletal disorder with limited pain, muscle tension, and stiffness, and 70-80% of all individuals experience it once in their lifetime, with higher prevalence in women than in men. This study aimed to investigate the effects of gluteal muscle strengthening exercise- based core stabilization training (GSE-based CST) on pain, function, fear-avoidance patterns, and quality of life in patients with chronic back pain. Methods: This study included 34 patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Seventeen individuals each were included in GSE-based CST and control groups. The GSE-based CST group performed GSE and CST for 15 min, three times a week for four weeks, and the control group performed CST for 30 min a day, three times a week for four weeks. The numeric pain rating scale was used to evaluate pain before and after treatment, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was used to evaluate function, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire was used to evaluate fear-avoidance patterns, and quality of life was measured using the short form-36. Results: In this study, pain, function, and fear-avoidance pattern decreased significantly in both groups (All p < 0.05). During the evaluation of quality of life, both groups showed significant increase in physical and mental factors (p < 0.05). There were significant differences in pain and quality of life (p < 0.05) between the GSE-based CST and control groups. Conclusions: Therefore, GSE-based CST can be used as a basis for effective intervention to enhance pain, function, fear-avoidance patterns, and quality of life, emphasizing the need for gluteal muscle strengthening exercises in patients with non-specific chronic back pain in the future.

Effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on chronic low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a frequent disease. It is a critical health concern that can influence functional capacity by restricting living activities. OBJECTIVES: The current study is to investigate the effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (TVNs) in the management of CLBP. METHODS: We searched the databases on Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Pedro for randomized clinical trial (RCT) studies published in any language that looked at the effectiveness of TVNs in people with chronic LBP. The inclusion criteria were PICO. Participants in the research were people (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with persistent low back pain for more than 3 months. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane ROB 2. RESULTS: Our database search found 1084 RCT. A number of studies that were not necessary for the issue were removed, and the overall outcome was six trials. Risk of bias (ROB) evaluations at the study level (derived from outcomes) are reported. In the six studies, two (33.3%) had an overall uncertain ROB (i.e., some concerns), whereas one (16.7%) had a high overall ROB. Three trials (50%) had a low overall RoB. CONCLUSION: There is still no evidence to support the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation as a viable therapeutic rehabilitation strategy. Therefore, we recommend high-quality trials and long-term follow-up to evaluate disability, quality of life, and pain outcomes in these patients.

Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation (Intracept): Procedural Technique.

Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation is indicated for the treatment of chronic vertebrogenic low back pain with failure of at least 6 months of conservative treatment. This article details patient positioning and setup, step-by-step instructions for the procedure, and postoperative management. Pearls and pitfalls are also discussed. In addition, an instructional procedure video accompanies this paper and can be found online (at https://vimeo.com/791578426/de0e90cfbe).

A new technique for low back pain in lumbar disc herniation: percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with sinuvertebral nerve ablation.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has demonstrated efficacy in alleviating leg pain among patients with lumbar disc herniation. Nonetheless, residual back pain persists as a troubling issue for surgeons following the procedure. In the treatment of discogenic back pain, sinuvertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation has shown promising results. Nevertheless, the potential benefit of simultaneously implementing sinuvertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation during PELD surgery to address residual back pain has not been thoroughly investigated in current literature. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) patients with low back pain who underwent combined PELD and sinuvertebral nerve ablation in our department between January 2021 and September 2023. Residual low back pain post-surgery was assessed and compared with existing literature. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients, including 53 males and 27 females, were included in the study. Following surgical intervention, patients demonstrated remarkable improvements in pain and functional parameters. One month post-operatively, the VAS score for low back pain exhibited a 75% reduction (6.45 ± 1.3 to 1.61 ± 1.67), while the VAS score for leg pain decreased by 85% (7.89 ± 1.15 to 1.18 ± 1.26). Notably, the JOA score increased from 12.89 ± 5.48 to 25.35 ± 4.96, and the ODI score decreased form 59.48 ± 9.58 to 20.3 ± 5.37. These improvements were sustained at three months post-operatively. According to the modified Mac Nab criteria, the excellent and good rate was 88.75%. Residual low back pain is observed to be comparatively reduced compared to the findings documented in earlier literature. CONCLUSION: The combination of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and sinuvertebral nerve ablation demonstrates effective improvement in low back pain for LDH patients.

Buck technique supplemented by temporary intersegmental pedicle screw fixation to repair lumbar spondylolysis in youth.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spondylolysis is a bone defect in the pars interarticularis of the lumbar vertebral, which is a common cause of low back pain in youth. Although non-surgical treatment is a mainstream option, surgery is necessary for patients with persistent symptoms. Buck technique is widely used as a classical direct repair technique, but it cannot achieve reduction of low-grade spondylolisthesis and reconstruction of lumbosacral sagittal balance. We have described a novel surgical procedure based on Buck technique with temporary intersegmental pedicle screw fixation, and report a series of clinical outcomes in 5 patients to provide a reference for the clinical treatment of young lumbar spondylolysis. METHODS: Five young patients with symptomatic lumbar spondylolysis with a mean age of 19.20 ± 5.41 years underwent surgical treatment after an average of 7.60 ± 1.52 months of failure to respond to conservative treatment, using a new surgical procedure based on Buck technique combined with temporary intersegmental pedicle screw fixation. RESULTS: Five patients were successfully operated without serious complications such as nerve and vascular injury. The average operation time was 109.00 ± 7.42 min, the interpretative average blood loss was 148.00 ± 31.14 ml, and the average fusion time was 11.20 ± 1.64 months. All patients were followed up for 2 years after surgery, and the visual analogue score (VAS) of low back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were significantly improved compared with those before surgery, and the Henderson's evaluation were rated excellent or good. After the removal of the internal fixation, it was observed that temporary intersegmental fixation could repair the isthmus, reduce lumbar spondylolisthesis, and reconstruct the sagittal balance of the lumbosacral vertebrae while preserving lumbar motion and preventing intervertebral disc degeneration. Postoperative MRI indicated the Pfirrmann classification of the affected discs: 1 case from grade III to grade II, 3 cases from grade II to grade I, and 1 case remained grade II. CONCLUSIONS: Buck technique supplemented by temporary intersegmental pedicle screw fixation is a highly applicable and effective method for the treatment of adolescent lumbar spondylolysis. The isthmic fusion is accurate, and temporary intersegmental fixation can effectively prevent disc degeneration and reconstruct the sagittal balance of lumbosacral vertebra.

One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity. METHODS: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes. CONCLUSION: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Iatrogenic rectal perforation after coccygeal radiofrequency ablation.

Coccygodynia (pain of the coccygeal bone) can be treated locally with anti-inflammatory drugs, local steroid injections, surgical removal of the coccyx and, more recently, with radiofrequency thermal ablation. Complications, such as perforation of the colon, can occur as a consequence of the close relationship between the rectum and the sacrococcyx and with the heat from the thermal ablation expanding to the surrounding tissue causing delayed damage with severe consequences. The treatment of this complication requires the combined effort of the gastrointestinal surgeon as well as a gastroenterologist. In this case report, we describe the treatment of this complication and the clinical course after a perforation of the rectum due to thermal ablation of the coccyx to treat long-standing coccygodynia.

Effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme on the physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain compared with a standard back school programme: protocol for a randomised controlled study (END-LC).

INTRODUCTION: Education is recognised as an effective and necessary approach in chronic low back pain. Nevertheless, data regarding the effectiveness of education in promoting physical activity in the medium term or long term are still limited, as are the factors that could lead to successful outcomes. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme compared with traditional back school on physical activity 3 months and 1 year after educational sessions coupled with a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme. Additionally, we seek to evaluate the effects of these educational interventions on various factors, including pain intensity and psychobehavioural factors. Finally, our goal is to identify the determinants of success in educational sessions combined with the rehabilitation programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will involve 82 adults with chronic low back pain. It will be a monocentric, open, controlled, randomised, superiority trial with two parallel arms: an experimental group, 'pain neuroscience education', and a control group, 'back school'. The primary outcome is the average number of steps taken at home over a week, measured by an actigraph. Secondary outcomes include behavioural assessments. Descriptive and inferential analysis will be conducted. Multivariate modelling will be performed using actimetric data and data from the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee for Personal Protection of Ile de France VII (CPP) gave a favourable opinion on 22 June 2023 (National number: 2023-A00346-39). The study was previously registered with the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (IDRCB: 2023-A00346-39). Participants signed an informed consent during the inclusion visit. This protocol is the version submitted to the CPP entitled 'Protocol Version N°1 of 03/29/2023'. The results of the study will be presented nationally and internationally through conferences and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840302.