Chronic Low Back Pain with and without Concomitant Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study of Patients in England.

Objective: Despite the high prevalence of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and osteoarthritis (OA), few estimates of the economic cost of these conditions in England have been published. The aim of the present analysis was to characterise the economic burden of moderate-to-severe pain associated with CLBP + OA and CLBP alone compared with general population-matched controls without CLBP or OA. The primary objective was to describe the total healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs associated with the target patient populations. Secondary objectives were to describe treatment patterns and surgical procedures. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients receiving healthcare indicative of moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with CLBP, with or without OA. We used linked longitudinal data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Patients (cases) were matched 1 : 1 with controls on age, sex, comorbidity burden, GP practice, and HES data availability. Results: The CLBP-alone cohort comprised 13 554 cases with CLBP and 13 554 matched controls; the CLBP + OA cohort comprised 7803 cases with both OA and CLBP and 7803 matched controls. Across all follow-up periods, patients with CLBP alone and those with CLBP + OA had significantly more GP consultations, outpatient attendances, emergency department visits, and inpatient stays than controls (all p < 0.0001). By 36 months after indexing, the mean (SD) per-patient total direct healthcare cost in the CLBP-alone cohort was £5081 (£5905) for cases and £1809 (£4451) for controls (p < 0.0001); in the CLBP + OA cohort, the mean (SD) per-patient total direct healthcare cost was £8819 (£7143) for cases and £2428 (£4280) for controls (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with CLBP-with or without OA-has a substantial impact on patients and healthcare providers, leading to higher HCRU and costs versus controls among people with CLBP alone or together with OA.

Treat to target in gout.

The treat-to-target (T2T) approach has been successfully implemented in a number of diseases. T2T has been proposed for rheumatic diseases such as RA, spondyloarthritis, lupus, and recently for gout. The level of evidence for such approaches differs from one condition to the other (moderate to high for hyperlipidaemia, for example). Practice is based on the best available evidence at any time, and in absence of good evidence for T2T in gout, some suggest a conservative only-treat-symptoms approach. Evidence suggests that not treating gout to target in the long term is overall associated with worsening outcomes, such as flares, tophi and structural damage, which is associated to loss of quality of life and mortality. Different targets have been proposed for hyperuricaemia in gout; lower than 6 mg/dl (0.36 mmol/l) for all patients, at least <5 mg/dl (0.30 mmol/l) for patients with severe-polyarticular or tophaceous-gout.

Estimating the cost and epidemiology of mild to severe chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis in England: a retrospective analysis of linked primary and secondary care data.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects 10% of adults in the UK. Despite over one-third of people with OA experiencing chronic pain, few studies have examined the population-level impact of chronic pain associated with OA. We compared resource-use and epidemiological outcomes in patients with mild, moderate and severe chronic OA-associated pain and matched controls without known OA. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study (July 2008 to June 2019). SETTING: Electronic records extracted from Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). PARTICIPANTS: Patients (cases; n=23 016) aged ≥18 years with chronic OA-associated pain. Controls (n=23 016) without OA or chronic pain matched on age, sex, comorbidity burden, general practitioner practice and available HES data. INTERVENTIONS: None. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Total healthcare resource use (HCRU), direct healthcare costs in 0-12, 12-24 and 24-36 months postindex. Secondary outcomes included incidence and prevalence of chronic OA-associated pain and pharmacological management. RESULTS: HCRU was consistently greater in cases versus controls for all resource categories during preindex and postindex periods. Across follow-up periods, resource use was greatest in patients with severe pain. In the first 12 months postindexing, mean total costs incurred by cases were four times higher versus matched controls (£256 vs £62); costs were approximately twice as high in cases vs controls for months 12-24 (£166 vs £86) and 24-36 (£150 vs £81; all p<0.0001). The incidence of new cases of chronic pain associated with OA was 2.64 per 1000 person-years; the prevalence was 1.4%. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the real-world cost of chronic pain associated with OA in cases versus matched controls. We included patients with mild, moderate and severe pain associated with OA, and showed HCRU in discrete 1-year time frames. The true economic burden of pain associated with OA is likely to be considerably higher when indirect costs are considered.

Health economic impact of moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis in England: a retrospective analysis of linked primary and secondary care data.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) in England, few studies have examined the health economic impact of chronic pain associated with OA. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with OA and matched controls without known OA. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study. SETTING: Electronic records extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (cases; n=5931) ≥18 years and with existing diagnosis of OA and moderate-to-severe pain associated with their OA, and controls matched on age, sex, comorbidity burden, general practitioner (GP) practice and availability of HES data. INTERVENTIONS: None. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Total healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs during 0-6, 0-12, 0-24 and 0-36 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes measures included pharmacological management and time to total joint replacement. RESULTS: Patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with OA used significantly more healthcare services versus matched controls, reflected by higher HCRU and significantly higher direct costs. During the first 12 months' follow-up, cases had significantly more GP consultations, outpatient attendances, emergency department visits and inpatient stays than matched controls (all p<0.0001). Total mean costs incurred by cases during 0-12 months' follow-up were five times higher in cases versus controls (mean (SD): £4199 (£3966) vs £781 (£2073), respectively). Extensive cycling through pharmacological therapies was observed; among cases, 2040 (34.4%), 1340 (22.6%), 841 (14.2%), 459 (7.7%) and 706 (11.9%) received 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 and >20 lines of therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This wide-ranging, longitudinal, observational study of real-world primary and secondary care data demonstrates the impact of moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with OA in patients compared with matched controls. Further studies are required to fully quantify the health economic burden of moderate-to-severe pain associated with OA.

Does pain duration and other variables measured at baseline predict re-referral of low back pain patients managed on an evidence-based pathway? A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between baseline pain duration and the likelihood of re-referral of patients with low back pain (LBP) managed on the evidence-based North East of England Regional Back Pain and Radicular Pain Pathway (NERBPP). STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal, observational cohort study. METHODS: In all, 12,509 adults with LBP were identified as having been discharged from the pathway, between May 2015 and December 2019. To quantify any association between baseline pain duration and the likelihood of re-referral, two statistical modelling approaches, were used: logistic regression models for odds ratios and generalised linear models with a binomial link function in order to quantify risk differences. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of patients with LBP, who were discharged, re-referred for management over a 4.5-year period. A large difference in pain duration of 2 SD days was statistically associated with re-referral, with an odds ratio of 1.22 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.44) and a risk difference of 3.6% (95% CI: 0.6, 6.6). Nevertheless, the predictive value of an individual's pain duration was found to be weak for re-referral. Higher baseline disability [odds ratio of 1.40 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.83)] and a younger age at baseline [odds ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61, 0.86)] were also associated with an increased risk of re-referral. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline pain duration, disability and younger age are statistically associated with re-referral onto the NERBPP. However, the value of these variables for predicting an individual's risk of re-referral is weak. CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

Does Duration of Pain at Baseline Influence Longer-term Clinical Outcomes of Low Back Pain Patients Managed on an Evidence-Based Pathway?

STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized longitudinal observational study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between baseline pain duration and medium-to-long term clinical outcomes, in low back pain (LBP) patients enrolled on the North East of England Regional Back Pain and Radicular Pain Pathway (NERBPP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The NERBPP is based upon National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. These guidelines no longer differentiate management of LBP patients based on pain duration. Medium-to-long term data from the NERBPP is lacking. METHODS: Between May 2015 and December 2019, 786 and 552 LBP patients from the NERBPP returned 6-month and 12-month follow-up outcome measures, respectively. Outcomes included pain (Numerical rating scale), function (Oswestry Disability Index) and quality-of-life (EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire), analyzed using a series of covariate-adjusted models. Patients were categorized into four groups based upon baseline pain duration: <3 months, ≥3 to <6 months, ≥6 months to <12 months, ≥12 months. RESULTS: Patients with <3 months duration demonstrated clinically important improvements on all outcomes, at both follow-ups. The improvements in outcomes from this group were larger than those in the ≥12 month's duration group (P < 0.05), these group differences in change, in some cases surpassed our threshold for clinical relevance. Functional improvements in those with ≥12 month's duration were not clinically relevant at either follow-up. All patients, regardless of baseline pain duration, reported similar levels of readiness to self-manage at the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Baseline pain duration would appear to be of clinical importance. Patients with shorter baseline pain duration demonstrated better outcomes. Those with ≥12 month's duration of pain may need additional support during their management to achieve clinically relevant functional improvements in the medium-to-long term. These findings raise questions about the decision by NICE to move away from duration of pain to differentiate management of LBP patients.Level of Evidence: 3.

Long-term improvements following a residential combined physical and psychological programme for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the outcomes and explore experiences of patients undergoing a residential combined physical and psychological programme (CPPP) for chronic low back pain. DESIGN: A longitudinal observational cohort design, with a parallel qualitative design using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Residential, multimodal rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: 136 adults (62 male/74 female) referred to the CPPP, 100 (44 male/56 female) of whom completed the programme, during the term of the study. Ten (2 male/8 female) participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTION: A 3-week residential CPPP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were the STarT Back screening tool score; pain intensity-11-point Numerical Rating Scale; function-Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); health status/quality of life-EQ-5D-5L EuroQol five-Dimension-five level; anxiety-Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depression-Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Secondary outcome measures were the Global Subjective Outcome Scale; National Health Service Friends and Family Test;. RESULTS: At discharge, 6 and 12 months follow ups, there were improvements from baseline that were greater than minimum clinically important differences in each of the outcomes (with the sole exception of ODI at discharge). At 12 months, the majority of people considered themselves a lot better (57%) and were extremely likely (86%) to recommend the programme to a friend. The qualitative data showed praise for the residential nature of the intervention and the opportunities for interaction with peers and peer support. There were testimonies of improvements in understanding of pain and how to manage it better. Some participants said they had reduced, or stopped, medication they had been taking to manage their pain. CONCLUSIONS: Participants improved, and maintained long term, beyond minimum clinically important differences on a wide range of outcomes. Participants reported an enhanced ability to self-manage their back pain and support for the residential setting.