Medication use for low back pain in primary care

Physiotherapy management of low back pain: a survey of current practice in northern Ireland

STUDY DESIGN

A questionnaire survey of physiotherapists treating low back pain.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate current clinical practice in the physiotherapeutic management of low back pain in Northern Ireland.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

Physiotherapists play an important role in the management of low back pain. However, there is relatively limited evidence about physiotherapy or about current physiotherapeutic management of low back pain. This survey aimed to establish current practice in this area.

METHODS

Two sets of questionnaires were completed by physiotherapists during the period 1996-1997: one in relation to their professional profile, and subsequently a questionnaire for each patient referred by physicians to physiotherapy departments in the (government-funded) National Health Service in Northern Ireland.

RESULTS

Physiotherapists (n = 157) recorded data for 1062 patients treated for low back pain in 35 outpatient centers across Northern Ireland. Of the patients treated, 70% had a duration of current episode more than 6 weeks; 26% of patients had previously received physiotherapy for low back pain. Physiotherapy treatment most commonly involved advice (89% of patients), McKenzie treatment (70%), Maitland mobilizations (42%), and interferential therapy (30.3%).

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Physiotherapists typically treated subacute and chronic patients, principally using some types of manual techniques and advice, in keeping with current guidelines. However, high levels of the use of electrotherapy, and only limited use of manipulation, indicates the importance of further research to establish optimum management for this group of patients.

The economic burden of low back pain: a review of studies published between 1996 and 2001

Low back pain (LBP) poses an economic burden to society, mainly in terms of the large number of work days lost by a small percentage of patients who develop chronic LBP. The object of this review is to gain a better understanding of the societal costs of LBP and to see whether current clinical management follows evidence-based guidelines and is economically attractive, by reviewing studies on LBP with economic implications. To this end, the Medline database was searched between 1996 and 2001 using appropriate keywords, broadly defined. A total of 372 abstracts were screened and paper copies of 73 potentially relevant articles were obtained. It was found that the cost of LBP illness was high and was comparable to other disorders such as headache, heart disease, depression or diabetes, but actual cost estimates varied depending on the costing methodology employed. A small percentage of patients with chronic LBP accounts for a large fraction of the costs. Excessive and inappropriate use of diagnostic or therapeutic services can be documented but varied by region and provider type. Management according to evidence-based guidelines was not necessarily economically attractive. Interventions for acute or chronic LBP failed to show economic benefits, but demonstrated modest clinical benefits, which suggested a weak relationship between clinical and economic outcomes. The conclusion was that common definitions and costing methodologies need to be found to gain a better understanding of the true costs to society and to make studies comparable. A better definition is needed for the type for patient with LBP for whom therapeutic management is most likely to have a long-lasting economic benefit.

A descriptive study of medical and chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain and sciatica: management by physicians (practice activities) and patients (self-management)

BACKGROUND

A practice-based study of ambulatory patients with low back pain noted a long-term outcome advantage for self-referred chiropractic (DC) patients over medical (MD) patients within a subgroup of patients with chronic low back pain and radiating pain below the knee. The frequency of self-care education by physicians in both provider cohorts coupled with current thinking on management of chronic low back pain led to an exploration and description of physicians' noncore practice activities and patients' self-management attitudes and behaviors.

METHODS

A longitudinal, practice-based, observational study was undertaken in 14 general practice and 51 chiropractic community-based clinics. We enrolled 2945 consecutive patients with ambulatory low back pain of mechanical origin; of these, 268 comprised the subgroup of patients with chronic low back pain and radiating pain below the knee. The patients' low back status was followed for 1 year. Data on physicians' practice activities were obtained from doctor questionnaires completed at each patient visit and from chart abstraction. Patient data obtained from self-administered questionnaires at enrollment included sociodemographics, complaint characteristics, health status, and health encounter preferences. Questionnaires mailed at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months collected data on low back complaint status and satisfaction with treatment. At 1 to 3 years follow-up, mailed questionnaires collected data on patients' self-management attitudes and behaviors.

RESULTS

Physicians' core practice activities were as expected. Exercise plans and self-care education (>55%) were conspicuous in the frequency of their use in the DC cohort. MD patients appeared to rely more on family and friends for support during periods of back trouble. DC patients were characterized by greater self-efficacy motivation (P = .000). Both groups showed evidence of self-care activities during and between bouts of back pain, although MD patients were far more likely to choose bed rest (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

The chiropractic encounter may have enhanced patients' self-efficacy motivation, leading to better coping abilities and better pain and disability outcomes. Understanding, respecting, and capitalizing on the role and influence of psychosocial factors can help all physicians become more effective healers and counselors for their patients with back pain.

Evaluating and managing acute low back pain in the primary care setting

Acute low back pain is a common reason for patient calls or visits to a primary care clinician. Despite a large differential diagnosis, the precise etiology is rarely identified, although musculoligamentous processes are usually suspected. For most patients, back symptoms are nonspecific, meaning that there is no evidence for radicular symptoms or underlying systemic disease. Because episodes of acute, nonspecific low back pain are usually self-limited, many patients treat themselves without contacting their primary care clinician. When patients do call or schedule a visit, evaluation and management by primary care clinicians is appropriate. The history and physical examination usually provide clues to the rare but potentially serious causes of low back pain, as well as to identify patients at risk for prolonged recovery. Diagnostic testing, including plain x-rays, is often unnecessary during the initial evaluation. For patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain, the primary emphasis of treatment should be conservative care, time, reassurance, and education. Current recommendations focus on activity as tolerated (though not active exercise while pain is severe) and minimal if any bed rest. Referral for physical treatments is most appropriate for patients whose symptoms are not improving over 2 to 4 weeks. Specialty referral should be considered for patients with a progressive neurologic deficit, failure of conservative therapy, or an uncertain or serious diagnosis. The prognosis for most patients is good, although recurrence is common. Thus, educating patients about the natural history of acute low back pain and how to prevent future episodes can help ensure reasonable expectations.

Patient characteristics and physicians' practice activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a practice-based study of primary care and chiropractic physicians

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain sufferers are among those who account for the greatest usage of health care resources. Primary care medical (MD) physicians and chiropractic (DC) physicians treat most of these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To study patient characteristics and physician practice activities for patients with chronic low back pain treated by DC physicians and MD physicians.

METHODS

A longitudinal, practice-based observational study was undertaken in 14 general practice and 51 DC community-based clinics. A total of 2945 consecutive patients with ambulatory low back pain of mechanical origin were enrolled; 835 patients were in the chronic subgroup. Patients were followed for 12 months. Data were obtained on all of the following: patient demographics, health status, and psychosocial characteristics; history, duration, and severity of low back pain and disability; physicians' practice activities; and low back complaint status at 1 year.

RESULTS

Patients treated by MD physicians were younger and had lower incomes; their care was more often paid for by a third party; their baseline pain and disability were slightly greater. In addition, patients treated by MD physicians had one fourth as many visits as patients treated by DC physicians. Utilization of imaging procedures by enrolling physicians was equivalent for the two provider groups. Medications were prescribed for 80% of the patients enrolled by MD physicians; spinal manipulation was administered to 84% of patients enrolled by DC physicians. Physical modalities, self-care education, exercise, and postural advice characterized low back pain management in both provider groups. Patients' care-seeking was not exclusive to one provider type. Most patients experienced recurrences (patients treated by MD physicians, 59.3%; patients treated by DC physicians, 76.4%); 34.1% of patients treated by MD physicians and 12.7% of patients treated by DC physicians reported 12 months of continuous pain. Only 6.7% of patients treated by MD physicians and 10.9% of patients treated by DC physicians reported 1 resolved episode during the year.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in sociodemographics, present pain intensity, and functional disability may distinguish patients with chronic low back pain seeking care from primary care medical physicians from those seeking care from DC physicians. Although the primary treatment modality differs, the practice activities of MD physicians and DC physicians have much in common. Long-term evaluation suggests that chronic back pain is persistent and difficult to treat for both provider types.

Biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for patients with low back pain: preliminary report of utility in physiotherapy practice in Northern Ireland

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the potential utility of a new biopsychosocial screening questionnaire (Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire) by exploring the relation between it and several physical risk factors and posttreatment outcomes so as to establish a cutoff point for the local population. The relation between the screening questionnaire and valid and reliable outcome measures of pain and functional disability was also explored.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were conducted on patients referred for physiotherapy for low back pain to a large Healthcare Trust in Northern Ireland. Before initial assessment, patients completed the screening questionnaire and outcome measures, were questioned about known physical risk factors, and then received physiotherapy. At final discharge, the outcome variables--the "number of treatments" and patient's current work status ("return to work [yes/no]")--were recorded, and patients recompleted the outcome measures.

PATIENTS

One hundred eighteen patients gave written informed consent to participate in this study.

RESULTS

Significant associations were detected between questionnaire scores and pretreatment "leisure time exercise," "analgesic medication use," and "subjective anesthesia"; posttreatment "return to work"; and "number of physiotherapy treatments" as well as pain and functional disability measures. A cutoff "at-risk" score of 112 was calculated, which correctly classified 74% of patients who received more than six treatments and 80% of patients who failed to return to work at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study provide preliminary evidence of the utility of this biopsychosocial screening questionnaire for future use in clinical intervention studies in the Northern Ireland National Health Service. Further comparative investigations in other health care settings are warranted.

Treatment of low back pain exacerbations with willow bark extract: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Herbal medicines are widely used for the treatment of pain, although there is not much information on their effectiveness. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of willow (Salix) bark extract, which is widely used in Europe, for the treatment of low back pain.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 210 patients with an exacerbation of chronic low back pain who reported current pain of 5 or more (out of 10) on a visual analog scale. They were randomly assigned to receive an oral willow bark extract with either 120 mg (low dose) or 240 mg (high dose) of salicin, or placebo, with tramadol as the sole rescue medication, in a 4-week blinded trial. The principal outcome measure was the proportion of patients who were pain-free without tramadol for at least 5 days during the final week of the study.

RESULTS

The treatment and placebo groups were similar at baseline in 114 of 120 clinical features. A total of 191 patients completed the study. The numbers of pain-free patients in the last week of treatment were 27 (39%) of 65 in the group receiving high-dose extract, 15 (21%) of 67 in the group receiving low-dose extract, and 4 (6%) of 59 in the placebo group (P <0.001). The response in the high-dose group was evident after only 1 week of treatment. Significantly more patients in the placebo group required tramadol (P <0.001) during each week of the study. One patient suffered a severe allergic reaction, perhaps to the extract.

CONCLUSION

Willow bark extract may be a useful and safe treatment for low back pain.

Spine fusion for discogenic low back pain: outcomes in patients treated with or without pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation

Sixty-one randomly selected patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgeries for discogenic low back pain between 1987 and 1994 were retrospectively studied. All patients had failed to respond to preoperative conservative treatments. Forty-two patients received adjunctive therapy with pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation, and 19 patients received no electrical stimulation of any kind. Average follow-up time was 15.6 months postoperatively. Fusion succeeded in 97.6% of the PEMF group and in 52.6% of the unstimulated group (P < .001). The observed agreement between clinical and radiographic outcome was 75%. The use of PEMF stimulation enhances bony bridging in lumbar spinal fusions. Successful fusion underlies a good clinical outcome in patients with discogenic low back pain.

Nonoperative treatment of low back pain

Low back pain is a common problem with substantial social and economic issues. Physicians continue to have difficulty managing this condition despite an increased awareness of its magnitude. In addition, there is a misperception about the outcome of patients affected with low back pain; most continue to suffer from pain. We present a nonoperative approach and review various diagnostic and treatment strategies with respect to both scientific and clinical merit. Although many treatment strategies have not been well proved in the scientific literature, thoughtful review of the available information provides a basis for the use of these treatment methods in the patient with refractory pain. This approach can be used in conjunction with existing information to assist clinicians in the management of patients with acute low back pain.

Clinical practices in the management of new-onset, uncomplicated, low back workers' compensation disability claims

Recent consensus guidelines delineate what appears to be the most successful and cost-effective management of low back pain (LBP), and some recent studies have suggested that better outcomes occur with the least aggressive forms of medical intervention. The purpose of this study was to describe how practitioners manage new-onset, uncomplicated low back workers' compensation (WC) disability cases. A sample of cases was randomly selected from a large insurance carrier's national data source. An effort was made to select only uncomplicated cases, which would be expected to have relatively minimal need for medical intervention. There was an apparent overuse of diagnostic and treatment modalities. Diagnostic imaging was overutilized, not only in terms of the number of studies done (65% had plain films, 22% had magnetic resonance imaging scans) but also in the time frame in which they were performed (38% had plain films on the first clinic visit). Ninety percent received at least one medication, and 38% received more than one prescription for opioid analgesics. Expensive non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were prescribed more often than acetaminophen (61% versus 6%, respectively). Sixty-two percent received physical therapy that often included modalities with as yet unproven efficacy. Overutilization of either diagnostic or treatment procedures increases the likelihood of iatrogenic complications, is not cost-effective, and may adversely impact clinical and occupational outcomes.