Effects of multidisciplinary pain treatment can be predicted without elaborate questionnaires

Association Between Depressive Symptoms or Depression and Health Outcomes for Low Back Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Study results vary on whether depressive symptoms are associated with worse prognosis for low back pain (LBP). We assessed the association between depressive symptoms or depression and health outcomes in persons with LBP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to June 2020. Eligible studies were cohort and case-control studies assessing the association between depressive symptoms (questionnaires) or depression (diagnoses) and health outcomes in persons aged ≥16 years with LBP in the absence of major pathology. Reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. We classified exploratory versus confirmatory studies based on phases of prognostic factor investigation. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and descriptive synthesis where appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 13,221 citations screened, we included 62 studies (63,326 participants; 61 exploratory studies, 1 confirmatory study). For acute LBP, depressive symptoms were associated with self-reported disability (descriptive synthesis: 6 studies), worse recovery (descriptive synthesis: 5 studies), and slower traffic injury-related claim closure (1 study), but not pain or work-related outcomes. Depressive symptoms were associated with greater primary healthcare utilization for acute LBP (1 confirmatory study). For chronic LBP, depressive symptoms were associated with higher pain intensity (descriptive synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 2902 participants, β=0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.17), disability (descriptive synthesis: 6 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 3549 participants, β=0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.29), and worse recovery (descriptive synthesis: 2 studies; meta-analysis: 2 studies, 13,263 participants, relative risk (RR)=0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.95), but not incident chronic widespread pain (1 study).

DISCUSSION

Depressive symptoms may be associated with self-reported disability and worse recovery in persons with acute and chronic LBP, and greater primary healthcare utilization for acute LBP. Our review provides high-quality prognostic factor information for LBP. Healthcare delivery that addresses depressive symptoms may improve disability and recovery in persons with LBP. Confirmatory studies are needed to assess the association between depressive symptoms and health outcomes in persons with LBP.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42019130047).

AAAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Low Back Pain with and Without Lower Extremity Pain

OBJECTIVE

Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for which people visit their doctor. Between 12% and 15% of the US population seek care for spine pain each year, with associated costs exceeding $200 billion. Up to 80% of adults will experience acute low back pain at some point in their lives. This staggering prevalence supports the need for increased research to support tailored clinical care of low back pain. This work proposes a multidimensional conceptual taxonomy.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary task force of the ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) with clinical and research expertise performed a focused review and analysis, applying the AAAPT five-dimensional framework to acute low back pain.

RESULTS

Application of the AAAPT framework yielded the following: 1) Core Criteria: location, timing, and severity of acute low back pain were defined; 2) Common Features: character and expected trajectories were established in relevant subgroups, and common pain assessment tools were identified; 3) Modulating Factors: biological, psychological, and social factors that modulate interindividual variability were delineated; 4) Impact/Functional Consequences: domains of impact were outlined and defined; 5) Neurobiological Mechanisms: putative mechanisms were specified including nerve injury, inflammation, peripheral and central sensitization, and affective and social processing of acute low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of applying the AAAPT taxonomy to acute low back pain is to improve its assessment through a defined evidence and consensus-driven structure. The criteria proposed will enable more rigorous meta-analyses and promote more generalizable studies of interindividual variation in acute low back pain and its potential underlying mechanisms.

Influence of anxiety and pain catastrophizing on the course of pain within the first year after uncomplicated total knee replacement: a prospective study

PURPOSE

Prolonged postoperative pain is a frequent problem after uncomplicated total knee replacement (TKR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of anxiety and pain catastrophizing on postoperative pain after TKR.

METHODS

A total of 150 patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Preoperatively, anxiety was assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and pain catastrophizing was assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain on a numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcome parameters were the different Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales and patient satisfaction. Intergroup differences were tested with an independent t test. The odds ratio was calculated to determine the probability of an unsatisfactory outcome.

RESULTS

Preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, patients with anxiety and particularly patients with pain catastrophizing usually had a higher NRS score, lower knee function before and after surgery, and higher dissatisfaction. These intergroup differences were significant preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychopathologic factors, particularly pain catastrophizing, have an impact on postoperative pain after TKR. Preoperative screening and concurrent treatment of the diagnosed psychological disorder may improve patient-perceived outcomes.

Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delivering efficient and effective healthcare is crucial for a condition as burdensome as low back pain (LBP). Stratified care strategies may be worthwhile, but rely on early and accurate patient screening using a valid and reliable instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of LBP screening instruments for determining risk of poor outcome in adults with LBP of less than 3 months duration.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, Web of Science, SciVerse SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from June 2014 to March 2016. Prospective cohort studies involving patients with acute and subacute LBP were included. Studies administered a prognostic screening instrument at inception and reported outcomes at least 12 weeks after screening. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data using a standardised spreadsheet. We defined poor outcome for pain to be ≥ 3 on an 11-point numeric rating scale and poor outcome for disability to be scores of ≥ 30% disabled (on the study authors' chosen disability outcome measure).

RESULTS

We identified 18 eligible studies investigating seven instruments. Five studies investigated the STarT Back Tool: performance for discriminating pain outcomes at follow-up was 'non-informative' (pooled AUC = 0.59 (0.55-0.63), n = 1153) and 'acceptable' for discriminating disability outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.74 (0.66-0.82), n = 821). Seven studies investigated the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire: performance was 'poor' for discriminating pain outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.69 (0.62-0.76), n = 360), 'acceptable' for disability outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.75 (0.69-0.82), n = 512), and 'excellent' for absenteeism outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.83 (0.75-0.90), n = 243). Two studies investigated the Vermont Disability Prediction Questionnaire and four further instruments were investigated in single studies only.

CONCLUSIONS

LBP screening instruments administered in primary care perform poorly at assigning higher risk scores to individuals who develop chronic pain than to those who do not. Risks of a poor disability outcome and prolonged absenteeism are likely to be estimated with greater accuracy. It is important that clinicians who use screening tools to obtain prognostic information consider the potential for misclassification of patient risk and its consequences for care decisions based on screening. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the outcomes on which we evaluated these screening instruments in some cases had a different threshold, outcome, and time period than those they were designed to predict.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews registration number CRD42015015778 .

Prevalence, consequences and predictors of low back pain among nurses in a tertiary care setting

PURPOSE

Nursing is a profession with high incidence and prevalence of low back pain (LBP), with its medical and professional consequences. These prevalence rates vary among countries, and with various measurements have been used to determine LBP. Individual and work-related factors are regarded as causal factors for many back injuries. The aims of study this were: (1) to estimate the prevalence of LBP using different measures, (2) to determine medical and professional consequences of LBP, and (3) to determine the associated factors and significant predictors of LBP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 254 nurses from different departments/wards at Hamad General Hospital (HGH), Doha, Qatar over two months (February and March, 2015). A self-administered modified Nordic questionnaire was used to collect data regarding five different measures of LBP, its medical and occupational consequences and individual/lifestyle and work-related risk factors of LBP. Descriptive and analytic statistical analyses were done using chi-square and multivariate logistic regression techniques. Significance was considered at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The findings of this study broadly confirm the high levels of back pain in nursing, with a one-year prevalence of LBP of 54.3 % for LBP of at least one day, 26.8 % for chronic LBP, 18.1 % for sick leave seeking LBP, and 34.3 % for medical treatment seeking LBP. Difficult or impossible activities of daily living were reported due to LBP in climbing stairs (50.7 %), walking (42.8 %), standing up (39.9 %), sleeping (33.3 %), getting out of bed (30.4 %) and wearing clothes (20.3 %). Work stop due to LBP was reported by 76.8 % of nurses, with 2.03 ± 3.09 days within the last year. Treatment was sought in 58.7 % by medical care, and 15.9 % by physiotherapy, while seeking rest days and/or sick leave was sought in 50.8 % of nurses with LBP. Sports practice (p = 0.003), office work (p < 0.001) and exposure to physical stress (p = 0.002) were the only significant predictors of LBP among nurses, when logistic regression analysis was conducted.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of LBP among nurses at HGH is high and should be actively addressed, however, it was not a major cause of sick leave. Preventive measures should be taken to reduce the risk of lower back pain, such as arranging proper rest periods, educational programs to teach the proper use of body mechanics and sports activity programs.

Treatment of discogenic back pain with autologous bone marrow concentrate injection with minimum two year follow-up

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess safety and feasibility of intradiscal bone marrow concentrate (BMC) injections to treat discogenic pain as an alternative to surgery.

METHODS

A total of 26 patients (11 male, 15 female, aged 18-61 years, 13 single level, 13 two level) that met inclusion criteria of chronic (> 6 months) discogenic low back pain, degenerative disc pathology assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with modified Pfirrmann grade of IV-VII at one or two levels, candidate for surgical intervention (failed conservative treatment and radiologic findings) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score of 40 mm or more at initial visit. Initial Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and VAS pain score average was 56.5 % and 80.1 mm (0-100), respectively. Adverse event reporting, ODI score, VAS pain score, MRI radiographic changes, progression to surgery and cellular analysis of BMC were noted. Retrospective cell analysis by flow cytometry and colony forming unit-fibroblast (CFU-F) assays were performed to characterise each patient's BMC and compare with clinical outcomes. The BMC was injected into the nucleus pulposus of the symptomatic disc(s) under fluoroscopic guidance. Patients were evaluated clinically prior to treatment and at three, six, 12 and 24 months and radiographically prior to treatment and at 12 months.

RESULTS

There were no complications from the percutaneous bone marrow aspiration or disc injection. Of 26 patients, 24 (92 %) avoided surgery through 12 months, while 21 (81 %) avoided surgery through two years. Of the 21 surviving patients, the average ODI and VAS scores were reduced to 19.9 and 27.0 at three months and sustained to 18.3 and 22.9 at 24 months, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Twenty patients had follow-up MRI at 12 months, of whom eight had improved by at least one Pfirrmann grade, while none of the discs worsened. Total and rate of pain reduction were linked to mesenchymal stem cell concentration through 12 months. Only five of the 26 patients elected to undergo surgical intervention (fusion or artificial disc replacement) by the two year milestone.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of safety and feasibility in the non-surgical treatment of discogenic pain with autologous BMC, with durable pain relief (71 % VAS reduction) and ODI improvements (> 64 %) through two years.

[Multimodal therapy programs for chronic pain]

Chronic pain is a common and disabling disorder with major consequences for patient quality of life and it is also a major economic burden to society. The management of chronic pain comprises a large range of different intervention strategies including pharmacological therapy, non-medicinal and invasive therapeutic options. While non-pharmacological and multimodal options are underused, monomodal options, especially pharmacotherapy and invasive therapies are overused. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary and multimodal treatment programs including physical and rehabilitation interventions and psychological treatment has been extensively studied in the last two decades. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy alone, there is some evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral therapy and there is at least moderate evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary and multimodal treatment and other active treatment reducing pain and increasing functional capacity at short and intermediate term. Therefore, blanket coverage with provision of adequate treatment programs for chronic pain as well as studies evaluating the best composition of treatment elements are needed. The characteristics of chronic pain, the necessary assessment procedures and treatment types are described.