Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic lumbar pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Development of a low back pain care pathway in an academic hospital system: results of a consensus process

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant component of healthcare expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been highlighted as a key resource to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to develop a clinical pathway for LBP based on CPGs in an academic health system.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi study of clinicians caring for patients with LBP who were asked to rate 21 CPG-informed seed statements through an online survey. The goal was to identify statements that achieved a minimum of 80% consensus among panelists.

RESULTS

Thirty-five healthcare providers participated as panelists. The majority of participants were male (68.6%), had MD or DO (62.9%) degrees, and were clinicians (73.8%) working in neurosurgery (36.1%), orthopedics (25.7%), emergency medicine (14.3%), or physical therapy (11.4%). Initially, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 seed statements. One statement did not reach consensus in the initial round and was revised into two separate statements based on feedback from panelists. One of these statements achieved consensus in the second review round. All statements reaching consensus were incorporated into a care pathway consisting of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for LBP.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare providers across various disciplines supported statements interpreting current CPGs related to care for LBP. This study represents a step toward supporting guideline-concordant care for LBP. Additional research is needed to assess how such pathways impact actual clinical care.

Vibration therapy to improve pain and function in patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vibration therapy (VT), a treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, has been developed for clinical applications in the past decade. However, its effect on relieving chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improving lumbar function is still illusive, lacking sufficient evidence-based medical data.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of vibration therapy on pain and function in people with CLBP.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Date, VIP, and CBM were applied to search for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vibration therapy for people with CLBP. The electronic databases were searched from the establishment of the database until July 1, 2023. Two researchers assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted data. The outcome indicators included the pain intensity index, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) score, and Roland-Morris dysfunction questionnaire (RMDQ) score. GRADE was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence of each outcome indicator. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Fourteen papers met the inclusion criteria with 860 subjects (VT group n = 432 and control group n = 428). VT for patients with CLBP reduced the pain intensity index [SMD = - 0.71, 95% CI (- 1.02, - 0.39), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001], the ODI score value [MD = - 4.24, 95% CI (- 8.10, - 0.38), I2 = 88%, P = 0.03], and the RMDQ score value [MD = - 2.21, 95% CI (- 3.41, - 1.01), I2 = 0%, P = 0.0003]. Subgroup analysis displayed that the pain intensity index was lower in the whole-body vibration (WBV) group than in the control group [SMD = - 0.49, 95% CI (- 0.79, - 0.19), I2 = 58%, P = 0.001] and the local vibration (LV) group [SMD = - 1.07, 95% CI (- 1.60, - 0.53), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001]. The ODI scores in the WBV group were lower than those in the control group [MD = - 3.30, 95% CI (- 5.76, - 0.83), I2 = 36%, P = 0.009]. There was no statistically significant difference in ODI scores between the LV group and the control group [MD = - 5.78, 95% CI (- 16.23, 4.66), I2 = 97%, P = 0.28].

CONCLUSION

The data from this study suggest that VT can reduce pain and improve lumbar function in patients with CLBP. However, we still need to carefully interpret the results of this study, as the certainty of evidence was low, and the clinical relevance of the results is questionable. Further RCTs are needed in the future to ascertain this.

Risk factors analysis and risk prediction model construction of non-specific low back pain: an ambidirectional cohort study

PURPOSE

Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) is a common clinical condition that affects approximately 60-80% of adults worldwide. However, there is currently a lack of scientific prediction and evaluation systems in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk factors of NLBP and construct a risk prediction model.

METHODS

We collected baseline data from 707 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were treated at the Sixth Hospital of Ningbo from December 2020 to December 2022. Logistic regression and LASSO regression were used to screen independent risk factors that influence the onset of NLBP and to construct a risk prediction model. The sensitivity and specificity of the model were evaluated by tenfold cross-validation, and internal validation was performed in the validation set.

RESULTS

Age, gender, BMI, education level, marital status, exercise frequency, history of low back pain, labor intensity, working posture, exposure to vibration sources, and psychological status were found to be significantly associated with the onset of NLBP. Using these 11 predictive factors, a nomogram was constructed, and the area under the ROC curve of the training set was 0.835 (95% CI 0.756-0.914), with a sensitivity of 0.771 and a specificity of 0.800. The area under the ROC curve of the validation set was 0.762 (95% CI 0.665-0.858), with a sensitivity of 0.800 and a specificity of 0.600, indicating that the predictive value of the model for the diagnosis of NLBP was high. In addition, the calibration curve showed a high degree of consistency between the predicted and actual survival probabilities.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a preliminary predictive model for NLBP and constructed a nomogram to predict the onset of NLBP. The model demonstrated good performance and may be useful for the prevention and treatment of NLBP in clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 632 patients

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been widely used for pain control in musculoskeletal disorders. Whether ESWT can relieve chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improve lumbar function is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies to comprehensively analyse and determine the efficacy and safety of ESWT for chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ESWT for CLBP. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic review criteria, relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability status, and mental health. The data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. If I² ≥ 50%, a random effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 632 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The ESWT group reported significantly more pain relief than the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 1.04; 95% CI =  - 1.44 to - 0.65; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 0.85; 95% CI =  - 1.30 to - 0.41; P < 0.001). Regarding the dysfunction index, ESWT led to significant improvement in lumbar dysfunction compared with the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 4.22; 95% CI =  - 7.55 to - 0.89; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 4.51; 95% CI =  - 8.58 to - 0.44; P = 0.03). For mental health, there was no significant difference between the ESWT group and the control group after 4 weeks of intervention (SMD = 1.17; 95% CI =  - 0.10 to 2.45; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ESWT provided better pain relief and improved lumbar dysfunction compared with the other interventions included, and no serious adverse effects were found. There was no significant effect of ESWT on the mental health of patients, but we hope to obtain more RCTs for further analysis in the future. Based on the pooled results, we suggest that ESWT is effective and safe for treating chronic low back pain.

Between guidelines and clinical trials: evidence-based advice on the pharmacological management of non-specific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore patients' daily activities and improve their quality of life. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Pharmacological management should be considered as co-adjuvant to non-pharmacological therapy, and should be guided by the symptoms reported by the patients. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from dedicated therapy. This article provides an evidence-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

Choosing the appropriate pharmacotherapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore daily activities and improve the quality of life. No magic bullet exists for NCLBP; interventions to reduce pain and disability are available, but long-term results are unpredictable. Education in this regard needs to improve. This is often hard to accept for clinicians and patients, and provides a fertile soil to quacks, faith healers, and gurus to promote miraculous non-evidence-based solutions. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from a dedicated therapy. In this editorial, we provide an evidenced-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

The influence of total disc arthroplasty with Mobidisc prosthesis on lumbar spine and pelvic parameters: a prospective in vivo biomechanical study with a minimum 3 year of follow-up

Background

This study examined the impact of Mobidisc implant on spinopelvic parameters, with particular focus on the preservation of the lumbar lordosis (LL) and on the segmental lordosis (SL) of the treated and adjacent segments.

Methods

A prospective study was conducted on 63 consecutive patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease who underwent Mobidisc implantation at the Clinic for Spinal Diseases in Strasbourg, France. Based on the profile images of the whole, the following static spinopelvic parameters were measured and analysed: lumbar lordosis L1-S1 (LL), SL for L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1, sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT) and pelvic incidence. In the lumbar spine images, the anterior (ADH) and posterior disc height (PDH) were measured prior to surgery and at the different follow-up appointments. The preoperative and postoperative values were compared and statistically analysed at different time intervals.

Results

Sixty-three patients were included in the study. The average age of the patients was 41.4 years (range 27–59 years). The mean follow-up was 44 months (range 36–71 months). Overall, total disc replacement (TDR) led to an increase in LL which increased TED over time. The preoperative LL measured 48.9° ± 10.1° and 53.4° ± 9.9° at 3 years follow-up (p < 0.0001). In the cohort of patients who underwent TDR at L4-5, the LL increased from 51.6° ± 10° to 56.2° ± 9.2° at the last FU (p = 0.006). All other spinopelvic parameters remained stable between the preoperative values and the last follow-up. In the patients who underwent L5-S1 TDR, a significant increase in LL was also observed between preoperative data and at the last FU (from 47.8° ± 10.1° to 53.3° ± 10.1°, p < 0.0001). Following L5-S1 TDR, the SS increased from 32.9° ± 8.3° to 35.6° ± 7.4° (p = 0.05) and the PT decreased from 15.4° ± 6.2° to 11.6° ± 5.7° between preoperative values and the last follow-up. Considering the entire cohort, the SL L5-S1 increased significantly from 5.9° ± 4.2° preoperatively to 8.1° ± 4.4° (p < 0.01) at the last FU, while at the L4-L5 level, the SL remained stable from 9.9 ± 4.5° to 10.7° ± 3.8° (p = 0.3). After L4-5 TDR, an increase in ADH and PDH at the treated level was observed, while these parameters progressively decreased in the adjacent segment. In patients who underwent L5-S1 TDR, a significant increase in L5-S1 ADH and PDH was observed from 18.8 ± 9.1 to 28.4 ± 11.1 and from 9.5 ± 3.8 to 17.6 ± 9.5 pixels, respectively. ADH and PDH at the proximal adjacent levels L3-4 and L4-5 were reduced. We did not observe any case of implant failure or damage to the bone/implant interface.

Conclusion

TDR with Mobidisc allows for an improvement of LL and SL at the treated level. An increase in both anterior and posterior disc height was observed at the treated level. While disc height decreased at the adjacent level, further studies are required to investigate whether these changes are clinically relevant.

Acupuncture in chronic aspecific low back pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

This Bayesian network meta-analysis investigated the available randomized control trials (RCTs) to point out which acupuncture protocol is the most effective for chronic aspecific low back pain (LBP). Efficacy was measured in terms of pain (Visual Analogic Scale, VAS) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMQ), Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS).

Methods

PubMed, Google scholar, Embase, and Scopus were accessed in March 2022. All the RCTs comparing two or more acupuncture modalities for aspecific chronic LBP were accessed. Only studies which investigated the efficacy of acupuncture on patients with symptoms lasting a minimum of 1.5 months, or with at least three episodes in the previous 12 months, were considered eligible. The Review Manager Software (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for the methodological quality assessment. The STATA Software/MP, Version 14.1 (StataCorporation, College Station, Texas, USA), was used for the statistical analyses. The NMA was performed through the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis.

Results

Data from 44 RCTs (8338 procedures) were retrieved. 56% of patients were women. The mean age of the patients was 48 ± 10.6 years. The mean BMI was 26.3 ± 2.2 kg/m². The individual group (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.02, 7.98) and the standard combined with TENS (95% CI 2.03, 7.97) demonstrated the highest improvement of the RMQ. The VAS score was lower in the standard combined with TENS group (95% CI 3.28, 4.56). Considering the standard acupuncture group, different studies used similar protocols and acupuncture points and the results could thus be compared. The equation for global linearity did not find any statistically significant inconsistency in any of the network comparison.

Conclusion

Verum acupuncture is more effective than sham treatment for the non-pharmacological management of LBP. Among the verum protocols, individualized acupuncture and standard acupuncture with TENS were the protocols that resulted in the highest improvement in pain and quality of life.

Level of Evidence

Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.

The impact of different intensities and domains of physical activity on analgesic use and activity limitation in people with low back pain: a prospective cohort study with a one-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Analgesics are the most common form of managing low back pain (LBP). No previous study has examined which domains and intensities of physical activity are most beneficial in reducing the frequency of analgesic use for LBP, and its related activity limitation.

METHODS

This cohort study forms part of the AUstralian Twin low BACK pain study, investigating the impact of physical activity on LBP. Information on demographics, LBP and health-related factors, including physical activity were collected at baseline. Data on the total counts of analgesic use and activity limitation for LBP were collected weekly for one-year. Negative binomial regression models were conducted separately for each type of physical activity. Results were presented as Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).

RESULTS

From an initial sample of 366 participants, 86 participants reported counts of analgesic use and 140 recorded counts of activity limitation across the follow up period. The negative binomial regression models for analgesic use counts indicated moderate-vigorous physical activity (IRR 0·97, 95% C.I 0·96-0·99) and physical workload (IRR 1·02, 95% C.I 1·01-1·05) to be significant. For activity limitation counts, significant associations were shown for sedentary time (IRR 1·04, 95% C.I 1·01-1·09) and leisure activity (IRR 0·94, 95% C.I 0·81-0·99).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the potential importance of supporting engagement in moderate-vigorous and leisure physical activity, as well as minimising sedentary time and physical workload to reduce the risk of activity limitation and the need for analgesic use in people with LBP.

Network meta-analysis for comparative effectiveness of treatments for chronic low back pain disorders: systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Six electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.