The effects of lifestyle intervention for hypertension on low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Disparities in Provider Ordering Practices of Image-Guided Interventions and Surgery for Patients With Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess individual- and neighborhood-level sociodemographic factors associating with providers' ordering of nonpharmacologic treatments for patients with low back pain (LBP), specifically physical therapy, image-guided interventions, and lumbar surgery.

METHODS

Our cohort included all patients diagnosed with LBP from 2000 to 2017 in a statewide database of all hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities within Utah. We compared sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of (1) patients with LBP who received any treatment with those who received none and (2) patients with LBP who received invasive LBP treatments with those who only received noninvasive LBP treatments using the Student's t test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests, and Pearson's χ2 tests, as applicable, and two separate multivariate logistic regression models: (1) to determine whether sociodemographic characteristics were risk factors for receiving any LBP treatments and (2) risk factors for receiving invasive LBP treatments.

RESULTS

Individuals in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to receive any nonpharmacologic treatment orders (odds ratio [OR] 0.74 for most disadvantaged, P < .001) and received fewer invasive therapies (0.92, P = .018). Individual-level characteristics correlating with lower rates of treatment orders were female sex, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander race (OR 0.50, P < .001), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.77, P < .001), single or unmarried status (OR 0.69, P < .001), and no insurance or self-pay (OR 0.07, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Neighborhood and individual sociodemographic variables associated with treatment orders for LBP with Area Deprivation Index, sex, race or ethnicity, insurance, and marital status associating with receipt of any treatment, as well as more invasive image-guided interventions and surgery.

Machine Learning Models for Low Back Pain Detection and Factor Identification: Insights From a 6-Year Nationwide Survey

This study aimed to enhance performance, identify additional predictors, and improve the interpretability of biopsychosocial machine learning models for low back pain (LBP). Using survey data from a 6-year nationwide study involving 17,609 adults aged ≥50 years (Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), we explored 119 factors to detect LBP in individuals who reported experiencing LBP for at least 30 days within the previous 3 months. Our primary model, model 1, employed eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and selected primary factors (PFs) based on their feature importance scores. To extend this, we introduced additional factors, such as lumbar X-ray findings, physical activity, sitting time, and nutrient intake levels, which were available only during specific survey periods, into models 2 to 4. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve, with predicted probabilities explained by SHapley Additive exPlanations. Eleven PFs were identified, and model 1 exhibited an enhanced area under the curve .8 (.77-.84, 95% confidence interval). The factors had varying impacts across individuals, underscoring the need for personalized assessment. Hip and knee joint pain were the most significant PFs. High levels of physical activity were found to have a negative association with LBP, whereas a high intake of omega-6 was found to have a positive association. Notably, we identified factor clusters, including hip joint pain and female sex, potentially linked to osteoarthritis. In summary, this study successfully developed effective XGBoost models for LBP detection, thereby providing valuable insight into LBP-related factors. Comprehensive LBP management, particularly in women with osteoarthritis, is crucial given the presence of multiple factors. PERSPECTIVE: This article introduces XGBoost models designed to detect LBP and explores the multifactorial aspects of LBP through the application of SHapley Additive exPlanations and network analysis on the 4 developed models. The utilization of this analytical system has the potential to aid in devising personalized management strategies to address LBP.

Impact of antihypertensive treatment on resiliency to clinical pain

OBJECTIVES

Although progress has been made in the regulation of hypertension over the past decades, the USA and some other countries have faced a significant rise in incidence of chronic pain management cases during the same period. Studies of the relationship between pain and blood pressure (BP) regulations propose that these two processes may be interconnected. Studies of effects of antihypertensive treatment on pain in general and its chronification have never been reviewed.

METHODS

A narrative review of respective studies with analysis of credibility of the findings was conducted.

RESULTS

Some studies have suggested that aggressive reduction of high BP may contribute to a return in pain symptoms and may require more aggressive, long-term pain management. Other studies propose that long-term antihypertensive medication could also increase the risk for new cases of chronic pain. Pain initiates a central neuroplastic resetting of the baroreceptor activation accounting for sustained increase of BP with an adaptive 'pain-killing' or maladaptive 'pain-complication' effect associated with pain chronification, and these mechanisms may be moderated by antihypertensive medications. However, different antihypertensive drugs and nondrug treatments may diversely affect pain mechanisms at different stages of treatments.

CONCLUSION

Uncontrollable reduction of high BP in some patients with hypertension could increase the risk for chronic pain incidence and its severity. Practical recommendations in BP control should be reconsidered to take into account patients' chronic pain. Further research is needed of moderation effects of different antihypertensive manipulations on pain to improve pain management in these patients.

Obesity does not increase the risk of chronic low back pain when genetics are considered. A prospective study of Spanish adult twins

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Obesity is commonly investigated as a potential risk factor for low back pain (LBP); however, current evidence remains unclear. Limitations in previous studies may explain the inconsistent results in the field, such as the use of a cross sectional design, limitations in the measures used to assess obesity (eg, body mass index-BMI), and poor adjustment for confounders (eg, genetics and physical activity).

PURPOSE AND DESIGN

To better understand the effects of obesity on LBP, our aim was to investigate in a prospective cohort whether obesity-related measures increase the risk of chronic LBP outcomes using a longitudinal design. We assessed obesity through measures that consider the magnitude as well as the distribution of body fat mass. A within-pair twin case-control analysis was used to control for the possible effects of genetic and early shared environmental factors on the obesity-LBP relationship.

PATIENT SAMPLE AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were obtained from the Murcia Twin Registry in Spain. Participants were 1,098 twins, aged 43 to 71 years, who did not report chronic LBP at baseline. Follow-up data on chronic LBP (>6 months), activity-limiting LBP, and care-seeking for LBP were collected after 2 to 4 years.

RISK FACTORS

The risk factors were BMI, percentage of fat mass, waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio.

METHODS

Sequential analyses were performed using logistic regression controlling for familial confounding: (1) total sample analysis (twins analyzed as independent individuals); (2) within-pair twin case-control analyses (all complete twin pairs discordant for LBP at follow-up); and within-pair twin case-control analyses separated for (3) dizygotic and (4) monozygotic twins.

RESULTS

No increase in the risk of chronic LBP was found for any of the obesity-related measures: BMI (men/women, odds ratio [OR]: 0.99; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.14), % fat mass (women, OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.66-1.14), waist circumference (women, OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.74-1.30), and waist-to-hip ratio (women, OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.81-1.36). Similar results were found for activity-limiting LBP and care-seeking due to LBP. After the adjustment for genetics and early environmental factors shared by twins, the non-significant results remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2 to 4 years, obesity-related measures did not increase the risk of developing chronic LBP or care-seeking for LBP with or without adjustment for familial factors such as genetics in Spanish adults.

The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common and costly health complaint for which there are several moderately effective treatments. In some fields there is evidence that funder and financial conflicts are associated with trial outcomes. It is not clear whether effect sizes in back pain trials relate to journal impact factor, reporting conflicts of interest, or reporting funding.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of English-language papers reporting randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-specific low back pain, published between 2006-2012. We modelled the relationship using 5-year journal impact factor, and categories of reported of conflicts of interest, and categories of reported funding (reported none and reported some, compared to not reporting these) using meta-regression, adjusting for sample size, and publication year. We also considered whether impact factor could be predicted by the direction of outcome, or trial sample size.

RESULTS

We could abstract data to calculate effect size in 99 of 146 trials that met our inclusion criteria. Effect size is not associated with impact factor, reporting of funding source, or reporting of conflicts of interest. However, explicitly reporting 'no trial funding' is strongly associated with larger absolute values of effect size (adjusted β=1.02 (95 % CI 0.44 to 1.59), P=0.001). Impact factor increases by 0.008 (0.004 to 0.012) per unit increase in trial sample size (P<0.001), but does not differ by reported direction of the LBP trial outcome (P=0.270).

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of associations between effect size and impact factor, reporting sources of funding, and conflicts of interest reflects positively on research and publisher conduct in the field. Strong evidence of a large association between absolute magnitude of effect size and explicit reporting of 'no funding' suggests authors of unfunded trials are likely to report larger effect sizes, notwithstanding direction. This could relate in part to quality, resources, and/or how pragmatic a trial is.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.

MAIN RESULTS

From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.

Obesity and low back pain: relationships and treatment

SUMMARY Low back pain (LBP) and obesity (defined as BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)) are common problems in the general population. The treatment of LBP is not clearly defined and has variable success in different populations and time-frames. When a person presents with LBP who also meets the criteria for obesity, many questions are raised as to the value of weight-loss treatments and the success and/or safety of usual treatments of LBP, especially exercise. Based on the current medical literature for the treatment of LBP in patients who are obese: there should be attempts at weight loss (nonsurgical or surgical), especially if the person is in the morbidly obese (BMI >40 kg/m(2)) range; all usual forms of exercise and physical therapy treatments are possible and can be beneficial without increased concerns for injury; and, if necessary, invasive treatments such as spinal injections or surgery are potentially beneficial and have similar complication rates to the nonobese population. These options should be offered when medically necessary and appropriate.

Content validity of the comprehensive international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core set for low back pain from the perspective of physicians: a Delphi survey

OBJECTIVES

The 'Comprehensive ICF Core Set for low back pain (LBP)' is an application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and represents the typical spectrum of problems in functioning of patients with LBP. The objective of this study was to validate this ICF Core Set from the perspective of physicians.

METHODS

Physicians experienced in the treatment of LBP were asked about the patients' problems, patients' resources and aspects of environment that physicians take care of in a three-round survey using the Delphi technique. Responses were linked to the ICF.

RESULTS

Seventy-one physicians in 36 countries named 707 concepts that covered all ICF components. One hundred ninety-three ICF categories were linked to these answers. Three ICF categories were not represented in the Comprehensive ICF Core Set for LBP although at least 75% of the participants have rated them as important. Twenty-six concepts were linked to the not yet developed ICF component personal factors and 21 issues were not covered by the ICF.

DISCUSSION

The high percentage of ICF categories represented in the ICF Core Set for LBP indicates good content validity from the perspective of the physicians. However, some issues were raised that were not covered and need to be investigated further.

The association between obesity and low back pain: a meta-analysis

This meta-analysis assessed the association between overweight/obesity and low back pain. The authors systematically searched the Medline (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) and Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) databases until May 2009. Ninety-five studies were reviewed and 33 included in the meta-analyses. In cross-sectional studies, obesity was associated with increased prevalence of low back pain in the past 12 months (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 1.54), seeking care for low back pain (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.67), and chronic low back pain (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.28, 1.60). Compared with non-overweight people, overweight people had a higher prevalence of low back pain but a lower prevalence of low back pain compared with obese people. In cohort studies, only obesity was associated with increased incidence of low back pain for > or =1 day in the past 12 months (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.92). Results remained consistent after adjusting for publication bias and limiting the analyses to studies that controlled for potential confounders. Findings indicate that overweight and obesity increase the risk of low back pain. Overweight and obesity have the strongest association with seeking care for low back pain and chronic low back pain.