Harms and benefits of opioids for management of non-surgical acute and chronic low back pain: a systematic review

Exploring the facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain treatment experienced by general practitioners: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend opioid deprescribing in patients on long-term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. This study aims to explore facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing among general practitioners in the Netherlands. In addition, this study aims to identify possibilities for improvement regarding opioid deprescribing in primary care.

METHODS

Focus group discussions with Dutch General practitioners were held by two skilled moderators. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using MAXQDA software. Three independent reviewers searched for overarching themes using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Discussions were organized until data saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Twenty-two general practitioners participated in four focus group discussions. Five main themes emerged from the data: (1) patient-centred care; (2) ensuring proper pain management (3) dilemmas and hardships in dealing with opioid use disorder; (4) the competency gap; (5) needs and possibilities to improve opioid deprescribing in primary care. The first theme addresses the main facilitators in opioid tapering. The following three themes emerged as main barriers in opioid deprescribing. The fifth theme identified possibilities for change.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates the importance of intrinsic motivation and a tailored approach to deprescribe opioids in patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. Identified barriers include struggles in pain management, challenges caused by opioid use disorder, insufficient capacities such as time constraints and lack of skills. Recommendations for improvement involve enhanced collaboration with healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, provision of practical tools and assurance of sufficient time.

SIGNIFICANCE

This focus group study among 22 Dutch general practitioners elucidates the complexities of opioid deprescribing and reveals pivotal themes such as patient-centred care, pain management challenges, and competency gaps. The findings underscore the crucial role of intrinsic motivation and that of a tailored approach in opioid deprescribing, while demonstrating how a lack in effective pain treatments, practical capacities and challenges caused by opioid dependence, impede opioid deprescribing. By uncovering these complexities, this study aims to inform future deprescribing strategies.

Getting what you pay for: impact of copayments on physical therapy and opioid initiation, timing, and continuation for newly diagnosed low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Physical therapy (PT) is an important component of low back pain (LBP) management. Despite established guidelines, heterogeneity in medical management remains common.

PURPOSE

We sought to understand how copayments impact timing and utilization of PT in newly diagnosed LBP.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The IBM Watson Health MarketScan claims database was used in a longitudinal setting.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients with LBP.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes-of-interest were timing and overall utilization of PT services. Additional outcomes-of-interest included timing of opioid prescribing.

METHODS

Actual and inferred copayments based on nonnonprimary care provider visit claims were used to evaluate the relationship between PT copayment and incidence of PT initiation. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate factors influencing PT usage.

RESULTS

Overall, 2,467,389 patients were included. PT initiation, among those with at ≥1 PT service during the year after LBP diagnosis (30.6%), occurred at a median of 8 days postdiagnosis (IQR 1-55). Among those with at least one PT encounter, incidence of subsequent PT visits was significantly lower for those with high initial PT copayments. High initial PT copayments, while inversely correlated with PT utilization, were directly correlated with subsequent opioid use (0.77 prescriptions/patient [$0 PT copayment] versus 1.07 prescriptions/patient [$50-74 PT copayment]; 1.15 prescriptions/patient [$75+ PT copayment]). Among patients with known opioid and PT copayments, higher PT copayments were correlated with faster opioid use while higher opioid copayments were correlated with faster PT use (Spearman p<.05). For multivariable whole-cohort analyses, incidence of PT initiation among patients with inferred copayments in the 50-75th and 75-100th percentiles was significantly lower than those below the 50th percentile (HR=0.893 [95%CI 0.887-0.899] and HR=0.905 [95%CI 0.899-0.912], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher PT copayments correlated with reduced PT utilization; higher PT copayments and lower opioid copayments were independent contributors to delayed PT initiation and higher opioid use. In patients covered by plans charging high PT copayments, opioid use was significantly higher. Copays may impact long-term adherence to PT.

Comparison of diclofenac with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo in the treatment of acute low back pain and sciatica: multi-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has posed numerous health and socioeconomic challenges. This study compared whether nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in combination with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo would be the best treatment regime to improve the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores at 1 week.

METHODS

This was a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial including adult patients with acute LBP and sciatica in three emergency departments in Hong Kong. Patients were randomized to the receive tramadol 50 mg, tizanidine 2 mg, or placebo every 6 hours for 2 weeks in a 1:1:1 ratio. The RMDQ and other secondary outcomes were measured at baseline, Day 2, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Crude and adjusted mean differences in the changes of RMDQ and NRS scores from baseline to Day 7 between tizanidine/tramadol and placebo were determined with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-one patients were analyzed with the mean age of 47.4 years and 57.7% were male. The primary outcome of mean difference in RMDQs on Day 7 (compared with baseline) was non-significant for tizanidine compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.56, 95% CI -2.48 to 1.37) and tramadol compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.85, 95% CI -2.80 to 1.10). Only 23.7% were fully compliant to the treatment allocated. Complier Average Causal Effect analysis also showed no difference in the primary outcome for the tizanidine and tramadol versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with acute LBP and sciatica presenting to the ED, adding tramadol or tizanidine to diclofenac did not improve functional recovery.

The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios.

RESULTS

Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy.

CONCLUSION

Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes.

IMPACT

Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

What a pain in the … back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient's condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.

Continued Opioid Use and Adverse Events Following Provision of Opioids for Musculoskeletal Pain in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of continued opioid use or serious adverse events (SAEs) following opioid therapy in the emergency department (ED) for musculoskeletal pain is unclear. The aim of this review was to examine the prevalence of continued opioid use and serious adverse events (SAEs) following the provision of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) or at discharge.

METHODS

Records were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to 7 October 2022. We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies enrolling adult patients with musculoskeletal pain who were administered and/or prescribed opioids in the ED. Continued opioid use and opioid misuse data after day 4 since ED discharge were extracted. Adverse events were coded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and those rated as grades 3-4 (severe or life-threatening) and grade 5 (death) were considered SAEs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS

Seventy-two studies were included. Among opioid-naïve patients who received an opioid prescription, 6.8-7.0% reported recent opioid use at 3-12 months after discharge, 4.4% filled ≥ 5 opioid prescriptions and 3.1% filled > 90-day supply of opioids within 6 months. The prevalence of SAEs was 0.02% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 0.2%] in the ED and 0.1% (95% CI 0, 1.5%) within 2 days. One study observed 42.9% of patients misused opioids within 30 days after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Around 7% of opioid-naïve patients with musculoskeletal pain receiving opioid therapy continue opioid use at 3-12 months after ED discharge. SAEs following ED administration of an opioid were uncommon; however, studies only monitored patients for 2 days.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

10.31219/osf.io/w4z3u.

Systematic review of predictors of hospitalisation for non-specific low back pain with or without referred leg pain

Significant costs and utilisation of healthcare resources are associated with hospitalisations for non-specific low back pain despite clinical guidelines recommending community-based care. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the predictors of hospitalisation for low back pain. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (#CRD42021281827) and conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Database search of Ovid Medline, Emcare, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PEDro and OTSeeker was conducted. Studies were included if they examined a predictor of hospitalisation for non-specific low back pain with or without referred leg pain. Data was extracted and descriptively synthesised. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklists. There were 23 studies published over 29 articles which identified 52 predictor variables of hospitalisation for low back pain. The risk of hospitalisation was grouped into themes: personal, health and lifestyle, psychology, socioeconomic, occupational, clinical, and health systems and processes. There was moderate level evidence that arrival to an emergency department via ambulance with low back pain, and older age increase the risk of hospitalisations for low back pain. There was low level evidence that high pain intensity, past history of low back pain, opioid use, and occupation type increase the risk of hospitalisation for low back pain. Further research into psychological and social factors is warranted given the paucity of available studies. Hospital avoidance strategies, improved patient screening and resource utilisation in emergency departments are considerations for practice.

Associations Between Management Pathway and Opioid Prescriptions for Patients Entering the Emergency Department With Neck and Back Pain

Objective

To determine associations between post-emergency department (ED) management pathways and downstream opioid prescriptions in patients seeking care for incident neck and/or back pain.

Patients and Methods

We identified patients seeking first-time ED care for neck and/or back pain from January 1, 2013, through November 6, 2017. We reported demographic characteristics and opioid prescriptions across management pathways using descriptive statistics and assessed the relative risk of any opioid prescription 12 months post-ED visit among 5 different post-ED management pathways using Poisson regression adjusted for patient demographic characteristics.

Results

Within 12 months after the index ED visit, 58.0% (n=10,949) were prescribed an opioid, with most patients prescribed an opioid within the first week (average daily morphine milligram equivalents of 6.8 mg (SD 9.6 mg). The morphine milligram equivalents decreased to 0.7 mg (SD 8.2 mg) by week 4 and remained consistently less than 1 mg between week 4 and 12 months. Compared with the ED to primary care provider pathway, the relative risk of opioid prescription between 7 days and 12 months after the index ED visit was similar for the ED to physical therapy pathway, higher for both the ED to hospital admission or repeat ED visit pathway (30% increase; relative risk (RR), 1.3; 95% CI, 1.17-1.44) and the ED to specialist pathway (19% increase; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.33), and lower in the ED with no follow-up visits pathway (41% decrease; RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.54-0.65).

Conclusion

In general, more conservative care was associated with lower opioid prescription rates, and escalated care was associated with higher opioid prescription rates.

Interdisciplinary strategies to prevent long-term and detrimental opioid use following trauma: a stakeholder consensus study

OBJECTIVE

Prolonged opioid use is common following traumatic injuries. Although preventive strategies have been recommended, the evidence supporting their use is low. The objectives of this study were to select interdisciplinary strategies to prevent long-term, detrimental opioid use in trauma patients for further evaluation and to identify implementation considerations.

DESIGN

A consensus study using the nominal group technique.

SETTING

Four trauma systems in Canada.

SUBJECTS

Participants included expert clinicians and decision makers, and people with lived experience.

METHODS

Participants had to discuss the relevance and implementation of 15 strategies and then rank them using a 7-point Likert scale. Implementation considerations were identified through a synthesis of discussions.

RESULTS

A total of 41 expert stakeholders formed the nominal groups. Overall, eight strategies were favored: 1) using multimodal approach for pain management, 2) professional follow-up in physical health, 3) assessment of risk factors for opioid misuse, 4) physical stimulation, 5) downward adjustment of opioids based on patient recovery, 6) educational intervention for patients, 7) training offered to professionals on how to prescribe opioids, and 8) optimizing communication between professionals working in different settings. Discussions with expert stakeholders revealed the rationale for the selected strategies and identified issues to consider when implementing them.

CONCLUSION

This stakeholder consensus study identified, for further scientific study, a set of interdisciplinary strategies to promote appropriate opioid use following traumatic injuries. These strategies could ultimately decrease the burden associated with long-term opioid use.

Process evaluation of the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in Australian emergency departments

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial targeted ED clinicians and evaluated a multifaceted strategy to implement a new model of care. The objective of this study was to investigate attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians as well as barriers and facilitators for implementation of the model of care.

DESIGN

A qualitative study.

METHODS

The EDs of three urban and one rural hospital in New South Wales, Australia participated in the trial between August and November 2018. A sample of clinicians was invited to participate in qualitative interviews via telephone and face-to-face. The data collected from the interviews were coded and grouped in themes using thematic analysis methods.

RESULTS

Non-opioid pain management strategies (i.e., patient education, simple analgesics, and heat wraps) were perceived to be the most helpful strategy for reducing opioid use by ED clinicians. However, time constraints and rotation of junior medical staff were seen as the main barriers for uptake of the model of care. Fear of missing a serious pathology and the clinicians' conviction of a need to provide something for the patient were seen as barriers to reducing lumbar imaging referrals. Other barriers to guideline endorsed care included patient's expectations and characteristics (e.g., older age and symptoms severity).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving knowledge of non-opioid pain management strategies was seen as a helpful strategy for reducing opioid use. However, clinicians also raised barriers related to the ED environment, clinicians' behaviour, and cultural aspects, which should be addressed in future implementation efforts.

Randomized-controlled trial assessing a digital care program versus conventional physiotherapy for chronic low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is the world's leading cause of years lived with disability. Digital exercise-based interventions have shown great potential in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, promoting access and easing the economic burden. However, evidence of their effectiveness for chronic LBP (CLBP) management compared to in-person physiotherapy has yet to be unequivocally established. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with CLBP following a digital intervention versus evidence-based in-person physiotherapy. Our results demonstrate that patient satisfaction and adherence were high and similar between groups, although a significantly lower dropout rate is observed in the digital group (11/70, 15.7% versus 24/70, 34.3% in the conventional group; P = 0.019). Both groups experience significant improvements in disability (primary outcome), with no differences between groups in change from baseline (median difference: -0.55, 95% CI: -2.42 to 5.81, P = 0.412) or program-end scores (-1.05, 95% CI: -4.14 to 6.37; P = 0.671). Likewise, no significant differences between groups are found for secondary outcomes (namely pain, anxiety, depression, and overall productivity impairment). This RCT demonstrates that a remote digital intervention for CLBP can promote the same levels of recovery as evidence-based in-person physiotherapy, being a potential avenue to ease the burden of CLBP.

Digital Therapeutics (DTx) Expand Multimodal Treatment Options for Chronic Low Back Pain: The Nexus of Precision Medicine, Patient Education, and Public Health

Digital therapeutics (DTx, software as a medical device) provide personalized treatments for chronic diseases and expand precision medicine beyond pharmacogenomics-based pharmacotherapies. In this perspective article, we describe how DTx for chronic low back pain (CLBP) can be integrated with pharmaceutical drugs (e.g., NSAIDs, opioids), physical therapy (PT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and patient empowerment. An example of an FDA-authorized DTx for CLBP is RelieVRx, a prescription virtual reality (VR) app that reduces pain severity as an adjunct treatment for moderate to severe low back pain. RelieVRx is an immersive VR system that delivers at-home pain management modalities, including relaxation, self-awareness, pain distraction, guided breathing, and patient education. The mechanism of action of DTx is aligned with recommendations from the American College of Physicians to use non-pharmacological modalities as the first-line therapy for CLBP. Herein, we discuss how DTx can provide multimodal therapy options integrating conventional treatments with exposome-responsive, just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAI). Given the flexibility of software-based therapies to accommodate diverse digital content, we also suggest that music-induced analgesia can increase the clinical effectiveness of digital interventions for chronic pain. DTx offers opportunities to simultaneously address the chronic pain crisis and opioid epidemic while supporting patients and healthcare providers to improve therapy outcomes.

Management of low back pain in Australian emergency departments for culturally and linguistically diverse populations from 2016 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Disparate care in the ED for minority populations with low back pain is a long-standing issue reported in the USA. Our objective was to compare care delivery for low back pain in Australian EDs between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and non-CALD patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of medical records of the ED of three public hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia from January 2016 to October 2021. We included adult patients diagnosed with non-serious low back pain at ED discharge. CALD status was defined by country of birth, preferred language and use of interpreter service. The main outcome measures were ambulance transport, lumbar imaging, opioid administration and hospital admission.

RESULTS

Of the 14 642 included presentations, 7656 patients (52.7%) were born overseas, 3695 (25.2%) preferred communicating in a non-English language and 1224 (8.4%) required an interpreter. Patients born overseas were less likely to arrive by ambulance (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.73) than Australian-born patients. Patients who preferred a non-English language were also less likely to arrive by ambulance (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90), yet more likely to be imaged (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) or be admitted to hospital (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.29) than Native-English-speaking patients. Patients who required an interpreter were more likely to receive imaging (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.64) or be admitted (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.73) compared with those who communicated independently. CALD patients were generally less likely to receive weak opioids than non-CALD patients (aOR range 0.76-0.87), yet no difference was found in the use of any opioid or strong opioids.

CONCLUSION

Patients with low back pain from a CALD background, especially those lacking English proficiency, are significantly more likely to be imaged and admitted in Australian EDs. Future interventions improving the quality of ED care for low back pain should give special consideration to CALD patients.

Racial and ethnic differences in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics and spinal surgery for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is a substantial gap between evidence and clinical care for low back pain (LBP) worldwide despite recommendations of best practice specified in clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to identify disparities associated with race or ethnicity in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery in people with LBP.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

We included observational studies which compared the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery for the management of non-serious LBP between people from different racial/ethnic populations. We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from January 2000 to June 2021. Risk of bias of included studies was appraised in six domains. For each type of care, we pooled data stratified by race and ethnicity using random effects models.

RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible studies; all conducted in the United States. Hispanic/Latino (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.49-0.96) and Black/African American (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.46-0.75) people with LBP were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics than White people. Black/African Americans were less likely to undergo or be recommended spinal surgery for LBP (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33-0.67) than White people. There was a lack of high certainty evidence on racial/ethnic disparities in the use of lumbar imaging.

CONCLUSION

This review reveals lower rate of the use of guideline-discordant care, especially opioid prescription and spinal surgery, in racial/ethnic minority populations with LBP in the United States. Future studies in other countries evaluating care equity for LBP are warranted. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021260668.

SIGNIFICANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that people with low back pain from the minority racial/ethnic backgrounds were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics and undergo spinal surgery than the majority counterparts. Strategic interventions to improve the access to, and the value of, clinical care for minority populations with low back pain are warranted.

Constructing intervertebral disc degeneration animal model: A review of current models

Low back pain is one of the top disorders that leads to disability and affects disability-adjusted life years (DALY) globally. Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) and subsequent discogenic pain composed major causes of low back pain. Recent studies have identified several important risk factors contributing to IDD's development, such as inflammation, mechanical imbalance, and aging. Based on these etiology findings, three categories of animal models for inducing IDD are developed: the damage-induced model, the mechanical model, and the spontaneous model. These models are essential measures in studying the natural history of IDD and finding the possible therapeutic target against IDD. In this review, we will discuss the technical details of these models, the duration between model establishment, the occurrence of observable degeneration, and the potential in different study ranges. In promoting future research for IDD, each animal model should examine its concordance with natural IDD pathogenesis in humans. We hope this review can enhance the understanding and proper use of multiple animal models, which may attract more attention to this disease and contribute to translation research.

Nonopioid pharmacological management of acute low back pain: A level I of evidence systematic review

Acute low back pain (LBP) imposes a significant socioeconomical burden as it is the condition that, worldwide, cause the most disability. Nonetheless, the literature regarding the best pharmacological management of acute LBP is limited, and the indications available in the literature are conflicting. This work investigates whether the pharmacological management of acute LBP can effectively reduce pain and disability, and aims to identify which drugs show the highest efficacy. This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In September 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were accessed. All the randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of myorelaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and paracetamol for acute LPB were accessed. Only studies that investigated the lumbar spine were included. Only studies reporting on patients with acute LBP with symptom duration of less than 12 weeks were included. Only patients older than 18 years and with nonspecific low back pain were included. Studies that investigated the use of opioids in acute LBP were not considered. Data from 18 studies and 3478 patients were available. Myorelaxants and NSAIDs were effective in reducing pain and disability in acute LBP at approximately one week. The combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol was associated with a greater improvement than the use of NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol alone did not induce any significant improvement. Placebo was not effective in reducing pain. Clinical Significance: Myorelaxants, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs with paracetamol could reduce pain and disability in patients with acute LBP.

Overcoming Barriers to the Implementation of Integrated Musculoskeletal Pain Management Programs: A Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Study

Integrated pain management (IPM) programs can help to reduce the substantial population health burden of musculoskeletal pain, but are poorly implemented. Lessons learned from existing programs can inform efforts to expand IPM implementation. This qualitative study describes how health care systems, payers, providers, health policy researchers, and other stakeholders are overcoming barriers to developing and sustaining IPM programs in real-world settings. Primary data were collected February 2020 through September 2021 from a multi-sector expert panel of 25 stakeholders, 53 expert interviews representing 30 distinct IPM programs across the United States, and 4 original case studies of exemplar IPM programs. We use a consensual team-based approach to systematically analyze qualitative findings. We identified 4 major themes around challenges and potential solutions for implementing IPM programs: navigating coverage, payment, and reimbursement; enacting organizational change; making a business case to stakeholders; and overcoming regulatory hurdles. Strategies to address payment challenges included use of group visits, linked visits between billable and nonbillable providers, and development of value-based payment models. Organizational change strategies included engagement of clinical and administrative champions and co-location of services. Business case strategies involved demonstrating the ability to initially break even and potential to reduce downstream costs, while improving nonfinancial outcomes like patient satisfaction and provider burnout. Regulatory hurdles were overcome with innovative credentialing methods by leveraging available waivers and managed care contracting to expand access to IPM services. Lessons from existing programs provide direction on to grow and support such IPM delivery models across a variety of settings. PERSPECTIVE: Integrated pain management (IPM) programs face numerous implementation challenges related to payment, organizational change, care coordination, and regulatory requirements. Drawing on real-world experiences of existing programs and from diverse IPM stakeholders, we outline actionable strategies that health care systems, providers, and payers can use to expand implementation of these programs.

Influence of Initial Health Care Provider on Subsequent Health Care Utilization for Patients With a New Onset of Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to examine the scope of evidence for the influence of a nonmedical initial provider on health care utilization and outcomes in people with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Using scoping review methodology, we conducted an electronic search of 4 databases from inception to June 2021. Studies investigating the management of patients with a new onset of LBP by a nonmedical initial health care provider were identified. Pairs of reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text studies. We extracted health care utilization and patient outcomes and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers descriptively analyzed the data and categorized findings by outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 26,462 citations were screened, and 11 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily retrospective cohort designs using claims-based data. Four studies had a low risk of bias. Five health care outcomes were identified: medication, imaging, care seeking, cost of care, and health care procedures. Patient outcomes included patient satisfaction and functional recovery. Compared with patients initiating care with medical providers, those initiating care with a nonmedical provider showed associations with reduced opioid prescribing and imaging ordering rates but increased rates of care seeking. Results for cost of care, health care procedures, and patient outcomes were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing nonmedical providers at the first point of care may decrease the use of low-value care, such as opioid prescribing and imaging referral, but may lead to an increased number of health care visits in the care of people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

IMPACT

This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, may help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. The trend observed in this scoping review has important implications for pathways of care and the role of nonmedical providers, such as physical therapists, within primary health care systems.

LAY SUMMARY

This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, might help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Medications for Treating Low Back Pain in Adults. Evidence for the Use of Paracetamol, Opioids, Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatories, Muscle Relaxants, Antibiotics, and Antidepressants: An Overview for Musculoskeletal Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Because pharmacological therapies may play an important role in managing musculoskeletal pain, the appropriate use of medicines for common conditions like low back pain (LBP) is critical. New evidence on the effects and safety of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants for LBP warrants an updated overview for musculoskeletal clinicians on this topic.

CLINICAL QUESTION

How effective and safe are paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants compared with placebo for treating LBP?

KEY RESULTS

For acute LBP (<12 weeks), muscle relaxants and NSAIDs may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but the effects of opioids, antibiotics, and antidepressants are unknown. Paracetamol provides no additional benefit for acute LBP. For chronic LBP (>12 weeks), NSAIDs, antidepressants, and opioids may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but opioids have an established profile of harms. Antibiotics may also reduce pain for people with chronic LBP with Modic type 1 changes, although the risks may outweigh their benefits. The effects of paracetamol and muscle relaxants for chronic LBP were unclear.

CLINICAL APPLICATION

NSAIDs may have a role in managing acute and chronic LBP, with cautious use in people who may be at greater risk of experiencing adverse events. Paracetamol, opioid analgesics, antibiotics, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants should only be prescribed following a discussion between the treating clinician and the patient, considering the risks and possible benefits, and after or in conjunction with recommended nonpharmacological strategies for improving LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):425-431. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10788.

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.

Systematic review of guideline-recommended medications prescribed for treatment of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To identify and descriptively compare medication recommendations among low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPG).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.

RESULTS

316 citations were identified, 50 full-text articles were assessed, and nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGS focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.

Strategies aimed at preventing long-term opioid use in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: a scoping review

Background

Long-term opioid use, which may have significant individual and societal impacts, has been documented in up to 20% of patients after trauma or orthopaedic surgery. The objectives of this scoping review were to systematically map the research on strategies aiming to prevent chronic opioid use in these populations and to identify knowledge gaps in this area.

Methods

This scoping review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist. We searched seven databases and websites of relevant organizations. Selected studies and guidelines were published between January 2008 and September 2021. Preventive strategies were categorized as: system-based, pharmacological, educational, multimodal, and others. We summarized findings using measures of central tendency and frequency along with p-values. We also reported the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations presented in clinical guidelines.

Results

A total of 391 studies met the inclusion criteria after initial screening from which 66 studies and 20 guidelines were selected. Studies mainly focused on orthopaedic surgery (62,1%), trauma (30.3%) and spine surgery (7.6%). Among system-based strategies, hospital-based individualized opioid tapering protocols, and regulation initiatives limiting the prescription of opioids were associated with statistically significant decreases in morphine equivalent doses (MEDs) at 1 to 3 months following trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Among pharmacological strategies, only the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and beta blockers led to a significant reduction in MEDs up to 12 months after orthopaedic surgery. Most studies on educational strategies, multimodal strategies and psychological strategies were associated with significant reductions in MEDs beyond 1 month. The majority of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines were of low level of evidence.

Conclusions

This scoping review advances knowledge on existing strategies to prevent long-term opioid use in trauma and orthopaedic surgery patients. We observed that system-based, educational, multimodal and psychological strategies are the most promising. Future research should focus on determining which strategies should be implemented particularly in trauma patients at high risk for long-term use, testing those that can promote a judicious prescription of opioids while preventing an illicit use, and evaluating their effects on relevant patient-reported and social outcomes.

General practitioners' attitudes towards opioids for non-cancer pain: a qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Worldwide the use of opioids, both doctor-prescribed and illicit, has increased. In most countries, opioids are first prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). Identifying factors that influence GPs' opioid prescription decision-making may help reduce opioid misuse and overuse. We performed a systematic review to gain insight into GP attitudes towards opioid prescription and to identify possible solutions to promote changes in the field of primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies reporting GPs' attitudes towards opioid use in non-cancer pain management.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Study quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and their results were analysed using thematic analysis. Quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies. Four themes were established using thematic analyses: (1) GPs caught in the middle of 'the opioid crisis'; (2) Are opioids always bad? (3) GPs' weighing scale, taking patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors into account; and (4) GPs' sense of powerlessness-lack of alternatives, support by specialists and lack of time in justifying non-prescriptions.

CONCLUSION

GP attitudes towards opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain are subject to several GP-related, patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors. Raising GP and patient awareness on the inefficacy of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain management and providing non-opioid alternatives to treat chronic pain might help to promote opioid reduction in primary care. More research is needed to develop practical guidelines on appropriate opioid prescribing, tapering off opioid use and adopting effective communication strategies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020194561.Cite Now.

Opioid reduction for patients with chronic pain in primary care: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Long-term opioid treatment in patients with chronic pain is often ineffective and possibly harmful. These patients are often managed by general practitioners, who are calling for a clear overview of effective opioid reduction strategies for primary care.

AIM

Evaluate effectiveness of opioid reduction strategies applicable in primary care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment.

DESIGN

Systematic review of controlled trials and cohort studies. Method Literature search conducted in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar and PsychInfo. Studies evaluating opioid reduction interventions applicable in primary care among adults with long-term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) 2.0 tool or Risk-of-Bias in Non-randomized studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Narrative synthesis was performed due to clinical heterogeneity in study designs and types of interventions.

RESULTS

Five RCTs and five cohort studies were included (total n= 1717, range 35-985) exploring various opioid reduction strategies. Six studies had high RoB, three moderate RoB, and one low RoB. Three cohort studies investigating a GP supervised opioid taper (critical ROBINS-I), an integrative pain treatment (moderate ROBINS-I) and group medical visits (critical ROBINS-I) demonstrated significant between-group opioid reduction.

CONCLUSION

Results carefully point in the direction of a GP supervised tapering and multidisciplinary group therapeutic sessions to reduce long term opioid treatment. However, due to high risk of bias and small sample sizes, no firm conclusions can be made demonstrating need for more high-quality research.

PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEVERITY OF CHRONIC BACK PAIN IN ADULTS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

ABSTRACT Objective: determining the multidimensional factors associated with the severity of chronic back pain is essential to design appropriate interventions. The objective of this study was to assess the physical and emotional factors associated with the severity of chronic back pain in adults. Method: a descriptive, analytical and cross-sectional study, carried out between November 2017 and December 2018 in Family Health Strategies, with 198 adults with chronic back pain. Pain severity, assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory, was considered the outcome variable; and the pain interference in daily activities (Brief Pain Inventory), physical disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief) and pain threshold (digital algometer) variables were considered explanatory. A Multivariate Multiple Linear Regression analysis, using the stepwise method with 5% significance, was preformed to establish an explanatory model of pain severity. Results: the mean age was 48.03 years old (standard deviation: 12.41). Most of the participants were women, married and worked. The variables that had a significant and joint impact on pain severity were pain interference in daily activities (parameter: 0.196; p-value<0.001) and in mood (parameter: 0.054; p-value=0.039) and physical domain of quality of life (parameter: -0.032; p-value<0.001). Conclusion: physical factors (pain interference in daily activities and physical domain of quality of life) and emotional factors (pain interference in mood) play an important role in the severity of chronic back pain, which reinforces its multidimensional character.

Long-Term Medicare Costs Associated With Opioid Analgesic Therapy vs Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Cohort of Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias.

RESULTS

The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

Pharmacological Advances in Opioid Therapy: A Review of the Role of Oliceridine in Pain Management

Problems with the treatment of acute pain may arise when a patient is opioid-tolerant, such as those on chronic therapy with opioids or opiate replacement therapy, those who misuse opioids, and those who are in recovery. While some of the adverse effects of opioid medications are well known, it is also important to recognize the roles of tolerance and hyperalgesia. Oliceridine can target and modulate a novel μ-receptor pathway. The G protein-biased agonism of oliceridine allows for effective re-sensitization and desensitization of the mu-opioid receptor, which decreases the formation of opioid tolerance in patients. Oliceridine has been demonstrated to be an effective and relatively safe intravenous analgesic for the treatment of postoperative pain and is generally well tolerated with a favorable side effect profile when compared to morphine. As the prevalence of pain increases, it is becoming increasingly important to find safe and effective analgesics.

Masticatory Myofascial Pain Syndrome: Implications for Endodontists

INTRODUCTION

Masticatory myofascial pain syndrome can present similarly to other dental conditions in odontogenetic structures. Endodontists should be familiar with the symptomology and pathophysiology of masticatory myofascial pain syndrome to avoid misdiagnosis, incorrect treatment, and medicolegal repercussions. The aim of this review was to provide a foundational summary for endodontists to identify and correctly manage masticatory myofascial pain syndrome.

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature was performed through a MEDLINE search and a hand search of the major myofascial pain textbooks.

RESULTS

Masticatory myofascial pain syndrome is a musculoligamentous syndrome that can present similarly to odontogenic pain or refer pain to the eyebrows, ears, temporomandibular joints, maxillary sinus, tongue, and hard palate. Currently, the most comprehensive pathophysiology theory describing masticatory myofascial pain syndrome is the expanded integrated hypothesis. The most widely accepted diagnostic guidelines for masticatory myofascial pain syndrome are the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders; however, their diagnostic capability is limited. There is no hierarchy of treatment methods because each patient requires a tailored and multidisciplinary management aimed at regaining the muscle's range of motion, deactivating the myofascial trigger points, and maintaining pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

The pain patterns for masticatory myofascial pain syndrome are well-known; however, there is a lack of consensus on the most proper method of trigger point diagnosis or pain quantification. The diagnostic strategies for masticatory myofascial pain syndrome vary, and the diagnostic aids are not well developed.

Targeting Neurotrophic Factors for Low Back Pain and Sciatica: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica.

METHODS

We searched published and trial registry reports of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence.

RESULTS

Nine studies (3349 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF may reduce pain at four weeks (MD -6.63, 95% CI -8.51 to -4.76), and 12 weeks (MD -6.10, -8.34 to -3.87), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (OR 1.16, 0.99-1.36). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at four weeks (MD -1.40, -8.26-5.46), at 12 weeks (MD -2.91, -13.69-7.67), and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 1.78-6.00).

CONCLUSION

Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects from commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions.

'Scan-negative' cauda equina syndrome: what to do when there is no neurosurgical cause

Suspected cauda equina syndrome is a common presentation in emergency departments, but most patients (≥70%) have no cauda equina compression on imaging. As neurologists become more involved with 'front door' neurology, referral rates of patients with these symptoms are increasing. A small proportion of patients without structural pathology have other neurological causes: we discuss the differential diagnosis and how to recognise these. New data on the clinical features of patients with 'scan-negative' cauda equina syndrome suggest that the symptoms are usually triggered by acute pain (with or without root impingement) causing changes in brain-bladder feedback in vulnerable individuals, exacerbated by medication and anxiety, and commonly presenting with features of functional neurological disorder.

Management of refractory angina: an update

Despite the use of anti-anginal drugs and/or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting, the proportion of patients with coronary artery disease who have daily or weekly angina ranges from 2% to 24%. Refractory angina refers to long-lasting symptoms (for >3 months) due to established reversible ischaemia, which cannot be controlled by escalating medical therapy with the use of 2nd- and 3rd-line pharmacological agents, bypass grafting, or stenting. While there is uncertain prognostic benefit, the treatment of refractory angina is important to improve the quality of life of the patients affected. This review focuses on conventional pharmacological approaches to treating refractory angina, including guideline directed drug combination and dosages. The symptomatic and prognostic impact of advanced and novel revascularization strategies such as chronic total occlusion PCI, transmyocardial laser revascularization, coronary sinus occlusion, radiation therapy for recurrent restenosis, and spinal cord stimulation are also covered and recommendations of the 2019 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes discussed. Finally, the potential clinical use of current angiogenetic and stem cell therapies in reducing ischaemia and/or pain is evaluated.

Comparative safety review of current treatment options for chronic low back pain and unmet needs: a narrative review

Introduction: The healthcare expenditures in the United States are substantial for the management of refractory, chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objective of this review is to summarize and evaluate the safety profiles of different pharmacological treatment options used in the management of CLBP.Areas covered: The authors conducted a search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the safety profiles of different pharmacological agents used in the management of CLBP. This narrative review covered corticosteroids, opioids, antidepressants, gabapentinoids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, anti-nerve growth factor antibodies and topical agents, as monotherapy or in combination.Expert opinion: The risk-benefit ratio of a particular treatment is a subject driving the ongoing development of pharmaceuticals. The most commonly reported AEs across all drug classes are of gastrointestinal nature, followed by neurological and skin-related. These AEs include nausea, dizziness, constipation, arthralgia, headache, dry mouth, pruritus, etc. The majority of the AEs reported are not life-threatening, although they may lower patients' quality of life, thus, affecting their compliance. One of the biggest limitations of our review stems from the paucity of safety assessments in published RCTs. Advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of pain will promote development of new therapeutic strategies.

Severe chronic low back pain: patient journey from onset of symptoms to strong opioid treatments in Europe

Aim: We report the first patient roadmap in severe chronic low back pain (cLBP) in Europe, assessing the views of cLBP patients and general practitioners (GPs) who treat cLBP with regard to current cLBP management. Methodology: Patient journey mapping was conducted in four European countries to assess the views of cLBP patients (n = 20) and GPs (n = 40). Results: Four broad phases of cLBP, subdivided into eight individual steps, were identified as part of the patient journey, showing a disconnect between patients' and physicians' treatment goals, and expectations regarding pain relief levels for some patients. Conclusion: Improved communication, with greater involvement of patients in multimodal management decisions, might benefit the GP-patient relationship and overall outcomes for cLBP patients.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes.

Design

A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute).

Results

Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) −1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.41 to –0.40), heat wrap (SMD −1.38; 95% CI −2.60 to –0.17), opioids (SMD −0.86; 95% CI −1.62 to –0.10), manual therapy (SMD −0.72; 95% CI −1.40 to –0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD −0.53; 95% CI −0.97 to –0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms.

Conclusion

With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm–benefit balance.

Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care

IMPORTANCE

Acute low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent, with a presumed favorable prognosis; however, once chronic, LBP becomes a disabling and expensive condition. Acute to chronic LBP transition rates vary widely owing to absence of standardized operational definitions, and it is unknown whether a standardized prognostic tool (ie, Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back tool [SBT]) can estimate this transition or whether early non-guideline concordant treatment is associated with the transition to chronic LBP.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the associations between the transition from acute to chronic LBP with SBT risk strata; demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics; and guideline nonconcordant processes of care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This inception cohort study was conducted alongside a multisite, pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Adult patients with acute LBP stratified by SBT risk were enrolled in 77 primary care practices in 4 regions across the United States between May 2016 and June 2018 and followed up for 6 months, with final follow-up completed by March 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January to March 2020.

EXPOSURES

SBT risk strata and early LBP guideline nonconcordant processes of care (eg, receipt of opioids, imaging, and subspecialty referral).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Transition from acute to chronic LBP at 6 months using the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards consensus definition of chronic LBP. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical factors, and LBP process of care were obtained via electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Overall, 5233 patients with acute LBP (3029 [58%] women; 4353 [83%] White individuals; mean [SD] age 50.6 [16.9] years; 1788 [34%] low risk; 2152 [41%] medium risk; and 1293 [25%] high risk) were included. Overall transition rate to chronic LBP at six months was 32% (1666 patients). In a multivariable model, SBT risk stratum was positively associated with transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.00-2.98; P < .001). Patient and clinical characteristics associated with transition to chronic LBP included obesity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.28-1.80; P < .001); smoking (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.29-1.89; P < .001); severe and very severe baseline disability (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.48-2.24; P < .001 and aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.60-2.68; P < .001, respectively) and diagnosed depression/anxiety (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28-2.15; P < .001). After controlling for all other variables, patients exposed to 1, 2, or 3 nonconcordant processes of care within the first 21 days were 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21-2.32), 1.88 (95% CI, 1.53-2.32), and 2.16 (95% CI, 1.10-4.25) times more likely to develop chronic LBP compared with those with no exposure (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, the transition rate to chronic LBP was substantial and increased correspondingly with SBT stratum and early exposure to guideline nonconcordant care.

Predictors of Opioid Prescription Among a Sample of Patients with Acute Musculoskeletal Pain at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia

Background

Musculoskeletal pain is one of the most complex and debilitating types of pain. Although different pharmacologic treatments are available, very few studies have explored the predictors for opioid analgesics prescription to manage this type of pain.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the predictors for opioid prescription in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of adult patients (≥18 yrs.) with an acute nociceptive musculoskeletal pain at a university-affiliated medical center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Cancer patients and those with chronic neuropathic pain were excluded. Patients’ age, gender, number of comorbidities, duration of pain management, number of clinic visits for pain, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores at rest and with normal activities were collected. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to examine the relationship between the type of musculoskeletal pain and the prescription of opioid analgesics controlling for NPRS score on activity, age, gender, number of comorbidities, duration of pain treatment, and number of clinic visits for pain.

Results

The mean age of the 227 patients, who met the inclusion criteria, was 39 years and 68% of them were male. Sixty-three percent of the patients were prescribed opioid analgesics, and 61% of them had shoulder pain, 29% had back pain, and 10% had lower extremity pain (eg, hip, thigh, lower leg, knee, ankle, and foot pain). Tramadol was the most commonly prescribed opioid analgesic (82%), followed by codeine (13%). Ninety-seven percent of patients who were prescribed non-opioid analgesics had shoulder pain. Patients with shoulder pain had lower odds of receiving opioid analgesics (OR=0.019, P<0.0001, 95% CI=0.004–0.081) in comparison to their counterparts who had lower extremity or back pains. Moreover, the higher the pain score on activity was, the higher odds of receiving opioid analgesics (OR=1.317, P<0.0001, 95% CI=1.029–1.685).

Conclusion

Future studies should explore the impact of different opioid prescribing policies to improve the quality of patient care and reduce the unnecessary prescribing of opioids for patients with non-cancer musculoskeletal pain.

Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain.

METHODS

We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology.

DISCUSSION

This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.