A literature review reveals that trials evaluating treatment of non-specific low back pain use inconsistent criteria to identify serious pathologies and nerve root involvement

Pain neuroscience education improves post-traumatic stress disorder, disability, and pain self-efficacy in veterans and service members with chronic low back pain: Preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial with 12-month follow-up

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are frequently co-morbid. Some research suggests that PTSD and CLBP may share common neurobiological mechanisms related to stress. Traditional biomedical education may be ineffective for PTSD and CLBP, especially when co-morbid. The purpose of this study is to determine if pain neuroscience education (PNE) is more effective than traditional education in reducing PTSD, disability, pain, and maladaptive beliefs in patients with CLBP. Participants with CLBP and possible PTSD/PTSD-symptoms were recruited for this study. Participants were randomly allocated to a PNE group or a traditional education group. The intervention included 30 minutes of education followed by a standardized exercise program once a week for 4-weeks with a 4 and 8-week follow-up and healthcare utilization assessed at 12-months. Forty-eight participants consented for this research study with 39 allocated to treatment (PNE n = 18, traditional n = 21). PNE participants were more likely to achieve a clinically meaningful reduction in PTSD symptoms and disability at short-term follow-up. At 12-months, the PNE group utilized healthcare with 76% lower costs. In participants with CLBP, PNE may reduce hypervigilance toward pain and improve PTSD symptoms. Participants who received PNE were more confident body-tissues were safe to exercise. These beliefs about pain could contribute to a decrease in perceived disability and healthcare consumption for CLBP.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in non-specific low back pain trials: a review of randomised controlled trials published between 2006 and 2012

Background

Low back pain is a common health complaint resulting in substantial economic burden. Each year, upwards of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for non-specific low back pain are published. Use of the term non-specific low back pain has been criticised on the grounds of encouraging heterogeneity and hampering interpretation of findings due to possible heterogeneous causes, challenging meta-analyses. We explored selection criteria used in trials of treatments for nsLBP.

Methods

A systematic review of English-language reports of RCTs in nsLBP population samples, published between 2006 and 2012, identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, using a mixed-methods approach to analysis. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, thematically categorised, and then descriptive statistics were used to summarise the prevalence by emerging category.

Results

We included 168 studies. Two inclusion themes (anatomical area, and symptoms and signs) were identified. Anatomical area was most reported as between costal margins and gluteal folds (n = 8, 5%), while low back pain (n = 150, 89%) with or without referred leg pain (n = 27, 16%) was the most reported symptom. Exclusion criteria comprised 21 themes. Previous or scheduled surgery (n = 84, 50%), pregnancy (n = 81, 48%), malignancy (n = 78, 46%), trauma (n = 63, 37%) and psychological conditions (n = 58, 34%) were the most common. Sub-themes of exclusion criteria mostly related to neurological signs and symptoms: nerve root compromise (n = 44, 26%), neurological signs (n = 34, 20%) or disc herniation (n = 30, 18%). Specific conditions that were most often exclusion criteria were spondylolisthesis (n = 35, 21%), spinal stenosis (n = 31, 18%) or osteoporosis (n = 27, 16%).

Conclusion

RCTs of interventions for non-specific low back pain have incorporated diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidance on standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria for nsLBP trials will increase clinical homogeneity, facilitating greater interpretation of between-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. We propose a template for reporting inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-2034-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reduction in Pain and Inflammation Associated With Chronic Low Back Pain With the Use of the Medical Food Theramine

Management of chronic back pain is a challenge for physicians. Although standard treatments exert a modest effect, they are associated with narcotic addiction and serious side effects from nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents. Moreover, neurotransmitter depletion from both the pain syndrome and therapy may contribute to a poor treatment outcome. Neurotransmitter deficiency may be related both to increased turnover rate and inadequate neurotransmitter precursors from the diet, particularly for essential and semi-essential amino acids. Theramine, an amino acid blend 68405-1 (AAB), is a physician-prescribed only medical food. It contains neurotransmitter precursors and systems for increasing production and preventing attenuation of neurotransmitters. A double-blind controlled study of AAB, low-dose ibuprofen, and the coadministration of the 2 agents were performed. The primary end points included the Roland Morris index and Oswestry disability scale. The cohort included 122 patients aged between 18 and 75 years. The patients were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: AAB alone, ibuprofen alone, and the coadministration of the 2 agents. In addition, C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, and plasma amino acid concentrations were measured at baseline and 28 days time points. After treatment, the Oswestry Disability Index worsened by 4.52% in the ibuprofen group, improved 41.91% in the AAB group, and improved 62.15% in the combination group. The Roland Morris Index worsened by 0.73% in the ibuprofen group, improved by 50.3% in the AAB group, and improved 63.1% in the combination group. C-reactive protein in the ibuprofen group increased by 60.1%, decreased by 47.1% in the AAB group, and decreased by 36% in the combination group. Similar changes were seen in interleukin 6. Arginine, serine, histidine, and tryptophan levels were substantially reduced before treatment in the chronic pain syndrome and increased toward normal during treatment. There was a direct correlation between improvement in amino acid concentration and treatment response. Treatment with amino acid precursors was associated with substantial improvement in chronic back pain, reduction in inflammation, and improvement in back pain correlated with increased amino acid precursors to neurotransmitters in blood.

The effect of chronic low back pain on trunk accuracy in a multidirectional isometric tracking task

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study to quantify trunk motor control during multidirectional isometric tracking tasks.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of chronic low back pain (LBP) on trunk neuromuscular performance while participants performed isometric exertions of trunk muscles to track targets in different angles with various magnitudes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Tracking tasks especially in multidirectional activities are among the common research methods to quantify human motor control in different conditions. However, little information is available on trunk motor control during these tasks. There is no study investigating trunk accuracy during multidirectional isometric tracking tasks in patients with LBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve patients with chronic LBP and 16 asymptomatic participants performed isometric target tracking tasks in 12 different directions with varying magnitude, from 0% to 80% of individual maximum voluntary exertion, in upright standing posture. The tracking system included a moving target object that moved on a straight line in a predefined angle with the rate of 6% maximum voluntary exertion/s. Trunk accuracy was quantified by computing constant error and variable error during each trial. A mixed model repeated measure analysis of variance was conducted to assess statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with chronic LBP track the target object with higher error compared with healthy controls across almost all of the target angles (P < 0.01). Trunk accuracy decreased significantly in higher level of exertions (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The results provided additional evidence of a change in trunk control strategies in patients with chronic LBP. Decreased accuracy of trunk during isometric tracking tasks especially in higher levels of asymmetric exertions may explain higher risk of low back injuries in these activities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Eligibility determination for clinical trials: development of a case review process at a chiropractic research center

Background

Systematic procedures addressing the limitations of eligibility determination are needed to improve the quality of participant recruitment and enrollment in randomized clinical trials. This paper describes an eligibility determination process developed by and in use at a chiropractic research center engaged in community recruitment for clinical trials studying spinal pain conditions.

Methods

A team of investigators developed a case review process for application across clinical trials involving chiropractic care. Study personnel representing key study roles including research clinicians, study coordinators, a project manager, and at least one investigator convene in person to determine eligibility for participants following baseline study visit examinations. The research clinician who performed the eligibility examination presents the case and a moderator leads the case review panel through a structured discussion including diagnosis, eligibility criteria, definition review, and clinical precautions. Panel members provide clinical recommendations and determine final eligibility using a structured and moderated voting process.

Results

Through the case review process for three externally funded clinical trials for participants with neck and low back pain, we presented 697 cases, rendering 472 participants eligible for enrollment and excluding 225 individuals. The most common reasons for case review exclusions across the three trials included neck or back pain not meeting diagnostic classifications, safety concerns related to treatment or testing, referral for further evaluation or treatment, and compliance concerns.

Conclusions

The case review process uses the expertise of study coordinators, research clinicians, project managers, and investigators to render eligibility decisions consistent with study aims for the duration of the trial. This formal eligibility determination process includes steps designed to mitigate the potential for participant misclassification from clinician advocacy or misunderstanding of eligibility criteria, and helps ensure that participants can safely take part in study procedures.

Trial registration

The three trials discussed in this article were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the ID numbers of NCT00830596 (27 January 2009), NCT01312233 (04 March 2011), and NCT01765751 (30 May 2012).