The effectiveness of low-dosed outpatient biopsychosocial interventions compared to active physical interventions on pain and disability in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of low-dosed outpatient biopsychosocial interventions versus active physical interventions on pain intensity and disability in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown that primary care biopsychosocial interventions (PCBI) can reduce pain intensity and disability. While scattered studies support low-dosed (≤ 15 treatment hours) PCBI, no systematic review exists comparing the effectiveness of low-dosed PCBI treatment with traditional physical activity interventions in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP).

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that evaluate low-dosed PCBI compared to physical treatment with an active component such as exercise, physical activity or usual physiotherapy treatment for adult participants (18 years or older), who suffer from CLBP were included. Not recommended interventions that feature only passive therapies, spinal surgery or pharmacological treatment, and studies with inpatient multidisciplinary-based rehabilitation (MBR) were excluded.

METHODS

Databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2021. Language was restricted to English or German. Keywords and derivatives of "chronic back pain", "exercise intervention", "cognitive-behavioral therapy", "primary care" and "randomized controlled trials" were used. Sources were CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), PubMed and Web of Science. Search was finished on March 08, 2022. Data appraisal, extraction and synthesis followed JBI guidance for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Risk of Bias was assessed using JBI 13-item checklist for randomized controlled trials. The GRADE approach for grading the certainty of evidence was followed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022302771.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs were found eligible and 15 trials comprising a total of 1531 participants suffering from CLBP were entered in the meta-analyses. Risk of Bias was low. Overall evidence was moderate. Significant effects in favor of PCBI were found for pain intensity post-treatment (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.84 to -0.34, I2  = 97%, p = 0.004) as well as at short-term (SMD = -0.23, 95% CI = -0.39 to -0.08, I2  = 0%, p = 0.004), long term (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.42 to -0.17, I2  = 96%, p = 0.01) and very long-term (SMD = -1.13, 95% CI = -1.93 to -0.33, I2  = 94%, p = 0.005) follow-up. Significant effects in favor of PCBI for physical function were found post-treatment (SMD = -1.33, 95% CI = -2.17 to -0.49, I2  = 97%, p = 0.002) at short-term (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI = -0.36 to -0.04, I2  = 0%, p = 0.01) and at long-term follow-up (SMD = -1.17, 95% CI = -2.06 to -0.28, I2  = 98%, p = 0.01). The results were characterized by high heterogeneity due to different types (cognitive behavioral therapy, pain-neuroscience education, mindfulness, and motivation), delivery modes (individual and/or group), durations (3-12 weeks) and contact times (2-15 h) of PCBI. In sensitivity analysis outliers were removed to reduce heterogeneity. The results remained significant for pain intensity at short-term (SMD = -0.23, 95% CI = -0.39 to -0.08, I2  = 0%, p = 0.004) and long-term follow-up (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.41 to -0.03, I2  = 39%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that low-dosed PCBI has favorable effects in terms of disability and pain intensity compared to active physical treatments alone. All conducted meta-analyses indicate that biopsychosocial interventions produce better outcomes than active physical treatment alone. Therefore, we strongly recommend decision makers and clinical practitioners to analyze how psychosocial elements can be introduced into outpatient (low-dosed) CLBP interventions.

A cross-sectional study to validate an administrative back pain severity classification tool based on the graded chronic pain scale

Treatment of chronic lower back pain (CLBP) should be stratified for best medical and economic outcome. To improve the targeting of potential participants for exclusive therapy offers from payers, Freytag et al. developed a tool to classify back pain chronicity classes (CC) based on claim data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the model. Administrative claim data and self-reported patient information from 3,506 participants (2014-2021) in a private health insurance health management programme in Germany were used to validate the tool. Sensitivity, specificity, and Matthews' correlation coefficient (MCC) were calculated comparing the prediction with actual grades based on von Korff's graded chronic pain scale (GCPS). The secondary outcome was an updated view on direct health care costs (€) of patients with back pain (BP) grouped by GCPS. Results showed a fair correlation between predicted CC and actual GCPS grades. A total of 69.7% of all cases were correctly classified. Sensitivity and specificity rates of 54.6 and 76.4% underlined precision. Correlation between CC and GCPS with an MCC of 0.304 also indicated a fair relationship between prediction and observation. Cost data could be clearly grouped by GCPS: the higher the grade, the higher the costs and the use of health care. This was the first study to compare the predicted severity of BP using claim data with the actual severity of BP by GCPS. Based on the results, the usage of CC as a single tool to determine who receives CLBP treatment cannot be recommended. CC is a good tool to segment candidates for specific types of intervention in BP. However, it cannot replace a medical screening at the beginning of an intervention, as the rate of false negatives is too high. Trial registration The study was conducted using routinely collected data from an intervention, which was previously evaluated and registered retrospectively in the German Registry of Clinical Trials under DRKS00015463 (04/09/2018). Informed consent and the self-reported questionnaire have remained unchanged since the study and, therefore, are still valid according to the ethics proposal.

Association between chronic low back pain and regular exercise, sedentary behaviour and mental health before and during COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a large-scale cross-sectional study in Germany

Background

Nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a complex symptom with numerous possible causes and influencing factors. Understanding how modifiable factors affect the course of CLBP is important for preventing progression. As the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the lifestyle of many people, this study paper assessed whether it also changed the influence of modifiable lifestyle factors (regular exercise and sedentary behaviour) and mental health factors (anxiety and depression) on CLBP pain intensity and disability by comparing the strength of these associations before and during the pandemic. We hypothesised that the importance of regular physical activity and good mental health for CLBP patients would increase during the pandemic.

Methods

These questions were investigated in a cross-sectional study of insurance claims data and self-reported data from various questionnaires from 3,478 participants in a German CLBP health intervention (2014–2021) by calculating pre- and intra-pandemic odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each variable of interest and outcome. Potential confounders were also considered. Pandemic status was treated as an effect modifier. Based on the date of enrolment, participants were classified as “pre-pandemic” or “pandemic”.

Results

Regularly exercising ≥ 4 h/week significantly reduced the odds of high disability for men (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 – 0.79, p = 0.003) and women (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 – 0.563, p = 0.002) and reduced the probability of severe pain in women (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 – 0.65, p < 0.001). Each one-point increase in PHQ-4 score for anxiety and depression increased the OR of high pain intensity by 1.25 points (95% CI 1.18 – 1.34, p < 0.001). A clear impact of COVID-19 lockdowns was observed. In individuals who exercised ≥ 4 h/week the OR of high disability was 0.57 (95% CI 0.36 – 0.92, p = 0.021) in the pre-pandemic group compared to 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 – 0.56, p = 0.002) in the pandemic group. The probability of high disability increased from an OR of 1.42 (95% CI 1.33 – 1.52, p < 0.001) per marginal increase in the PHQ-4 scale before the pandemic, to an OR of 1.73 (95% CI 1.58 – 1.89, p < 0.001) during the pandemic.

Conclusions

The magnitude of association of the factors that influenced high pain intensity and disability increased during the pandemic. On the one hand, the protective effect of regular exercising was greater in participants surveyed during lockdown. On the other hand, a higher risk through anxiety or depression during the lockdown was identified. An additional study with objective measures of sedentary behaviour and physical activity is needed to validate these results. More in-depth investigation of lockdown-induced associations between reduced daily physical activity, increased levels of anxiety and depression, and their effects on CLPB could also be worthwhile.

Trial registration

This study used routinely collected data from a CLBP intervention that was previously evaluated and registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials under DRKS00015463 (04/09/2018). The original ethics approval, informed consent and self-reported questionnaire have remained unchanged and are still valid.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a chronic back pain multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) compared to standard care for privately insured in Germany

Background

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) is highly recommended for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) treatment, but its economic benefit remains to be clearly demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of a 12-month MBR programme of behavioural change coaching and device-supported exercise on direct medical costs, sick leave and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 24 months.

Methods

An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Germany from a private health insurance perspective using data from a multi-centre, two-arm randomised controlled trial with parallel-group Zelen's randomisation and 24-month follow-up. After removing dissimilarities in characteristics between MBR and usual care (control) via propensity score matching, treatment effects were calculated using a difference-in-difference approach.

Results

Base-case analysis of the MBR (n=112) and usual care group (n=111) showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8,296 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Compared to the controls, MBR reduced economically unaccounted sick leave due to back pain in the last six months by 17.5 days (p = 0.001) and had a positive effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (0.046, p=0.026). Subgroup analysis of participants with major impairment demonstrated that a dominant intervention was possible, as reflected by an ICER of - €7,302 per QALY. Savings were driven by a - €1,824 reduction in back pain-specific costs. Moreover, sick leave was 27 days (p = 0.006) less in the MBR group.

Conclusions

This first cost-effectiveness study with combined data from a private health insurer and a controlled trial in Germany demonstrated that long term MBR for the treatment of CLBP is cost-effective. Subgroups with major impairment from back pain benefitted more from the intervention than those with minor impairment. MBR significantly reduced sick leave in all participants. Hence, it is a profitable intervention from a societal point of view.

Trial registration

The trial of the evaluation study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under trial number DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).

Feasibility and long-term efficacy of a proactive health program in the treatment of chronic back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background

To facilitate access to evidence-based care for back pain, a German private medical insurance offered a health program proactively to their members. Feasibility and long-term efficacy of this approach were evaluated.

Methods

Using Zelen’s design, adult members of the health insurance with chronic back pain according to billing data were randomized to the intervention (IG) or the control group (CG). Participants allocated to the IG were invited to participate in the comprehensive health program comprising medical exercise therapy and life style coaching, and those allocated to the CG to a longitudinal back pain survey. Primary outcomes were back pain severity (Korff’s Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire) as well as health-related quality of life (SF-12) assessed by identical online questionnaires at baseline and 2-year follow-up in both study arms. In addition to analyses of covariance, a subgroup analysis explored the heterogeneity of treatment effects among different risks of back pain chronification (STarT Back Tool).

Results

Out of 3462 persons selected, randomized and thereafter contacted, 552 agreed to participate. At the 24-month follow-up, data on 189 of 258 (73.3%) of the IG were available, in the CG on 255 of 294 (86.7%). Significant, small beneficial effects were seen in primary outcomes: Compared to the CG, the IG reported less disability (1.6 vs 2.0; p = 0.025; d = 0.24) and scored better at the SF-12 physical health scale (43.3 vs 41.0; p < 0.007; d = 0.26). No effect was seen in back pain intensity and in the SF-12 mental health scale. Persons with medium or high risk of back pain chronification at baseline responded better to the health program in all primary outcomes than the subgroup with low risk at baseline.

Conclusions

After 2 years, the proactive health program resulted in small positive long-term improvements. Using risk screening prior to inclusion in the health program might increase the percentage of participants deriving benefits from it.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register under DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).

Prognostic ability of the German version of the STarT Back tool: analysis of 12-month follow-up data from a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Stratified care is an up-to-date treatment approach suggested for patients with back pain in several guidelines. A comprehensively studied stratification instrument is the STarT Back Tool (SBT). It was developed to stratify patients with back pain into three subgroups, according to their risk of persistent disabling symptoms. The primary aim was to analyse the disability differences in patients with back pain 12 months after inclusion according to the subgroups determined at baseline using the German version of the SBT (STarT-G). Moreover, the potential to improve prognosis for disability by adding further predictor variables, an analysis for differences in pain intensity according to the STarT-Classification, and discriminative ability were investigated.

METHODS

Data from the control group of a randomized controlled trial were analysed. Trial participants were members of a private medical insurance with a minimum age of 18 and indicated as having persistent back pain. Measurements were made for the risk of back pain chronification using the STarT-G, disability (as primary outcome) and back pain intensity with the Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), health-related quality of life with the SF-12, psychological distress with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) and physical activity. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple linear regression, and area under the curve (AUC) analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 294 participants was 53.5 (SD 8.7) years, and 38% were female. The ANOVA for disability and pain showed significant differences (p < 0.01) among the risk groups at 12 months. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed significant differences among all three risk groups for every comparison for both outcomes. AUC for STarT-G's ability to discriminate reference standard 'cases' for chronic pain status at 12 months was 0.79. A prognostic model including the STarT-Classification, the variables global health, and disability at baseline explained 45% of the variance in disability at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Disability differences in patients with back pain after a period of 12 months are in accordance with the subgroups determined using the STarT-G at baseline. Results should be confirmed in a study developed with the primary aim to investigate those differences.

[Evaluation of a Proactive Health Programme for Insured Persons with Persistent Back Pain: One-year Follow-up of a Randomised Controlled Trial]

BACKGROUND

To facilitate access to evidence-based care for persisting back pain, a private medical insurance developed a health programme and offered it proactively to their members. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of this procedure.

METHODS

The design of the study was a Zelen randomized controlled trial. Adult insured persons with persistent back pain were randomized to the control (CG) or intervention group (IG) prior to giving consent. The IG was invited to participate in the health programme, the CG in a survey. Primary outcomes were back pain intensity and disability (according to von Korff) and health-related quality of life (SF-12). At baseline, 12- and 24-month follow-up, outcomes were documented by identical online questionnaires.

RESULTS

552 of 3462 randomized insured persons agreed to participate in the study; 132 of 258 (51.2%) from the IG and 243 of 294 (82.7%) from the CG completed the questionnaires at the 12-month follow-up. Small beneficial effects were seen for 3 of 4 primary outcomes. Compared to the CG, the IG reported less severe pain intensity (38.6 vs 44.5; p=0.001; d=0.36) and less disability (1.6 vs 2.2; p=0.002; d=0.41). The IG scored better at the SF-12 physical health scale (43.6 vs 39.0; p<0.001; d=0.54); no beneficial effect was seen in the SF-12 mental health scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The pro-active health programme seems to be feasible and effective as determined by patient-reported outcomes. Final evaluation awaits cost analysis and the results of the 24-month follow-up.

Surface induced vibrational modes in the fluorescence spectra of PTCDA adsorbed on the KCl(100) and NaCl(100) surfaces

We report a combined experiment-theory study on low energy vibrational modes in fluorescence spectra of perylene-3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylic acid dianhydride (PTCDA) molecules.