Immediate effect of pain neuroscience education for recent onset low back pain: an exploratory single arm trial

Study Design: A prospective, single-arm, pre-postintervention study.Objective: To determine the preliminary usefulness of providing pain neuroscience education (PNE) on improving pain and movement in patients presenting with non-chronic mechanical low back pain (LBP).Background: PNE has been shown to be an effective intervention for the treatment of chronic LBP but its usefulness in patients with non-chronic LBP has not been examined.Methods: A single group cohort pilot study was conducted. Eighty consecutive patients with LBP < 3 months completed a demographics questionnaire, leg and LBP rating (Numeric Pain Rating Scale - NPRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), fear-avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), central sensitization (Central Sensitization Inventory), pain knowledge (Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire), risk assessment (Keele STarT Back Screening Tool), active trunk flexion and straight leg raise (SLR). Patients received a 15-minute verbal, one-on-one PNE session, followed by repeat measurement of LBP and leg pain (NPRS), trunk flexion and SLR.Results: Immediately after intervention, LBP and leg pain improved significantly (p < 0.001), but the mean change did not exceed minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 2.0. Active trunk flexion significantly improved (p < 0.001), with the mean improvement (4.7 cm) exceeding minimal detectible change (MDC). SLR improved significantly (p = 0.002), but mean change did not exceed MDC.Conclusions: PNE may be an interesting option in the treatment of patients with non-chronic mechanical LBP. The present pilot study provides the rationale for studying larger groups of patients in controlled studies over longer periods of time.

Novel method for sub-grouping of genotype II African swine fever viruses based on the intergenic region between the A179L and A137R genes

BACKGROUND

African swine fever (ASF) is a highly contagious and deadly viral disease affecting domestic and wild pigs of all ages. African swine fever virus (ASFV) has spread rapidly through Eastern and Southeastern Asia first appearing in Vietnam in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

Molecular typing of African swine fever virus (ASFV) in Vietnam has identified two principal variants circulating based on the sequencing of the intergenic region (IRG) between the I73R and I329L genes. Identification of additional genetic markers would enable higher resolution tracing of outbreaks within the country.

METHODS

Sequence analysis suggested the IRG between the A179L and A137R genes may also exhibit variability, PCR primers were designed and samples from Vietnam were subject to Sanger sequencing.

RESULTS

We developed a novel method for sub-grouping of ASFV based on the IRG between the A179L and A137R genes of ASFV. Our results demonstrated that the finding of the insertion or deletion of an 11- nucleotide sequence (GATACAATTGT) between the A179L-A137R genes.

CONCLUSIONS

The sub-grouping method may provide useful insights into the evolution of genotype II ASFV as well as providing evidence of a relationship between geographically separated outbreaks.

Muscarinic M1 and M4 receptor agonists for schizophrenia: promising candidates for the therapeutic arsenal

INTRODUCTION

Successful phase 3 trials of KarXT in people with schizophrenia herald a new era of treating the disorder with drugs that do not target the dopamine D2 receptor. The active component of KarXT is xanomeline, a muscarinic (CHRM) M1 and M4 agonist, making muscarinic receptors a viable target for treating schizophrenia.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the process of taking drugs that activate the muscarinic M1 and M4 receptors from conceptualization to the clinic and details the mechanisms by which activating the CHRM1 and 4 can affect the broad spectrum of symptoms experienced by people with schizophrenia.

EXPERT OPINION

Schizophrenia is a syndrome which means drugs that activate muscarinic M1 and M4 receptors, as was the case for antipsychotic drugs acting on the dopamine D2 receptor, will not give optimal outcomes in everyone within the syndrome. Thus, it would be ideal to identify people who are responsive to drugs activating the CHRM1 and 4. Given knowledge of the actions of these receptors, it is possible treatment non-response could be restricted to sub-groups within the syndrome who have deficits in cortical CHRM1 or those with one of the cognitive endophenotypes that may be identifiable by changes in the blood transcriptome.