Development of a screening tool predicting the transition from acute to chronic low back pain for patients in a GP setting: protocol of a multinational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is by far the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in our society today. Following the recommendations of the Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study (MMICS) Statement, our study aims to define outcome assessment tools for patients with acute LBP and the time point at which chronic LBP becomes manifest and to identify patient characteristics which increase the risk of chronicity. METHODS: Patients with acute LBP will be recruited from clinics of general practitioners (GPs) in New Zealand (NZ) and Switzerland (CH). They will be assessed by postal survey at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months follow-up. Primary outcome will be disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); key secondary endpoints will be general health as measured by the acute SF-12 and pain as measured on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A subgroup analysis of different assessment instruments and baseline characteristics will be performed using multiple linear regression models. This study aims to examine: 1. Which biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational outcome assessment tools are identifiers for the transition from acute to chronic LBP and at which time point this transition becomes manifest. 2. Which psychosocial and occupational baseline characteristics like work status and period of work absenteeism influence the course from acute to chronic LBP. 3. Differences in outcome assessment tools and baseline characteristics of patients in NZ compared with CH. DISCUSSION: This study will develop a screening tool for patients with acute LBP to be used in GP clinics to access the risk of developing chronic LBP. In addition, biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational patient characteristics which influence the course from acute to chronic LBP will be identified. Furthermore, an appropriate time point for follow-ups will be given to detect this transition. The generalizability of our findings will be enhanced by the international perspective of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: [Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN12608000520336].

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: This study aims to examine if1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.

A randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy in acute low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption. METHODS: 104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n = 52) or standard care alone (n = 52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1-14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months. RESULTS: Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI -0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference -18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI -43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain.

Identification of prognostic factors for chronicity in patients with low back pain: a review of screening instruments

Low back pain (LBP) is currently the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in modern societies. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in LBP may help to identify patients with an unfavourable outcome. In this systematic review screening instruments published between 1970 and 2007 were identified by a literature search. Nine different instruments were analysed and their different items grouped into ten structures. Finally, the predictive effectiveness of these structures was examined for the dependent variables including "work status", "functional limitation", and "pain". The strongest predictors for "work status" were psychosocial and occupational structures, whereas for "functional limitation" and "pain" psychological structures were dominating. Psychological and occupational factors show a high reliability for the prognosis of patients with LBP. Screening instruments for the identification of prognostic factors in patients with LBP should include these factors as a minimum core set.

The association between beliefs about low back pain and work presenteeism

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of beliefs about low back pain (LBP) on reduced productivity at work ("presenteeism") caused by LBP. METHODS: Two thousand five hundred seven individuals completed the Back Beliefs Questionnaire, the Fear Avoidance Beliefs questionnaire (FABQ), and questions about LBP-related work-absence, reduced work-productivity, pain, comorbidity, and demographics. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy (25%) individuals were of working age, employed and reported current LBP. Univariate models showed beliefs were more "negative" in individuals with work-absence and reduced productivity (P = 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, controlling for confounders, "FABQwork" was a unique predictor of both absenteeism and presenteeism (each, P = 0.0001), though with small effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Negative beliefs about LBP are associated with both work absence and reduced work-productivity. Further investigations should examine their potential as a target for educational interventions when considering initiatives to reduce the socioeconomic costs of LBP.

[Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain]

Diagnostic pitfalls about a specific case of low back pain Low back pain is classified into two principle categories: specific and non specific. This difference is important in terms of screening, medical care and treatment. Specific low back pain has various etiologies that imply specific treatment. This report describes one case of rare specific low back pain. The purpose of this article is to highlight the pitfalls that can represent such a common pathology, to show that obtaining an early diagnosis can be challenging, and finally to prevent care providers from stereotypes related to low back pain management.

Three-year cost analysis of function-centred versus pain-centred inpatient rehabilitation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs of function- and pain-centred inpatient treatment in patients with chronic low back pain over 3 years of follow-up. DESIGN: Cost analysis of a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: A total of 174 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to function- or pain-centred inpatient treatment. METHODS: Data on direct and indirect costs were gathered by questionnaires sent to patients, health insurance providers, employers, and the Swiss Disability Insurance Company. RESULTS: There was a non-significant difference in total medical costs after 3 years' follow-up. Total costs were 77,305 Euros in the function-centred inpatient treatment group and 83,085 Euros in the pain-centred inpatient treatment group. Likewise, indirect costs after 3 years from lost work days were non-significantly lower in the function-centred in-patient treatment group (6354 Euros; 95% confidence interval -20,892, 8392) and direct medical costs were non-significantly higher in the function-centred inpatient treatment group (574 Euros; 95% confidence interval -862, 2011). CONCLUSION: The total costs of function-centred and pain-centred inpatient treatment were similar over the whole 3-year follow-up.

Coping resources in a sample of chronic low back pain patients: Evaluation of the questionnaire for back pain

BACKGROUND The coping resources questionnaire for back pain (FBR) uses 12 items to measure the perceived helpfulness of different coping resources (CRs, social emotional support, practical help, knowledge, movement and relaxation, leisure and pleasure, spirituality and cognitive strategies). The aim of the study was to evaluate the instrument in a clinical patient sample assessed in a primary care setting. SAMPLE AND METHODS The study was a secondary evaluation of empirical data from a large cohort study in general practices. The 58 participating primary care practices recruited patients who reported chronic back pain in the consultation. Besides the FBR and a pain sketch, the patients completed scales measuring depression, anxiety, resilience, sociodemographic factors and pain characteristics. To allow computing of retested parameters the FBR was sent to some of the original participants again after 6 months (90% response rate). We calculated consistency and retest reliability coefficients as well as correlations between the FBR subscales and depression, anxiety and resilience scores to account for validity. By means of a cluster analysis groups with different resource profiles were formed. Results. RESULTS For the study 609 complete FBR baseline data sets could be used for statistical analysis. The internal consistency scores ranged fromα=0.58 to α=0.78 and retest reliability scores were between rTT=0.41 and rTT=0.63. Correlation with depression, fear and resilience ranged from r=-0.38 to r=0.42. The cluster analysis resulted in four groups with relatively homogenous intragroup profiles (high CRs, low spirituality, medium CRs, low CRs). The four groups differed significantly in fear and depression (the more inefficient the resources the higher the difference) as well as in resilience (the more inefficient the lower the difference). The group with low CRs also reported permanent pain with no relief. The groups did not otherwise differ. CONCLUSIONS The FBR is an economic instrument that is suitable for practical use e.g. in primary care practices to identify strengths and deficits in the CRs of chronic pain patients that can then be specified in face to face consultation. However, due to the rather low reliability, the use of subscales for profile differentiation and follow-up measurement in individual diagnoses is limited.

Comparison of pain-resilient working individuals to population-based case controls with/without momentary low back pain

Background: Few studies have examined the 20% of individuals who never experience an episode of low back pain (LBP). To date, no investigation has been undertaken that examines a group who claim to have never experienced LBP in their lifetime in comparison to two population-based case–control groups with and without momentary LBP. This study investigates whether LBP-resilient workers between 50 and 65 years had better general health, demonstrated more positive health behaviour and were better able to achieve routine activities compared with both case–control groups. Methods: Forty-two LBP-resilient participants completed the same pain assessment questionnaire as a population-based LBP sample from a nationwide, large-scale cross-sectional survey in Switzerland. The LBP-resilient participants were pairwise compared to the propensity score-matched case controls by exploring differences in demographic and work characteristics, and by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and effect sizes. A discriminant analysis explored group differences, while the multiple logistic regression analysis specified single indicators which accounted for group differences. Results: LBP-resilient participants were healthier than the case controls with momentary LBP and achieved routine activities more easily. Compared to controls without momentary LBP, LBP-resilient participants had a higher vitality, a lower workload, a healthier attitude towards health and behaved more healthily by drinking less alcohol. Conclusions: By demonstrating a difference between LBP-resilient participants and controls without momentary LBP, the question that arises is what additional knowledge can be attained. Three underlying traits seem to be relevant about LBP-resilient participants: personality, favourable work conditions and subjective attitudes/attributions towards health. These rationales have to be considered with respect to LBP prevention.

Depression impacts the course of recovery in patients with acute low back pain

Little is known about the course of recovery of acute low back pain (LBP) patients as a function of depression. In a prospective study, 286 acute LBP patients were assessed at baseline and followed up over 6 months. Recovery was defined as improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Repeated-measures analysis of covariance was employed with ODI as repeated factor, age, sex, and body mass index as covariates, depression and all other potential prognostic factors as between-subject factors. Of study participants, 18% were classified as depressive (>33 points on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale). Of 286 participants, 135 were lost to follow-up. In the longitudinal sample of 151 patients the course of recovery was slower in depressive patients. Depression was associated with LBP especially after 6 weeks and should therefore be included in screening instruments for acute LBP patients to identify those at risk of delayed recovery at an early stage.

Who is likely to develop persistent low back pain? A longitudinal analysis of prognostic occupational factors

OBJECTIVE: Occupational low back pain (LBP) is considered to be the most expensive form of work disability, with the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP exceeding the costs of acute and subacute LBP by far. This makes the early identification of patients at risk of developing persistent LBP essential, especially in working populations. The aim of the study was to evaluate both risk factors (for the development of persistent LBP) and protective factors (preventing the development of persistent LBP) in the same cohort. PARTICIPANTS: An inception cohort of 315 patients with acute to subacute or with recurrent LBP was recruited from 14 health practitioners (twelve general practitioners and two physiotherapists) across New Zealand. METHODS: Patients with persistent LBP at six-month follow-up were compared to patients with non-persistent LBP looking at occupational, psychological, biomedical and demographic/lifestyle predictors at baseline using multiple logistic regression analyses. All significant variables from the different domains were combined into a one predictor model. RESULTS: A final two-predictor model with an overall predictive value of 78% included social support at work (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99) and somatization (OR 1.08; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Social support at work should be considered as a resource preventing the development of persistent LBP whereas somatization should be considered as a risk factor for the development of persistent LBP. Further studies are needed to determine if addressing these factors in workplace interventions for patients suffering from acute, subacute or recurrent LBP prevents subsequent development of persistent LBP.