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].

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.

The course of chronic and recurrent low back pain in the general population

Using latent class analysis (LCA), a previous study on patients attending primary care identified four courses of low back pain (LBP) over the subsequent 6 months. To date, no studies have used longitudinal pain recordings to examine the "natural" course of recurrent and chronic LBP in a population-based sample of individuals. This study examines the course of LBP in the general population and elaborates on the stability and criterion-related validity of the clusters derived. A random sample of 400 individuals reporting LBP in a population-based study was asked to complete a comprehensive questionnaire at the start and end of the year's survey, and 52 weekly pain diaries in between. The latter were analyzed using LCA. 305 individuals returned more than 50% of the diaries. Four clusters were identified (severe persistent, moderate persistent, mild persistent, and fluctuating). The clusters differed significantly with regards to pain and disability. Assessment of cluster stability showed that a considerable proportion of patients in the "fluctuating" group changed their classification over time. Three of the four clusters describing the typical course of pain matched the clusters described previously for patients in primary care. Due to the population-based design, this study achieves, for the first time, a close insight into the "natural" course of chronic and recurrent low back pain, including individuals that did not necessarily visit the general practitioner. The findings will help to understand better the nature of this pain in the general population.

Cost of low back pain in Switzerland in 2005

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent health problem in Switzerland and a leading cause of reduced work performance and disability. This study estimated the total cost of LBP in Switzerland in 2005 from a societal perspective using a bottom-up prevalence-based cost-of-illness approach. The study considers more cost categories than are typically investigated and includes the costs associated with a multitude of LBP sufferers who are not under medical care. The findings are based on a questionnaire completed by a sample of 2,507 German-speaking respondents, of whom 1,253 suffered from LBP in the last 4 weeks; 346 of them were receiving medical treatment for their LBP. Direct costs of LBP were estimated at 2.6 billion and direct medical costs at 6.1% of the total healthcare expenditure in Switzerland. Productivity losses were estimated at 4.1 billion with the human capital approach and 2.2 billion with the friction cost approach. Presenteeism was the single most prominent cost category. The total economic burden of LBP to Swiss society was between 1.6 and 2.3% of GDP.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.

Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain

BACKGROUND: Most people experience low back pain (LBP) at least once in their lifetime. Only a minority of them go on to develop persistent LBP. However, the socioeconomic costs of persistent LBP significantly exceed the costs of the initial acute LBP episode. AIMS: To identify factors that influence the progression of acute LBP to the persistent state at an early stage. METHODS: Prospective inception cohort study of patients attending a health practitioner for their first episode of acute LBP or recurrent LBP after a pain free period of at least 6 months. Patients were assessed at baseline addressing occupational and psychological factors as well as pain, disability, quality of life and physical activity and followed up at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months. Variables were combined to the three indices 'working condition', 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' and 'pain and quality of life'. RESULTS: The index 'depression and maladaptive cognitions' was found to be a significant baseline predictor for persistent LBP up to 6 months (OR 5.1; 95% CI: 1.04-25.1). Overall predictive accuracy of the model was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with acute LBP in a primary care setting psychological factors at baseline correlated with a progression to persistent LBP up to 6 months. The benefit of including factors such as 'depression and maladaptive cognition' in screening tools is that these factors can be addressed in primary and secondary prevention.

Effect of intravenous tropisetron on modulation of pain and central hypersensitivity in chronic low back pain patients

The activation of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT-3) receptors in spinal cord can enhance intrinsic spinal mechanisms of central hypersensitivity, possibly leading to exaggerated pain responses. Clinical studies suggest that 5-HT-3 receptor antagonists may have an analgesic effect. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study tested the hypothesis that the 5-HT-3 receptor antagonist tropisetron attenuates pain and central hypersensitivity in patients with chronic low back pain. Thirty patients with chronic low back pain, 15 of whom were women (aged 53 ± 14 years) and 15 men (aged 48 ± 14 years), were studied. A single intravenous injection of 0.9% saline solution, tropisetron 2mg, and tropisetron 5mg was administrated in 3 different sessions, in a double-blind crossover manner. The main outcome was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score of spontaneous low back pain before, and 15, 30, 60, and 90 minutes after drug administration. Secondary outcomes were nociceptive withdrawal reflexes to single and repeated electrical stimulation, area of reflex receptive fields, pressure pain detection and tolerance thresholds, conditioned pain modulation, and area of clinical pain. The data were analyzed by analysis of variance and panel multiple regressions. All 3 treatments reduced VAS scores. However, there was no statistically significant difference between tropisetron and placebo in VAS scores. Compared to placebo, tropisetron produced a statistically significant increase in pain threshold after single electrical stimulation, but no difference in all other secondary outcomes was found. A single-dose intravenous administration of tropisetron in patients with chronic low back pain had no significant specific effect on intensity of pain and most parameters of central hypersensitivity.

A pain assessment scale for population-based studies: Development and validation of the Pain Module of the Standard Evaluation Questionnaire

The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a tool for assessing pain in population-based observational studies and to develop three subscales for back/neck, upper extremity and lower extremity pain. Based on a literature review, items were extracted from validated questionnaires and reviewed by an expert panel. The initial questionnaire consisted of a pain manikin and 34 items relating to (i) intensity of pain in different body regions (7 items), (ii) pain during activities of daily living (18 items) and (iii) various pain modalities (9 items). Psychometric validation of the initial questionnaire was performed in a random sample of the German-speaking Swiss population. Analyses included tests for reliability, correlation analysis, principal components factor analysis, tests for internal consistency and validity. Overall, 16,634 of 23,763 eligible individuals participated (70%). Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.32 to 0.97, but only three coefficients were below 0.60. Subscales were constructed combining four items for each of the subscales. Item-total coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.86 and Cronbach's alpha were 0.75 or higher for all subscales. Correlation coefficients between subscales and three validated instruments (WOMAC, SPADI and Oswestry) ranged from 0.62 to 0.79. The final Pain Standard Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ Pain) included 28 items and the pain manikin and accounted for the multidimensionality of pain by assessing pain location and intensity, pain during activity, triggers and time of onset of pain and frequency of pain medication. It was found to be reliable and valid for the assessment of pain in population-based observational studies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Relationship between depressive symptoms and acute low back pain at first medical consultation, three and six weeks of primary care

Background: Aim of the study was to test lagged reciprocal effects of depressive symptoms and acute low back pain (LBP) across the first weeks of primary care. Methods: In a prospective inception cohort study, 221 primary care patients with acute or subacute LBP were assessed at the time of initial consultation and then followed up at three and six weeks. Key measures were depressive symptoms (modified Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale) and LBP (sensory pain, present pain index and visual analogue scale of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire). Results: When only cross-lagged effects of six weeks were tested, a reciprocal positive relationship between LBP and depressive symptoms was shown in a cross-lagged structural equation model (β = .15 and .17, p < .01). When lagged reciprocal paths at three- and six-week follow-up were tested, depressive symptoms at the time of consultation predicted higher LBP severity after three weeks (β = .23, p < .01). LBP after three weeks had in turn a positive cross-lagged effect on depression after six weeks (β = .27, p < .001). Conclusions: Reciprocal effects of depressive symptoms and LBP seem to depend on time under medical treatment. Health practitioners should screen for and treat depressive symptoms at the first consultation to improve the LBP treatment.