Efficacy, Tolerability, and Dose-Dependent Effects of Opioid Analgesics for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Use of CYP2D6 Inhibitors with CYP2D6 Opioids: Association with Emergency Department Visits for Pain

Hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, and oxycodone are commonly prescribed opioids that rely on activation by cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6). CYP2D6 inhibitors can significantly decrease CYP2D6 activity, leading to reduced generation of active metabolites, and impairing pain control. To understand this impact, we assessed emergency department (ED) visits in patients initiating these CYP2D6-dependent opioids while on CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressants vs. antidepressants that do not inhibit CYP2D6. This retrospective cohort study included adult patients prescribed CYP2D6-dependent opioids utilizing electronic health records data from the University of Florida Health (2015-2021). The association between ED visits and inhibitor exposure was tested using multivariable logistic regression. The primary analysis had 12,118 patients (72% female; mean (SD) age, 55 (13.4)) in the hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine cohort and 5,547 patients (64% female; mean (SD) age, 53.6 (14.2)) in the oxycodone cohort. Hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine-treated patients exposed to CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressants (n = 7,043) had a higher crude rate of pain-related ED visits than those taking other antidepressants (n = 5,075) (3.28% vs. 1.87%), with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.75 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.24). Similarly, in the oxycodone cohort, CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressant-exposed individuals (n = 3,206) had a higher crude rate of ED visits than individuals exposed to other antidepressants (n = 2,341) (5.02% vs. 3.37%), with aOR of 1.70 (95% CI: 1.27-2.27). Similar findings were observed in secondary and sensitivity analyses. Our findings suggest patients with concomitant use of hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine or oxycodone and CYP2D6 inhibitors have more frequent ED visits for pain, which may be due to inadequate pain control.

Senescence of endplate osteoclasts induces sensory innervation and spinal pain

Spinal pain affects individuals of all ages and is the most common musculoskeletal problem globally. Its clinical management remains a challenge as the underlying mechanisms leading to it are still unclear. Here, we report that significantly increased numbers of senescent osteoclasts (SnOCs) are observed in mouse models of spinal hypersensitivity, like lumbar spine instability (LSI) or aging, compared to controls. The larger population of SnOCs is associated with induced sensory nerve innervation, as well as the growth of H-type vessels, in the porous endplate. We show that deletion of senescent cells by administration of the senolytic drug Navitoclax (ABT263) results in significantly less spinal hypersensitivity, spinal degeneration, porosity of the endplate, sensory nerve innervation and H-type vessel growth in the endplate. We also show that there is significantly increased SnOC-mediated secretion of Netrin-1 and NGF, two well-established sensory nerve growth factors, compared to non-senescent OCs. These findings suggest that pharmacological elimination of SnOCs may be a potent therapy to treat spinal pain.

Behavioural 'nudging' interventions to reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department (NUDG-ED): protocol for a 2×2 factorial, before-after, cluster randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Opioids and imaging are considered low-value care for most people with low back pain. Yet around one in three people presenting to the emergency department (ED) will receive imaging, and two in three will receive an opioid. NUDG-ED aims to determine the effectiveness of two different behavioural 'nudge' interventions on low-value care for ED patients with low back pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

NUDG-ED is a 2×2 factorial, open-label, before-after, cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial includes 8 ED sites in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be ED clinicians who manage back pain, and patients who are 18 years or over presenting to ED with musculoskeletal back pain. EDs will be randomly assigned to receive (i) patient nudges, (ii) clinician nudges, (iii) both interventions or (iv) no nudge control. The primary outcome will be the proportion of encounters in ED for musculoskeletal back pain where a person received a non-indicated lumbar imaging test, an opioid at discharge or both. We will require 2416 encounters over a 9-month study period (3-month before period and 6-month after period) to detect an absolute difference of 10% in use of low-value care due to either nudge, with 80% power, alpha set at 0.05 and assuming an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.10, and an intraperiod correlation of 0.09. Patient-reported outcome measures will be collected in a subsample of patients (n≥456) 1 week after their initial ED visit. To estimate effects, we will use a multilevel regression model, with a random effect for cluster and patient, a fixed effect indicating the group assignment of each cluster and a fixed effect of time.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has ethical approval from Southwestern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00472). We will disseminate the results of this trial via media, presenting at conferences and scientific publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12623001000695.

Discontinuation of psychotropic medication: a synthesis of evidence across medication classes

Pharmacotherapy is an effective treatment modality across psychiatric disorders. Nevertheless, many patients discontinue their medication at some point. Evidence-based guidance for patients, clinicians, and policymakers on rational discontinuation strategies is vital to enable the best, personalized treatment for any given patient. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of guidelines on discontinuation strategies. In this perspective, we therefore summarize and critically appraise the evidence on discontinuation of six major psychotropic medication classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, mood stabilizers, opioids, and stimulants. For each medication class, a wide range of topics pertaining to each of the following questions are discussed: (1) Who can discontinue (e.g., what are risk factors for relapse?); (2) When to discontinue (e.g., after 1 year or several years of antidepressant use?); and (3) How to discontinue (e.g., what's the efficacy of dose reduction compared to full cessation and interventions to mitigate relapse risk?). We thus highlight how comparing the evidence across medication classes can identify knowledge gaps, which may pave the way for more integrated research on discontinuation.

Opioids for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h).

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed.

RESULTS

We located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%).

DISCUSSION

Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021249346.

The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios.

RESULTS

Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy.

CONCLUSION

Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes.

IMPACT

Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

Concurrent and lagged associations among pain medication use, pain, and negative affect: a daily diary study of people with chronic low back pain

ABSTRACT

People with chronic pain often attempt to manage pain and concurrent emotional distress with analgesic substances. Habitual use of such substances-even when not opioid-based-can pose side effect risks. A negative reinforcement model has been proposed whereby relief of pain and emotional distress following medication consumption increases the likelihood that the experience of elevated pain and distress will spur further medication use. People with chronic low back pain (N = 105) completed electronic diary assessments 5 times/day for 14 consecutive days. Lagged and cross-lagged analyses focused on links between time 1 pain and negative affect (NA) and time 2 analgesic medication use and vice versa. Sex differences were also explored. Primary results were as follows: (1) participants on average reported taking analgesic medication during 41.3% of the 3-hour reporting epochs (29 times over 14 days); (2) time 1 within-person increases in pain and NA predicted time 2 increases in the likelihood of ingesting analgesic medications; (3) time 1 within-person increases in medication use predicted time 2 decreases in pain and NA; and (4) lagged associations between time 1 pain/NA and time 2 medication use were strongest among women. Findings suggest that the use of analgesic medications for many people with chronic pain occurs frequently throughout the day. Results support the validity of a negative reinforcement model where pain and distress lead to pain medication use, which in turn leads to relief from pain and distress.

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms.

AIM

This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting.

METHOD

This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP.

CONCLUSION

GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically begins with conservative care and progresses to minimally invasive procedures, including interspinous spacer without decompression or fusion (ISD) or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). This study examined safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures among LSS patients receiving an ISD versus MILD as the first surgical intervention.

METHODS

100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files were used to identify patients with an ISD or MILD (first procedure=index date) from 2017 to 2021. ISD and MILD patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching based on demographics and clinical characteristics. Safety outcomes and subsequent spinal procedures were captured from index date until end of follow-up. Cox models were used to analyze rates of subsequent surgical interventions, LSS-related interventions, open decompression, fusion, ISD, and MILD. Cox models were used to assess postoperative complications during follow-up and logistic regression to analyze life-threatening complications within 30 days of index procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 3682 ISD and 5499 MILD patients were identified. After matching, 3614 from each group were included in the analysis (mean age=74 years, mean follow-up=20.0 months). The risk of undergoing any intervention, LSS-related intervention, open decompression, and MILD were 21%, 28%, 21%, and 81% lower among ISD compared with MILD patients. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in the risk of undergoing fusion or ISD, experiencing postoperative complications, or life-threatening complications (all p≥0.241) between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed ISD and MILD procedures have an equivalent safety profile. However, ISDs demonstrated lower rates of open decompression and MILD.

How to treat chronic pain in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) - A pharmacological review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain is a common symptom of rheumatic diseases that impacts patients' quality of life. While non-pharmacological approaches are often recommended as first-line treatments, pharmacological interventions are important for pain management. However, the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological treatments for chronic pain in rheumatic diseases are unclear.

METHODS

This review critically synthesizes the current evidence base to guide clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacological treatments for their patients, considering the expected benefits and potential risks and side effects.

RESULTS

For osteoarthritis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids, and antidepressants are commonly used, with NSAIDs being the most recommended. In addition, topical agents, such as topical NSAIDs, are recommended for localized pain relief. For fibromyalgia, amitriptyline, serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and gabapentinoids are commonly used, with SNRIs being the most recommended. For back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids are used only for acute of flare-up pain, whereas neuropathic pain drugs are only used for chronic radicular pain. For inflammatory rheumatic diseases, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological agents are recommended to slow disease progression and manage symptoms.

CONCLUSION

While DMARDs and biological agents are recommended for inflammatory rheumatic diseases, pharmacological treatments for other rheumatic diseases only alleviate symptoms and do not provide a cure for the underlying condition. The use of pharmacological treatments should be based on the expected benefits and evaluation of side effects, with non-pharmacological modalities also being considered, especially for fibromyalgia.

Comparative effectiveness of pain control between opioids and gabapentinoids in older patients with chronic pain

ABSTRACT

Gabapentinoid (GABA) prescribing has substantially increased while opioid prescribing has decreased since the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines restricted opioid prescribing for chronic pain. The shift to GABA assumes equal analgesic effectiveness to opioids, but no comparative analgesic effectiveness data exist to support this assumption. We compared GABA to opioids by assessing changes in pain interfering with activities (activity-limiting pain) over time in patients with chronic pain. We used 2017 to 2019 data from a 20% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic pain who initiated a GABA or opioid prescription for ≥30 continuous days and received home health care in the study year. The main outcome was the difference in reduction in pain score from pre- to post-prescription assessments between the 2 groups. Within a 60-day window before-and-after drug initiation, our sample comprised 3208 GABA users and 2846 opioid users. Reduction in post-prescription scores of pain-related interference with activities to less-than-daily pain was 48.1% in the GABA group and 41.7% in the opioid group; this remained significant (odds ratio = 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-1.43, P < 0.0001) after adjustment for patient demographics and comorbidities. The adjusted difference in reduced pain-related interference score between the 2 groups was -0.10 points on a 0 to 4 scale ( P = 0.01). Gabapentinoid use had greater odds of less-than-daily pain post-prescription, in a dose-dependent manner. Thus, GABA use was associated with a larger reduction in chronic pain than opioids, with a larger effect at higher GABA dosage. Future research is needed on functional outcomes in patients with chronic pain prescribed GABA or opioids.

Treatment characteristics of chronic low back pain patients treated with buprenorphine buccal film or transdermal patch

Aims: Retrospective insurance claims analysis exploring treatment characteristics in chronic low back pain patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Patients and methods: The first buprenorphine prescription (buccal film or transdermal patch) was an index event. Patients were observed over 6 month pre- and post-index periods. Propensity score matching minimized the selection bias. Results: Buccal film patients had a higher buprenorphine daily dose (501.7 vs 270.9 µg; p < 0.001). The patch-to-film switching rate was higher than vice versa (11.5 vs 3.8%; p < 0.001). The buccal film showed a greater reduction in opioid prescriptions (-1.1 vs -0.7; p = 0.012), daily morphine milligram equivalents (-12.6 vs -7.3; p < 0.001) and opioid treatment duration (-13.4 vs -7.6 days; p = 0.022). Conclusion: Buccal film was associated with higher buprenorphine doses and a greater reduction of opioid burden.

Efficacy and safety of thermobalancing therapy with Dr Allen's Device for chronic low back pain: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar disc herniation and non-specific low back pain are common conditions that seriously affect patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although empirical evidence has demonstrated that novel Thermobalancing therapy and Dr Allen's Device can relieve chronic low back pain, there have been no randomised controlled trials for these indications.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of Dr Allen's Device in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).

METHODS

A randomised clinical trial was conducted investigating 55 patients with chronic low back pain due to LDH (n = 28) or NSLBP (n = 27), out of which 15 were randomly assigned to the control group and 40 were assigned to the treatment group. The intervention was treatment with Dr Allen's Device for 3 mo. Changes in HRQoL were assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Thermobalancing therapy with Dr Allen's Device showed a significant reduction in pain in the treatment group (P < 0.001), with no recorded adverse effects. Both pain assessment scales showed a significant improvement in patients' perception of pain indicating improvement in HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

The out-of-hospital use of Thermobalancing therapy with Dr Allen's Device for Low Back Treatment relieves chronic low back pain significantly and without adverse effects, improves the level of activity and HRQoL among patients with LDH and NSLBP. This study demonstrates the importance of this safe first-line therapy that can be used for effective at-home management of chronic low back pain.

Medical Cannabis and Its Efficacy/Effectiveness for the Treatment of Low-Back Pain: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This systematic review aims to inform the current state of evidence about the efficacy and effectiveness of medical cannabis use for the treatment of LBP, specifically on pain levels and overall opioid use for LBP. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and CINAHL. The search was limited to the past 10 years (2011-2021). Study inclusion was determined by the critical appraisal process using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. Only English language articles were included. Participant demographics included all adult individuals with LBP who were prescribed medical cannabis for LBP and may be concurrently using opioids for their LBP. Study quality and the risk of bias were both evaluated. A narrative synthesis approach was used.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of twelve studies were included in the synthesis: one randomized controlled trial (RCT), six observational studies (one prospective, four retrospective, and one cross-over), and five case studies. All study results, except for the RCT, indicated a decrease in LBP levels or opioid use over time after medical cannabis use. The RCT reported no statistically significant difference in LBP between cannabis and placebo groups. Low back pain (LBP) affects 568 million people worldwide. In the United States, LBP treatment represents more than half of regular opioid users. With the opioid epidemic, alternative methods, particularly medical cannabis, is now increasingly sought by practicing physicians and patients. Due to its infancy, there is minimal high-quality evidence to support medical cannabis use as a first line treatment for LBP.

Prescription Opioid Initiation for Neuropathy, Headache, and Low Back Pain: A US Population-based Medicare Study

Neuropathy, headache, and low back pain (LBP) are common conditions requiring pain management. Yet little is known regarding whether access to specialists impacts opioid prescribing. We aimed to identify factors associated with opioid initiation among opioid-naïve older adults and evaluate how access to particular specialists impacts prescribing. This retrospective cohort study used a 20% Medicare sample from 2010 to 2017. Opioid initiation was defined as a first opioid prescription filled within 12 months after a diagnosis encounter. Disease-related opioid initiation was defined as a first opioid prescription filled within 7 days following a disease-specific claim. Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was used to determine the association of patient demographics, provider types, and regional physician specialty density with disease-related opioid initiation, accounting for within-region correlation. We found opioid initiation steadily declined from 2010 to 2017 (neuropathy: 26-19%, headache: 31-20%, LBP: 45-32%), as did disease-related opioid initiation (4-3%, 12-7%, 29-19%) and 5 to 10% of initial disease-related prescriptions resulted in chronic opioid use within 12 months of initiation. Certain specialist visits were associated with a lower likelihood of disease-related opioid initiation compared with primary care. Residence in high neurologist density regions had a lower likelihood of disease-related opioid initiation (headache odds ratio [OR] .76 [95% CI: .63-.92]) and LBP (OR .7 [95% CI: .61-.81]) and high podiatrist density regions for neuropathy (OR .56 [95% CI: .41-.78]). We found that specialist visits and greater access to specialists were associated with a lower likelihood of disease-related opioid initiation. These data could inform strategies to perpetuate reductions in opioid use for these common pain conditions. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents how opioid initiation for opioid-naïve patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy, headache, and LBP varies across providers. Greater access to certain specialists decreased the likelihood of opioid initiation. Future work may consider interventions to support alternative treatments and better access to specialists in low-density regions.

Treating persistent pain after breast cancer: practice gaps and future directions

This paper discusses the growing problem of persisting pain after successful treatment of breast cancer and presents recommendations for improving pain-related outcomes for this group. We discuss the dominant treatment approach for persisting pain post-breast cancer treatment and draw contrasts with contemporary treatment approaches to persistent pain in non-cancer-related populations. We discuss modern application of the biopsychosocial model of pain and the notion of variable sensitivity within the pain system, moment by moment and over time. We present the implications of increasing sensitivity over time for treatment selection and implementation. By drawing on transformative changes in treatment approaches to persistent non-cancer-related pain, we describe the potentially powerful role that an intervention called pain science education, which is now recommended in clinical guidelines for musculoskeletal pain, may play in improving pain and disability outcomes after successful breast cancer treatment. Finally, we present several research recommendations that centre around adaptation of the content and delivery models of contemporary pain science education, to the post-breast cancer context.

Clinical Observation, Management and Function Of low back pain Relief Therapies (COMFORT): A cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient-participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient-participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622001505796.

The effectiveness of clinic versus home-based, artificial intelligence-guided therapy in patients with low back pain: Non-randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common cause of disability in the US with increasing financial burden on healthcare. A variety of treatment options exist to combat LBP. Home-based therapy is a low-cost option, but there is a lack of data on how it compares to therapy in clinical settings. It was hypothesized that when using artificial intelligence-guided therapy, supervised in-clinic interventions would have a greater influence on patient-reported outcomes and strength than unsupervised, home interventions.

METHODS

This is a non-randomized controlled trial of 51 patients (28 female, 23 male). The investigation compared an 8-week, core-focused exercise intervention in a Clinic (supervised) versus Home (unsupervised) setting. Outcome variables included measures of strength, performance, and patient-reported outcomes related to function. Generalized linear regression (p < 0.05) was used to evaluate outcomes were evaluated with respect to sex, intervention setting, and time.

FINDINGS

Male subjects exhibited greater strength (p ≤ 0.02) but not greater patient-reported outcomes (p ≥ 0.30) than females. The Clinic group exhibited slightly greater lateral pull-down strength (p = 0.002), greater eccentric phase range of motion during overhead press (p < 0.01), and shorter concentric phase duration during bench press (p < 0.01) than the Home group. Significance between groups was not observed in any other strength, performance, or patient-reported outcome (p ≥ 0.11).

INTERPRETATION

A lack of consistent significance indicated that the hypothesis was not supported. AI-guided, telehealth exercise produced comparable outcomes in both home and clinical settings. Telehealth options may offer a lower-cost alternative to clinic-based exercise therapy for patients with nonspecific lower back pain.

Opioid coping motives and pain intensity among adults with chronic low back pain: associations with mood, pain reactivity, and opioid misuse

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a significant public health problem that is associated with opioid misuse and use disorder. Despite limited evidence for the efficacy of opioids in the management of chronic pain, they continue to be prescribed and people with CLBP are at increased risk for misuse. Identifying individual difference factors involved in opioid misuse, such as pain intensity as well as reasons for using opioids (also known as motives), may provide pertinent clinical information to reduce opioid misuse among this vulnerable population. Therefore, the aims of the current study were to examine the relationships between opioid motives-to cope with pain-related distress and pain intensity, in terms of anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, pain-related anxiety, and opioid misuse among 300 (Mage= 45.69, SD = 11.17, 69% female) adults with CLBP currently using opioids. Results from the current study suggest that both pain intensity and motives to cope with pain-related distress with opioids were associated with all criterion variables, but the magnitude of variance explained by coping motives was larger than pain intensity in terms of opioid misuse. The present findings provide initial empirical evidence for the importance of motives to cope with pain-related distress with opioids and pain intensity in efforts to better understand opioid misuse and related clinical correlates among adults with CLBP.

Process evaluation of the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in Australian emergency departments

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial targeted ED clinicians and evaluated a multifaceted strategy to implement a new model of care. The objective of this study was to investigate attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians as well as barriers and facilitators for implementation of the model of care.

DESIGN

A qualitative study.

METHODS

The EDs of three urban and one rural hospital in New South Wales, Australia participated in the trial between August and November 2018. A sample of clinicians was invited to participate in qualitative interviews via telephone and face-to-face. The data collected from the interviews were coded and grouped in themes using thematic analysis methods.

RESULTS

Non-opioid pain management strategies (i.e., patient education, simple analgesics, and heat wraps) were perceived to be the most helpful strategy for reducing opioid use by ED clinicians. However, time constraints and rotation of junior medical staff were seen as the main barriers for uptake of the model of care. Fear of missing a serious pathology and the clinicians' conviction of a need to provide something for the patient were seen as barriers to reducing lumbar imaging referrals. Other barriers to guideline endorsed care included patient's expectations and characteristics (e.g., older age and symptoms severity).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving knowledge of non-opioid pain management strategies was seen as a helpful strategy for reducing opioid use. However, clinicians also raised barriers related to the ED environment, clinicians' behaviour, and cultural aspects, which should be addressed in future implementation efforts.

Different Gabapentin and Pregabalin Dosages for Perioperative Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

IMPORTANCE

Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not been well established.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the associations of pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events with different dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients undergoing spine surgery.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched for articles until August 7, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials conducted among patients who received pregabalin or gabapentin while undergoing spine surgery were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two investigators independently performed data extraction following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guideline. The network meta-analysis was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023 using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials with 1861 patients (median age, 45.99 years [range, 20.00-70.00 years]; 759 women [40.8%]) were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the VAS pain score was lowest with gabapentin 900 mg per day, followed by gabapentin 1200 mg per day, gabapentin 600 mg per day, gabapentin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 150 mg per day, and pregabalin 75 mg per day. Additionally, gabapentin 900 mg per day was found to be associated with the lowest opioid consumption among all dosages of gabapentin and pregabalin, with a mean difference of -22.07% (95% CI, -33.22% to -10.92%) for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) among all treatments. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that gabapentin 900 mg per day before spine surgery is associated with the lowest VAS pain score among all dosages. In addition, no differences in adverse events were noted among all treatments.

Opioid analgesia for acute low back pain and neck pain (the OPAL trial): a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics are commonly used for acute low back pain and neck pain, but supporting efficacy data are scarce. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a judicious short course of an opioid analgesic for acute low back pain and neck pain.

METHODS

OPAL was a triple-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) presenting to one of 157 primary care or emergency department sites in Sydney, NSW, Australia, with 12 weeks or less of low back or neck pain (or both) of at least moderate pain severity. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using statistician-generated randomly permuted blocks to guideline-recommended care plus an opioid (oxycodone-naloxone, up to 20 mg oxycodone per day orally) or guideline-recommended care and an identical placebo, for up to 6 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity at 6 weeks measured with the pain severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (10-point scale), analysed in all eligible participants who provided at least one post-randomisation pain score, by use of a repeated measures linear mixed model. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned eligible participants. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000775516).

FINDINGS

Between Feb 29, 2016, and March 10, 2022, 347 participants were recruited (174 to the opioid group and 173 to the placebo group). 170 (49%) of 346 participants were female and 176 (51%) were male. 33 (19%) of 174 participants in the opioid group and 25 (15%) of 172 in the placebo group had discontinued from the trial by week 6, due to loss to follow-up and participant withdrawals. 151 participants in the opioid group and 159 in the placebo group were included in the primary analysis. Mean pain score at 6 weeks was 2·78 (SE 0·20) in the opioid group versus 2·25 (0·19) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference 0·53, 95% CI -0·00 to 1·07, p=0·051). 61 (35%) of 174 participants in the opioid group reported at least one adverse event versus 51 (30%) of 172 in the placebo group (p=0·30), but more people in the opioid group reported opioid-related adverse events (eg, 13 [7·5%] of 174 participants in the opioid group reported constipation vs six [3·5%] of 173 in the placebo group).

INTERPRETATION

Opioids should not be recommended for acute non-specific low back pain or neck pain given that we found no significant difference in pain severity compared with placebo. This finding calls for a change in the frequent use of opioids for these conditions.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council, University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, and SafeWork SA.

Between guidelines and clinical trials: evidence-based advice on the pharmacological management of non-specific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore patients' daily activities and improve their quality of life. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Pharmacological management should be considered as co-adjuvant to non-pharmacological therapy, and should be guided by the symptoms reported by the patients. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from dedicated therapy. This article provides an evidence-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

Performance in emotion recognition and theory of mind tasks in social anxiety and generalized anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Social cognition impairments may be associated with poor functional outcomes, symptoms, and disability in social anxiety disorder (SAD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This meta-analysis aims to determine if emotion recognition and theory of mind (ToM) are impaired in SAD or GAD compared to healthy controls. A systematic review was conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, PsycNet, and Web of Science) to retrieve studies assessing emotion recognition and/or ToM in patients with SAD or GAD, compared to healthy controls, up to March 2022. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were conducted. We identified 21 eligible studies: 13 reported emotion recognition and 10 ToM outcomes, with 585 SAD patients, 178 GAD patients, and 753 controls. Compared to controls, patients with SAD exhibited impairments in emotion recognition (SMD = -0.32, CI = -0.47 - -0.16, z = -3.97, p < 0.0001) and ToM (SMD = -0.44, CI = -0.83 -0.04, z = -2.18, p < 0.01). Results for GAD were inconclusive due to the limited number of studies meeting the inclusion criteria (two for each domain). Relevant demographic and clinical variables (age, sex, education level, and anxiety scores) were not significantly correlated with emotion recognition or ToM impairments in SAD and GAD. Further studies employing ecological measures with larger and homogenous samples are needed to better delineate the factors influencing social cognition outcomes in both SAD and GAD.

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).

RESULTS

24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).

CONCLUSION

Very low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021269997.

Tolerability and efficacy of duloxetine for the prevention of persistent musculoskeletal pain after trauma and injury: a pilot three-group randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the tolerability and preliminary efficacy of duloxetine as an alternative nonopioid therapeutic option for the prevention of persistent musculoskeletal pain (MSP) among adults presenting to the emergency department with acute MSP after trauma or injury. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible participants (n = 78) were randomized to 2 weeks of a daily dose of one of the following: placebo (n = 27), 30 mg duloxetine (n = 24), or 60 mg duloxetine (n = 27). Tolerability, the primary outcome, was measured by dropout rate and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes assessed drug efficacy as measured by (1) the proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale ≥ 4) at 6 weeks (pain persistence); and (2) average pain by group over the six-week study period. We also explored treatment effects by type of trauma (motor vehicle collision [MVC] vs non-MVC). In both intervention groups, duloxetine was well tolerated and there were no serious adverse events. There was a statistically significant difference in pain over time for the 60 mg vs placebo group ( P = 0.03) but not for the 30 mg vs placebo group ( P = 0.51). In both types of analyses, the size of the effect of duloxetine was larger in MVC vs non-MVC injury. Consistent with the role of stress systems in the development of chronic pain after traumatic stress, our data indicate duloxetine may be a treatment option for reducing the transition from acute to persistent MSP. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these promising results.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Doctor trustworthiness influences pain and its neural correlates in virtual medical interactions

Trust is an important component of the doctor-patient relationship and is associated with improved patient satisfaction and health outcomes. Previously, we reported that patient feelings of trust and similarity toward their clinician predicted reductions in evoked pain in response to painful heat stimulations. In the present study, we investigated the brain mechanisms underlying this effect. We used face stimuli previously developed using a data-driven computational modeling approach that differ in perceived trustworthiness and superimposed them on bodies dressed in doctors' attire. During functional magnetic resonance imaging, participants (n = 42) underwent a series of virtual medical interactions with these doctors during which they received painful heat stimulation as an analogue of a painful diagnostic procedure. Participants reported increased pain when receiving painful heat stimulations from low-trust doctors, which was accompanied by increased activity in pain-related brain regions and a multivariate pain-predictive neuromarker. Findings suggest that patient trust in their doctor may have tangible impacts on pain and point to a potential brain basis for trust-related reductions in pain through the modulation of brain circuitry associated with the sensory-discriminative and affective-motivational dimensions of pain.

Improving Power and Accuracy in Randomized Controlled Trials of Pain Treatments by Accounting for Concurrent Analgesic Use

The 0 to 10 numeric rating scale of pain intensity is a standard outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pain treatments. For individuals taking analgesics, there may be a disparity between "observed" pain intensity (pain intensity with concurrent analgesic use) and pain intensity without concurrent analgesic use (what the numeric rating scale would be had analgesics not been taken). Using a contemporary causal inference framework, we compare analytic methods that can potentially account for concurrent analgesic use, first in statistical simulations, and second in analyses of real (non-simulated) data from an RCT of lumbar epidural steroid injections. The default analytic method was ignoring analgesic use, which is the most common approach in pain RCTs. Compared to ignoring analgesic use and other analytic methods, simulations showed that a quantitative pain and analgesia composite outcome based on adding 1.5 points to pain intensity for those who were taking an analgesic (the QPAC1.5) optimized power and minimized bias. Analyses of real RCT data supported the results of the simulations, showing greater power with analysis of the QPAC1.5 as compared to ignoring analgesic use and most other methods examined. We propose alternative methods that should be considered in the analysis of pain RCTs. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the conceptual framework behind a new quantitative pain and analgesia composite outcome, the QPAC1.5, and the results of statistical simulations and analyses of trial data supporting improvements in power and bias using the QPAC1.5. Methods of this type should be considered in the analysis of pain RCTs.

Person-centred education and advice for people with low back pain: Making the best of what we know

BACKGROUND

The first-line treatment consistently recommended for people with low back pain is patient education and advice. Regardless of the duration of low back pain, clinicians should provide education on the benign nature of low back pain, reassurance about the absence of a serious medical condition, and advice to remain active. There is little guidance on how best to provide this care.

OBJECTIVE

This Masterclass will draw on recent evidence to explore how physical therapy clinicians could deliver person-centred education and advice to people with low back pain to refine their clinical consultation.

DISCUSSION

First, we highlight the potential value of providing validation to acknowledge the distressing experience and consequences of low back pain. Second, we describe a tool to open channels of communication to provide education and advice in a patient-centred and efficient way. Clinicians could consider using the Attitude toward Education and advice for Low back pain Questionnaire to gain an insight into patient attitudes toward education and advice at the outset of a clinical encounter. Finally, we provide options for tailoring patient education and advice to promote self-management of low back pain based on patient attitudes. We present evidence that a positive attitude toward messages about causes rather than messages about physical activity predicts intention to self-manage low back pain. We combine this evidence to suggest a pathway for clinicians to provide education and advice to people with low back pain within the time constraints of a clinical consultation.

Assessment and nonsurgical management of low back pain: a narrative review

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition that affects people of all ages and income levels worldwide. The etiology of LBP may be mechanical, neuropathic, systemic, referred visceral, or secondary to other causes. Despite numerous studies, the diagnosis and management of LBP remain challenging due to the complex biomechanics of the spine and confounding factors, such as trivial degenerative imaging findings irrelevant to symptoms and psychological and emotional factors. However, it is imperative to identify the crucial signs ("red flags") indicating a serious underlying condition. While many recent guidelines emphasize non-pharmacologic management approaches, such as education, reassurance, and physical and psychological care, as the first option, LBP patients in many countries, including South Korea, are prescribed medications. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation combined with prudent use of medications is required in patients unresponsive to first-line therapy. The development of practical guidelines apposite for South Korea is needed with multidisciplinary discussion.

Causal association of sleep disturbances and low back pain: A bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND

Previous observational studies have shown that low back pain (LBP) often coexists with sleep disturbances, however, the causal relationship remains unclear. In the present study, the causal relationship between sleep disturbances and LBP was investigated and the importance of sleep improvement in the comprehensive management of LBP was emphasized.

METHODS

Genetic variants were extracted as instrumental variables (IVs) from the genome-wide association study (GWAS) of insomnia, sleep duration, short sleep duration, long sleep duration, and daytime sleepiness. Information regarding genetic variants in LBP was selected from a GWAS dataset and included 13,178 cases and 164,682 controls. MR-Egger, weighted median, inverse-variance weighted (IVW), penalized weighted median, and maximum likelihood (ML) were applied to assess the causal effects. Cochran's Q test and MR-Egger intercept were performed to estimate the heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy, respectively. Outliers were identified and eliminated based on MR-PRESSO analysis to reduce the effect of horizontal pleiotropy on the results. Removing each genetic variant using the leave-one-out analysis can help evaluate the stability of results. Finally, the reverse causal inference involving five sleep traits was implemented.

RESULTS

A causal relationship was observed between insomnia-LBP (OR = 1.954, 95% CI: 1.119-3.411), LBP-daytime sleepiness (OR = 1.011, 95% CI: 1.004-1.017), and LBP-insomnia (OR = 1.015, 95% CI: 1.004-1.026), however, the results of bidirectional MR analysis between other sleep traits and LBP were negative. The results of most heterogeneity tests were stable and specific evidence was not found to support the disturbance of horizontal multiplicity. Only one outlier was identified based on MR-PRESSO analysis.

CONCLUSION

The main results of our research showed a potential bidirectional causal association of genetically predicted insomnia with LBP. Sleep improvement may be important in comprehensive management of LBP.

Benefits and harms of treatments for chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Currently, there are no published studies that compare non-pharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide summary statistics for benefits and harms.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of treatments for the management of chronic low back pain without radiculopathy and to report the findings in a format that facilitates direct comparison (Benefit-Harm Scale: level 1 to 7).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including trial registries, from electronic databases up to 23^rd May 2022.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adults with non-specific chronic low back pain, excluding radicular pain in any clinical setting.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of pain at immediate-term (≤2 weeks) and short-term (>2 weeks to ≤12 weeks) and serious adverse events using the Benefit-Harm Scale (level 1 to 7).

METHODS

This was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Interventions included non-pharmacological (acupuncture, spinal manipulation), pharmacological and invasive treatments compared to placebo. Best evidence criteria was used. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 17,362 records. Three studies provided data on the benefits of interventions, and 30 provided data on harms. Studies included interventions of acupuncture (n=8); manipulation (n=2); pharmacological therapies (n=9), including NSAIDs and opioid analgesics; surgery (n=8); and epidural corticosteroid injections (n=3). Acupuncture (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.14, n=1 trial, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 3) and manipulation (SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.21, n=2 trials, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 5) were effective in reducing pain intensity compared to sham. The benefit of the other interventions was scored as uncertain due to not being effective, statistical heterogeneity preventing pooling of effect sizes, or the absence of relevant trials. The harms level warnings were at the lowest (eg, indicating rarer risk of events) for acupuncture, spinal manipulation, NSAIDs, combination ingredient opioids, and steroid injections, while they were higher for single ingredient opioid analgesics (level 4) and surgery (level 6).

CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of all the interventions reviewed due to the lack of trials conducted in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy. From the limited trials conducted, non-pharmacological interventions of acupuncture and spinal manipulation provide safer benefits than pharmacological or invasive interventions. However, more research is needed. There were high harms ratings for opioids and surgery.

BeatPain Utah: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial examining telehealth strategies to provide non-pharmacologic pain care for persons with chronic low back pain receiving care in federally qualified health centers

INTRODUCTION

Although evidence-based guidelines recommend non-pharmacologic treatments as first-line care for chronic low back pain (LBP), uptake has been limited, particularly in rural, low-income and ethnically diverse communities. The BeatPain study will evaluate the implementation and compare the effectiveness of two strategies to provide non-pharmacologic treatment for chronic LBP. The study will use telehealth to overcome access barriers for persons receiving care in federally qualified health centres (FQHCs) in the state of Utah.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

BeatPain Utah is a pragmatic randomised clinical trial with a hybrid type I design investigating different strategies to provide non-pharmacologic care for adults with chronic LBP seen in Utah FQHCs. The intervention strategies include a brief pain consult (BPC) and telehealth physical therapy (PT) component provided using either an adaptive or sequenced delivery strategy across two 12-week treatment phases. Interventions are provided via telehealth by centrally located physical therapists. The sequenced delivery strategy provides the BPC, followed by telehealth PT in the first 12 weeks for all patients. The adaptive strategy uses a stepped care approach and provides the BPC in the first 12 weeks and telehealth PT to patients who are non-responders to the BPC component. We will recruit 500 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking participants who will be individually randomised with 1:1 allocation. The primary outcome is the Pain, Enjoyment and General Activity measure of pain impact with secondary outcomes including the additional pain assessment domains specified by the National Institutes (NIH) of Health Helping to End Addiction Long Initiative and implementation measures. Analyses of primary and secondary measures of effectiveness will be performed under longitudinal mixed effect models across assessments at baseline, and at 12, 26 and 52 weeks follow-ups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. On completion, study data will be made available in compliance with NIH data sharing policies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04923334.

Rescaling pain intensity measures for meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain appears justified: an empirical examination from randomised trials

Objective

Meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain often rescale measures of pain intensity to use mean difference (MD) instead of standardised mean difference for pooled estimates. Although this improves clinical interpretability, it is not clear whether this method is justified. Our study evaluated the justification for this method.

Methods

We identified randomised clinical trials of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain that used two scales with different ranges to measure the same construct of pain intensity. We transformed all data to a 0–100 scale, then compared between-group estimates across pairs of scales with different ranges.

Results

Twelve trials were included. Overall, differences in means between pain intensity measures that were rescaled to a common 0–100 scale appeared to be small and randomly distributed. For one study that measured pain intensity on a 0–100 scale and a 0–10 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the difference in MD between the scales was 0.8 points out of 100. For three studies that measured pain intensity on a 0–10 scale and 0–3 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.2 points out of 100 (range 5.5 points lower to 2.7 points higher). For two studies that measured pain intensity on a 0–100 scale and a 0–3 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points out of 100 (range 6.2 points lower to 12.1 points higher). Finally, for six studies that measured pain intensity on a 0–100 scale and a 0–4 scale; when rescaled to 0–100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points (range 5.4 points lower to 8.3 points higher).

Conclusion

Rescaling pain intensity measures may be justified in meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain. Systematic reviewers may consider this method to improve clinical interpretability and enable more data to be included.

Study registration/data availability

Open Science Framework (osf.io/8rq7f).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01763-x.

Reward drive moderates the effect of depression-related cognitive mechanisms on risk of prescription opioid misuse among patients with chronic non-cancer pain

Depression, a prognostic factor for prescription opioid misuse commonly occurs in people with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). However, the mechanisms linking depression and prescription opioid misuse remain unclear. This study examined the potential mediating role of pain catastrophizing in the association between depressive symptoms and prescription opioid misuse risk, and impulsivity traits as possible moderators of these relationships. Individuals (N = 198; 77% women) with CNCP using prescription opioids participated in a cross-sectional online survey with validated measures of depression, pain catastrophizing, rash impulsiveness, reward drive, anxiety, pain severity and prescription opioid misuse. Meditation analyses with percentile-based bootstrapping examined pathways to prescription opioid use, controlling for age, sex, pain severity, and anxiety symptoms. Partial moderated mediation of the indirect effect of depressive symptoms on prescription opioid misuse risk through pain catastrophizing by rash impulsiveness and reward drive were estimated. Pain catastrophizing mediated depressive symptoms and prescription opioid misuse risk. Indirect effects were stronger when moderate to high levels of reward drive were included in the model. Findings suggest the risk of prescription opioid misuse in those experiencing depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing is particularly higher for those higher in reward drive. Treatments targeting these mechanisms may reduce opioid misuse risk. PERSPECTIVE: This article identifies reward drive as a potentially important factor increasing the effects of depression-related cognitive mechanisms on risk of prescription opioid misuse in those with CNCP. These findings could assist in personalizing clinical CNCP management to reduce the risks associated with opioid misuse.

Effectiveness of Opioid Analgesic Medicines Prescribed in or at Discharge From Emergency Departments for Musculoskeletal Pain : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative benefits and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) are uncertain.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and registries from inception to 7 February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of any opioid analgesic compared with placebo or a nonopioid analgesic administered or prescribed to adults in or on discharge from the ED.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pain and disability were rated on a scale of 0 to 100 and pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-two articles were included (n = 6128). In the ED, opioids were statistically but not clinically more effective in reducing pain in the short term (about 2 hours) than placebo and paracetamol (acetaminophen) but were not clinically or statistically more effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or local or systemic anesthetics. Opioids may carry higher risk for harms than placebo, paracetamol, or NSAIDs, although evidence is very uncertain. There was no evidence of difference in harms associated with local or systemic anesthetics.

LIMITATIONS

Low or very low GRADE ratings for some outcomes, unexplained heterogeneity, and little information on long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The risk-benefit balance of opioids versus placebo, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and local or systemic anesthetics is uncertain. Opioids may have equivalent pain outcomes compared with NSAIDs, but evidence on comparisons of harms is very uncertain and heterogeneous. Although factors such as route of administration or dosage may explain some heterogeneity, more work is needed to identify which subgroups will have a more favorable benefit-risk balance for one analgesic over another. Longer-term pain management once dose thresholds are reached is also uncertain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42021275293).

The effect of long-term opioid use on back-specific disability and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Opioids are commonly utilized for the treatment of chronic pain. However, research regarding the long-term (≥12 months) outcomes of opioid therapy remains sparse.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the effects of long-term opioid therapy on measures of back-specific disability and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with chronic low back pain who reported consistent opioid use or abstinence for at least 12 months while enrolled in the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation Pain Research Registry were classified as long-term opioid users or nonusers, respectively. For comparison, intermediate-term and short-term opioid users and nonusers were also identified. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to compare back-specific disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) and health-related quality of life (29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]) between opioid users and nonusers while controlling for pain intensity, depression, age, body mass index (BMI), and eight common comorbid conditions (herniated disc, sciatica, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and asthma). Statistically significant findings were assessed for clinical relevance.

RESULTS

There were 96 long-term opioid users and 204 long-term opioid nonusers. After controlling for potential confounders, long-term opioid use was a predictor of worse back-specific disability (adjusted mean difference=2.85, p<0.001), physical function (adjusted mean difference=-2.90, p=0.001), fatigue (adjusted mean difference=4.32, p=0.001), participation in social roles (adjusted mean difference=-4.10, p<0.001), and pain interference (adjusted mean difference=3.88, p<0.001) outcomes. Intermediate-term opioid use was a predictor of worse back-specific disability (adjusted mean difference=2.41, p<0.001), physical function (adjusted mean difference=-2.26, p=0.003), fatigue (adjusted mean difference=3.70, p=0.002), and sleep disturbance outcomes (adjusted mean difference=3.03, p=0.004), whereas short-term opioid use was a predictor of worse back-specific disability (adjusted mean difference=2.42, p<0.001) and physical function outcomes (adjusted mean difference=-1.90, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study are largely consistent with existing literature regarding the outcomes of long-term opioid therapy. Taken in conjunction with the well-established risks of opioid medications, these findings draw into question the utility of long-term opioid therapy for chronic low back pain.

Effect of Graded Sensorimotor Retraining on Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point.

RESULTS

Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538.

Patterns of opioid dispensing and associated wage replacement duration in workers with accepted claims for low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to identify patterns of opioid dispensing in Australian workers with low back pain (LBP) and determine the association of dispensing patterns with wage replacement duration. Australian workers' compensation claimants with LBP and at least 1 day of wage replacement were included. We used group-based trajectory modelling to identify opioid dispensing patterns over a two-and-a-half-year period from reported LBP onset and quantile regression to compare wage replacement duration between each dispensing pattern group. Opioids were dispensed to one-third of workers with LBP (N = 3205, 33.3%) at least once during their claim. Three dispensing patterns were identified. Most had a short-term low-volume opioid dispensing pattern (N = 2166, 67.6%), whereas 798 (24.9%) had a long-term moderate-volume pattern and 241 (7.5%) had a long-term high-volume pattern. Workers with dispensed opioids had significantly longer wage replacement duration than those without dispensed opioids (median [weeks]: 63.6 vs 7.1, respectively). In addition, moderate-volume and high-volume long-term dispensing groups had significantly longer wage replacement duration compared with the short-term dispensing group (median [weeks]: 126.9, 126.0, and 30.7, respectively). Without controlling for pain severity, these results offer limited evidence that opioids lead to longer wage replacement duration. Further research controlling for pain severity, psychosocial factors, and recovery expectations is required to confirm whether the relationship between opioid dispensing pattern and wage replacement duration is causal in nature.

Medications for Treating Low Back Pain in Adults. Evidence for the Use of Paracetamol, Opioids, Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatories, Muscle Relaxants, Antibiotics, and Antidepressants: An Overview for Musculoskeletal Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Because pharmacological therapies may play an important role in managing musculoskeletal pain, the appropriate use of medicines for common conditions like low back pain (LBP) is critical. New evidence on the effects and safety of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants for LBP warrants an updated overview for musculoskeletal clinicians on this topic.

CLINICAL QUESTION

How effective and safe are paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants compared with placebo for treating LBP?

KEY RESULTS

For acute LBP (<12 weeks), muscle relaxants and NSAIDs may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but the effects of opioids, antibiotics, and antidepressants are unknown. Paracetamol provides no additional benefit for acute LBP. For chronic LBP (>12 weeks), NSAIDs, antidepressants, and opioids may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but opioids have an established profile of harms. Antibiotics may also reduce pain for people with chronic LBP with Modic type 1 changes, although the risks may outweigh their benefits. The effects of paracetamol and muscle relaxants for chronic LBP were unclear.

CLINICAL APPLICATION

NSAIDs may have a role in managing acute and chronic LBP, with cautious use in people who may be at greater risk of experiencing adverse events. Paracetamol, opioid analgesics, antibiotics, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants should only be prescribed following a discussion between the treating clinician and the patient, considering the risks and possible benefits, and after or in conjunction with recommended nonpharmacological strategies for improving LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):425-431. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10788.

Pharmacotherapy for Spine-Related Pain in Older Adults

As the population ages, spine-related pain is increasingly common in older adults. While medications play an important role in pain management, their use has limitations in geriatric patients due to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy. This review will assess the evidence basis for medications used for spine-related pain in older adults, with a focus on drug metabolism and adverse drug reactions. A PubMed/OVID search crossing common spine, neck, and back pain terms with key words for older adults and geriatrics was combined with common drug classes and common drug names and limited to clinical trials and age over 65 years. The results were then reviewed with identification of commonly used drugs and drug categories: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, corticosteroids, gabapentin and pregabalin, antispastic and antispasmodic muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tramadol, and opioids. Collectively, 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were the focus of the review. The review found a variable contribution of high-quality studies examining the efficacy of medications for spine pain primarily in the geriatric population. There was strong evidence for NSAID use with adjustments for gastrointestinal and renal risk factors. Gabapentin and pregabalin had mixed evidence for neuropathic pain. SNRIs had good evidence for neuropathic pain and a more favorable safety profile than TCAs. Tramadol had some evidence in older patients, but more so in persons aged < 65 years. Rational therapeutic choices based on geriatric spine pain diagnosis are helpful, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based pain, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular pain, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies. Tramadol can be well tolerated in older patients, but has risks of cognitive and classic opioid side effects. Otherwise, opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults due to their morbidity and mortality risk and are reserved for refractory severe pain. Whenever possible, beneficial geriatric spine pain pharmacotherapy should employ the lowest therapeutic doses with consideration of polypharmacy, potentially decreased renal and hepatic metabolism, and co-morbid medical disorders.

Associations Between Early Chiropractic Care and Physical Therapy on Subsequent Opioid Use Among Persons With Low Back Pain in Arkansas

Objective

The objective of this study was to estimate the association between early use of physical therapy (PT) or chiropractic care and incident opioid use and long-term opioid use in individuals with a low back pain (LBP) diagnosis.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from Arkansas All Payers' Claims Database. Adults with incident LBP diagnosed in primary care or emergency departments between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2017, were identified. Participants were required to be opioid naïve in the 6-month baseline period and without cancer, cauda equina syndrome, osteomyelitis, lumbar fracture, and paraplegia/quadriplegia in the entire study period. PT and chiropractic treatment were documented over the ensuing 30 days starting on the date of LBP. Any opioid use and long-term opioid use (LTOU) in 1-year follow-up were assessed. Multivariable logistic regressions controlling for covariates were estimated.

Results

A total of 40 929 individuals were included in the final sample, with an average age of 41 years and 65% being women. Only 5% and 6% received PT and chiropractic service, respectively, within the first 30 days. Sixty-four percent had incident opioid use, and 4% had LTOU in the follow-up period. PT was not associated with incident opioid use (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.18) or LTOU (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45). Chiropractic care decreased the odds of opioid use (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97) and LTOU (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.77).

Conclusion

In this study we found that receipt of chiropractic care, though not PT, may have disrupted the need for opioids and, in particular, LTOU in newly diagnosed LBP.

Patient Perspectives on Improving Patient-Provider Relationships and Provider Communication During Opioid Tapering

BACKGROUND

Efforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experiences.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patients' perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions.

APPROACH

From 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers.

KEY RESULTS

Participants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3-36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

From patients' perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients' perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients' experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.

Efficacy and safety of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain and chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses

ABSTRACT

In recent years, long-term prescribing and use of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has increased in high-income countries. Yet existing uncertainties, controversies, and differing recommendations make the rationale for prolonged opioid use in CNCP unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of strong opioids with placebo or nonopioid therapy in CNCP, with a special focus on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Systematic literature searches were performed in 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) in July 2019 and updated by regular alerts until December 2020. We included 16 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials for CLBP and 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized studies) of opioids vs nonopioids for CNCP in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses were performed for efficacy, safety, and tolerability outcomes and subgroup analyses for treatment duration, study design, and opioid experience status. Very low to low certainty findings suggest that 4 to 15 weeks (short or intermediate term) opioid therapy in CLBP (compared with placebo) may cause clinically relevant reductions in pain but also more gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events, with likely no effect on disability. By contrast, long-term opioid therapy (≥6 months) in CNCP may not be superior to nonopioids in improving pain or disability or pain-related function but seems to be associated with more adverse events, opioid abuse or dependence, and possibly an increase in all-cause mortality. Our findings also underline the importance and need for well-designed trials assessing long-term efficacy and safety of opioids for CNCP and CLBP.