Integrative therapies for low back pain that include complementary and alternative medicine care: a systematic review

Acupuncture combined with Chinese herbal medicine for discogenic low back pain: protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Discogenic low back pain is a common form of chronic low back pain. In traditional Chinese medicine, combinations of acupuncture and herbal medicine are frequently used to manage this condition. However, evidence for the efficacy of a combined approach remains scarce. To address this gap, we designed a multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of the combined use of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine, and their separate applications along with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, in treating discogenic low back pain.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, four-arm, parallel-controlled trial involving patients with discogenic low back pain. Patients will be randomly divided into four groups (acupuncture combined with herbal medicine, acupuncture, herbal medicine and positive drug control) at a 1:1:1:1 ratio. All patients will undergo a 4-week treatment regimen consisting of acupuncture (active or sham acupuncture) and oral medication (herbal medicine or placebo granules and celecoxib or placebo capsules), as well as a 3-month follow-up assessment. The primary outcome measure will be pain intensity, measured using the Visual Analogue Scale after a 4-week treatment period. Secondary outcome measures will include the lumbar pressure pain threshold, pain-related disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and incidence of adverse events. Assuming an SD of 1.8, minimal clinically important difference of 1.5 and a 10% dropout rate, at least 97 participants per group are needed, totalling 388 participants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Dongzhimen Hospital Affiliated with Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (approval number: 2024DZMEC-083-03) and the other seven participating subcentres. All participants will provide written informed consent. This trial will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its amendments. This work will be disseminated through the publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2400082428.

The role of mind-body interventions in traumatised refugees' primary care: A qualitative exploration of professionals' experiences in a dedicated programme in Geneva

Post-traumatic physical and psychological symptoms are pervasive among refugees. Primary care staff face numerous challenges and often seek innovative ways of addressing their refugee patients' physical and mental health needs. A nascent body of literature suggests that mind-body interventions (MBIs1) have a positive effect on post-traumatic symptoms in this population. But the quality of evidence is still poor, and little is known about the role MBI could play in the primary care of refugees. Following the implementation of two different kinds of MBI in a dedicated primary care unit, this study aimed to explore staff members' perceptions and prescribing habits for MBI. Given the paucity of information about this topic, we used a qualitative design combining ethnography and discourse analysis providing in-depth insight into professionals' experiences of MBI. Data collected over five-months of non-participative observation and the transcription of twelve interviews were analysed following the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis method (IPA) yielding four main results: (1) Generally poor initial understanding of MBI; (2) A variety of conditions and situations where MBIs appeared acceptable and helpful; (3) A persistent lack of experience and knowledge about the indications for MBI, hindering prescription; (4) The importance of articulating MBIs with mental health services. These results, in the light of the existing literature, suggest that stronger evidence for MBI efficacy for refugees is required, a key to improving professionals' understanding of MBI, providing them with explicit prescription criteria, and encouraging stakeholders to implement these innovative interventions.

Interdisciplinary pain program participants with high catastrophizing scores improve function utilizing enriched therapeutic encounters and integrative health techniques: a retrospective study

Introduction

Pain catastrophizing describes helplessness, rumination, and magnification of a pain experience. High pain catastrophizing is an independent risk factor for disability, pain severity, inadequate treatment response, chronicity, and opioid misuse. Interdisciplinary pain programs (IPPs) are beneficial and cost-effective for individuals with chronic pain, but their functional impact on individuals with high pain catastrophizing is not well established. The emerging field of placebo studies suggests that patient-provider relationships, positive treatment expectations, and sociobiologically informed care trigger physiological responses that may enhance therapeutic interventions.

Methods

In this retrospective observational cohort study, we compared admission and discharge data for 428 adults with high-impact chronic pain (mean 8.5 years) who completed the Spaulding-Medford Functional Restoration Program (FRP). The interdisciplinary FRP team of physiatrists, behavioral health clinicians, physical therapists, and occupational therapists specializes in evidenced-based conventional rehabilitation, integrative health, and pain psychoeducation via enriched therapeutic encounters, fostering collaboration, validation, trust, self-efficacy, and positive expectations. Clinical outcome measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) assessing functional performance (COPM-PS) and satisfaction with function (COPM-SS), the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).

Results

FRP participants with clinically elevated catastrophizing at baseline (PCS ≥30, mean PCS 39) achieved statistically significant improvements in function (mean delta -2.09, CHI2 = 15.56, p < 0.001), satisfaction with function (COPM-SS mean delta -2.50, CHI2 = 7.42, p = 0.007), pain (NRS mean delta 2.7), mood (PHQ-9 mean delta 1.87, p = 0.002), and catastrophizing (PCS mean delta 4.16, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed racial disparities in pain scores, and exploratory analysis showed a trend toward reducing opiate consumption.

Discussion

Despite the known association of adverse outcomes with high catastrophizing, FRP participation was associated with increased productive engagement, reduced pain, reduced maladaptive thought processes, and improved mood. Although causation and efficacy cannot be established from a retrospective design, this is the first study to identify functional improvement in patients with high-impact chronic pain and clinically relevant high pain catastrophizing who participate in an IPP combining conventional and complementary rehabilitation with psychoeducation. These enriched therapeutic encounters may enhance the treatment process by promoting trust, empathy, collaboration, and beneficial reframing of patients' experiences, expectations, and goals.

Multidisciplinary integrative care versus chiropractic care for low back pain: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is influenced by interrelated biological, psychological, and social factors, however current back pain management is largely dominated by one-size fits all unimodal treatments. Team based models with multiple provider types from complementary professional disciplines is one way of integrating therapies to address patients' needs more comprehensively.

METHODS

This parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2007 to August 2010 aimed to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness of 12 weeks of monodisciplinary chiropractic care (CC), versus multidisciplinary integrative care (IC), for adults with sub-acute and chronic LBP. The primary outcome was pain intensity and secondary outcomes were disability, improvement, medication use, quality of life, satisfaction, frequency of symptoms, missed work or reduced activities days, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, pain coping strategies and kinesiophobia measured at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS

201 participants were enrolled. The largest reductions in pain intensity occurred at the end of treatment and were 43% for CC and 47% for IC. The primary analysis found IC to be significantly superior to CC over the 1-year period (P = 0.02). The long-term profile for pain intensity which included data from weeks 4 through 52, showed a significant advantage of 0.5 for IC over CC (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; P = 0.02; 0 to 10 scale). The short-term profile (weeks 4 to 12) favored IC by 0.4, but was not statistically significant (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.9; P = 0.06). There was also a significant advantage over the long term for IC in some secondary measures (disability, improvement, satisfaction and low back symptom frequency), but not for others (medication use, quality of life, leg symptom frequency, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, active pain coping, and kinesiophobia). Importantly, no serious adverse events resulted from either of the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in the IC group tended to have better outcomes than the CC group, however the magnitude of the group differences was relatively small. Given the resources required to successfully implement multidisciplinary integrative care teams, they may not be worthwhile, compared to monodisciplinary approaches like chiropractic care, for treating LBP. Trial registration NCT00567333.

Neck Pain and Lower Back Pain

Neck pain is the fourth leading cause of disability. Acute neck pain largely resolves within 2 months. History and physical examination play a key role in ruling out some of the more serious causes for neck pain. The evidence for pharmacologic interventions for acute and chronic musculoskeletal neck pain is limited. Lower back pain is the leading cause of disability and productivity loss. Consultation with a physical medicine and rehabilitation spine specialist within 48 hours for acute pain and within 10 days for all patients with lower back pain may significantly decrease rate of surgical interventions and increase patient satisfaction.

Gua Sha therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the efficacy of Gua Sha therapy in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

50 patients with chronic low back pain (78% female, 49.7 ± 10.0 years) were randomized to two Gua Sha treatments (n = 25) or waitlist control (n = 25). Primary outcome was current pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale); secondary outcome measures included function (Oswestry Disability Index), pain on movement (Pain on Movement Questionnaire), perceived change in health status, pressure pain threshold, mechanical detection threshold, and vibration detection threshold.

RESULTS

After treatment, patients in the Gua Sha group reported lower pain intensity (p < 0.001) and better overall health status (p = 0.002) compared to the waitlist group. No further group differences were found. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Gua Sha appears to be an acceptable, safe, and effective treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Further rigorous studies are needed to confirm and extend these results.

Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions

OBJECTIVE

To identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)-mental health (MH) comorbidity, by synthesising evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews (SRs).

DESIGN

Scoping review of SRs.

METHODS

We searched literature databases, registries and reference lists, and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of randomised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH. Inclusion criteria were: published after 2004, studying adults, in English and scoring >50% on Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); quality appraisal checklist). SRs were synthesised to identify research priorities, based on moderate/good quality evidence, sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety.

RESULTS

We included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs. Only one focused on MSK-MH comorbidity. Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK populations. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions. SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence (any comparator) in a moderate/large population for: low back pain (LBP) (yoga, acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilisation, osteopathy), osteoarthritis (OA) (acupuncture, tai chi), neck pain (acupuncture, manipulation/manual therapy), myofascial trigger point pain (acupuncture), depression (mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), meditation, tai chi, relaxation), anxiety (meditation/MBSR, moving meditation, yoga), sleep disorders (meditative/mind-body movement) and stress/distress (mindfulness). The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety-only three had evidence of harm. There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP, and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain, but few SRs reviewed cost-effectiveness and many found no data.

CONCLUSIONS

Only one SR studied MSK-MH comorbidity. Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH (LBP, OA, depression, anxiety and sleep problems) are yoga, mindfulness and tai chi. Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity, more high-quality, large randomised controlled trials in comorbid populations are needed.

Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.

RESULTS

Fifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p<.0001, I2=46%). Mobilization interventions, compared with other active comparators including exercise regimens, significantly reduced pain (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; p=.01; I2=0%) but not disability (SMD=-0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07; p=.25; I2=21%). Studies comparing manipulation or mobilization with sham or no treatment were too few or too heterogeneous to allow for pooling as were studies examining relationships between dose and outcomes. Few studies assessed health-related quality of life. Twenty-six of 51 trials were multimodal studies and narratively described.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that manipulation and mobilization are likely to reduce pain and improve function for patients with chronic low back pain; manipulation appears to produce a larger effect than mobilization. Both therapies appear safe. Multimodal programs may be a promising option.

Integrative Pain Management

Chronic pain is one of the most common conditions seen in the clinic, and it is often one of the most frustrating for both clinicians and patients. This condition stems from common comorbidities, including depression, insomnia, fatigue, and physical deconditioning, which often create barriers to recovery. In addition, chronic pain has had divergent approaches for treatment, including an overemphasis on analgesia and curative treatments while underemphasizing the biopsychosocial needs of those in pain. This article attempts to provide an initial framework for approaching those in pain and initiating patient-centered options to support improvements in pain, function, and self-care.

The clinical factors associated with benefit finding of complementary medicine use in patients with back pain: A cross-sectional study with cluster analysis

BACKGROUND

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use has been increasing.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the factors associated with perceived benefit from CAM methods in back problems.

METHODS

The study was conducted on patients who practiced any CAM methods due to complaints of back pain. Social-demographic properties, details of CAM methods employed were questioned. Severity of pain was measured by visual analog scale (VAS); benefits were evaluated by the Likert scale. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to discover relationships among variables.

RESULTS

In total, 500 patients (265 female, 235 male) were included in the study. Mostly used methods were herbal therapy (32%), balneotherapy (31%), cupping (19.4%) and massage-manipulation (19.2%). Of patients, 355 (71%) were satisfied. The variables associated with benefit finding were female gender, age, chronicity and severity of pain, high educational level, upper middle income status, use as a result of recommendation, dissatisfaction with conventional methods, residence in an urban area, non-herbal method use, being married, and social insurance (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients using CAM perceived benefits; in particular, women living in urban areas, highly educated, aged more than 40, who suffer from severe chronic back pain, may be more inclined to go to CAM therapists.

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe.

CONCLUSIONS

It is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015030068 .

Integrative Acupuncture and Spinal Manipulative Therapy Versus Either Alone for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Feasibility Study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining whether an integrative care model combining spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and acupuncture can lead to better outcomes for low back pain (LBP) than either therapy alone.

METHODS

This study was conducted at a complementary and alternative medicine university health center. Participants with acute or chronic LBP were randomized to (1) acupuncture, (2) SMT, or (3) integrative acupuncture and SMT groups. Treatments were provided over 60 days by licensed doctors of chiropractic and acupuncturists. Acupuncture treatments consisted of needling of acupoints combined with electrotherapy, moxibustion, cupping, and Tui Na. SMT used specific contact points on vertebral processes, along with soft tissue therapy and physiotherapy. Primary outcome measures were the Roland-Morris LBP Disability Questionnaire and 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale for LBP.

RESULTS

Participants in all 3 groups experienced clinically meaningful improvements in the primary outcome measures; however, no between-group differences in outcomes were apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that it is feasible to conduct an RCT to compare the effectiveness of integrative acupuncture and SMT for LBP to either therapy alone. Future studies should include a larger sample to increase the power for detecting clinically meaningful differences between groups.

Changes in Prevalence, Outcomes, and Help-seeking Behavior of Chronic Pain in an Aging Population Over the Last Decade

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is expected to increase as the population ages. This study aimed to investigate the changes in prevalence, patterns, and help-seeking behavior of chronic pain and prevalence of neuropathic pain of an aging population in Hong Kong.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, telephone interview with a structured questionnaire was conducted in a randomly selected sample of adults with acute or chronic pain of any kind in the general population to estimate the prevalence of chronic and neuropathic pain, and to describe sociodemographics and help-seeking behavior. Results were compared with a similar study conducted in 1999.

RESULTS

Totally, 1,570 people were interviewed. Chronic pain was experienced by 28.7% of all respondents, compared to 10.8% in 1999. Joint (45.5%), muscle (27.1%), and back (25.2%) pain were the most common, similar to findings in 1999. Of those with chronic pain, 83.1% reported pain in more than one body site (63.4% in 1999, P = 0.0023). More respondents reported their average pain as being intense (51.57% vs. 33.0% in 2013 and 1999, respectively, P = 0.0098). A downward trend of respondents taking medications for chronic pain (34.9% in 2013 vs. 47.6% in 1999, P = 0.019) was seen. Neuropathic pain was present in 9.03% of the population and 14.7% of chronic pain sufferers.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of neuropathic pain in Hong Kong is high and is described here for the first time. The number of chronic pain sufferers has tripled in the past decade. Significant changes in the patterns and help- seeking behavior of chronic pain sufferers are also seen.

Toward a Mechanism-Based Approach to Pain Diagnosis

The past few decades have witnessed a huge leap forward in our understanding of the mechanistic underpinnings of pain, in normal states where it helps protect from injury, and also in pathological states where pain evolves from a symptom reflecting tissue injury to become the disease itself. However, despite these scientific advances, chronic pain remains extremely challenging to manage clinically. Although the number of potential treatment targets has grown substantially and a strong case has been made for a mechanism-based and individualized approach to pain therapy, arguably clinicians are not much more advanced now than 20 years ago, in their capacity to either diagnose or effectively treat their patients. The gulf between pain research and pain management is as wide as ever. We are still currently unable to apply an evidence-based approach to chronic pain management that reflects mechanistic understanding, and instead, clinical practice remains an empirical and often unsatisfactory journey for patients, whose individual response to treatment cannot be predicted. In this article we take a common and difficult to treat pain condition, chronic low back pain, and use its presentation in clinical practice as a framework to highlight what is known about pathophysiological pain mechanisms and how we could potentially detect these to drive rational treatment choice. We discuss how present methods of assessment and management still fall well short, however, of any mechanism-based or precision medicine approach. Nevertheless, substantial improvements in chronic pain management could be possible if a more strategic and coordinated approach were to evolve, one designed to identify the specific mechanisms driving the presenting pain phenotype. We present an analysis of such an approach, highlighting the major problems in identifying mechanisms in patients, and develop a framework for a pain diagnostic ladder that may prove useful in the future, consisting of successive identification of 3 steps: pain state, pain mechanism, and molecular target. Such an approach could serve as the foundation for a new era of individualized/precision pain medicine. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION)-American Pain Society (APS) Pain Taxonomy (AAPT) includes pain mechanisms as 1 of the 5 dimensions that need to be considered when making a diagnostic classification. The diagnostic ladder proposed in this article is consistent with and an extension of the AAPT.

PERSPECTIVE

We discuss how identifying the specific mechanisms that operate in the nervous system to produce chronic pain in individual patients could provide the basis for a targeted and rational precision medicine approach to controlling pain, using chronic low back pain as our example.

Attenuation Effect of Spinal Manipulation on Neuropathic and Postoperative Pain Through Activating Endogenous Anti-Inflammatory Cytokine Interleukin 10 in Rat Spinal Cord

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate roles of the anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL) 10 and the proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) in spinal manipulation-induced analgesic effects of neuropathic and postoperative pain.

METHODS

Neuropathic and postoperative pain were mimicked by chronic compression of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) (CCD) and decompression (de-CCD) in adult, male, Sprague-Dawley rats. Behavioral pain after CCD and de-CCD was determined by the increased thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity of the affected hindpaw. Hematoxylin and eosin staining, whole-cell patch clamp electrophysiological recordings, immunohistochemistry, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were used to examine the neural inflammation, neural excitability, and expression of c-Fos and PKC as well as levels of IL-1β, TNF-α, and IL-10 in blood plasma, DRG, or the spinal cord. We used the activator adjusting instrument, a chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy tool, to deliver force to the spinous processes of L5 and L6.

RESULTS

After CCD and de-CCD treatments, the animals exhibited behavioral and neurochemical signs of neuropathic pain manifested as mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia, DRG inflammation, DRG neuron hyperexcitability, induction of c-Fos, and the increased expression of PKCγ in the spinal cord as well as increased level of IL-1β and TNF-α in DRG and the spinal cord. Repetitive Activator-assisted spinal manipulative therapy significantly reduced simulated neuropathic and postoperative pain, inhibited or reversed the neurochemical alterations, and increased the anti-inflammatory IL-10 in the spinal cord.

CONCLUSION

These findings show that spinal manipulation may activate the endogenous anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 in the spinal cord and thus has the potential to alleviate neuropathic and postoperative pain.

Evaluation and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Clinically Focused Review for Primary Care Specialists

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. In the absence of a classification system for pain syndromes, classification of LBP on the basis of the distribution of pain as axial (pain generally localized to the low back) or radicular neuropathic (pain radiating to the lower extremities) is relevant to clinical practice because the distribution of pain is often a corollary of frequently occurring disease processes involving the lumbar spine. Common sources of axial LBP include the intervertebral disc, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, and paraspinal musculature, whereas common sources of radicular pain include a herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis. The accuracy of historical and physical examination findings has been established for sacroiliac joint pain, radiculopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the accuracy of similar data, so-called red flags, for identifying the underlying medical sources of LBP has been overstated. Diagnostic imaging studies can be useful, and adherence to established guidelines can protect against overuse. Multiple pharmacological trials exist for the management of LBP; however, the long-term outcomes of commonly used drugs are mixed. For carefully selected patients with axial LBP, radiofrequency denervation techniques can provide sustained pain relief. In patients with radicular pain, transforaminal epidural steroid injections may provide short-term pain relief, but neurostimulation may confer more enduring benefits of refractory symptoms. Pain-related indications for commonly performed operations include spinal decompression for radicular symptoms as well as spinal fusion or disc prosthesis for discogenic LBP. Physical modalities and psychological treatments can improve pain and functioning, but patient preferences may influence treatment adherence.