Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of non-specific neck pain and low back pain:a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in the treatment of patients with non-specific neck pain and low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of economic evaluations. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed in 5 clinical and 3 economic electronic databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included economic evaluations performed alongside randomised controlled trials. Differences in costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, if possible, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were descriptively analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. On average, exercise therapy was associated with lower costs and larger effects for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in comparison with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective (based on ICUR). Exercise therapy had similar costs and effect for QALY in comparison with other interventions for neck pain from a societal perspective, and subacute and chronic low back pain from a healthcare perspective. There was limited or inconsistent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared with usual care for neck pain and acute low back pain, other interventions for acute low back pain and different types of exercise therapy for neck pain and low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy seems to be cost-effective compared with usual care for subacute and chronic low back pain. Exercise therapy was not (more) cost-effective compared with other interventions for neck pain and low back pain. The cost-utility estimates are rather uncertain, indicating that more economic evaluations are needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42017059025

Compliance with Australian Orthopaedic Association guidelines does not reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism after total hip and knee arthroplasty

Preventing avoidable venous-thrombo-embolism (VTE) is a priority to improve patient and service outcomes after total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA), but compliance with relevant clinical guidelines varies. This study aims to determine the degree to which prophylaxis was compliant with Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA) VTE prophylaxis guidelines and whether non-compliance is associated with increased risk of VTE. A prospective multi-centre cohort study of adults with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA/THA was completed at 19 high-volume public and private hospitals. Data were collected prior to surgery and for one-year post-surgery. Logistic regression was undertaken to explore associations between non-compliance with AOA VTE prophylaxis guidelines and symptomatic 90-day VTE outcomes. Data were analysed for 1838 participants from 19 sites. The rate of non-compliance with all clinical guideline recommendations was 20.1% (N = 369), with 14.1% (N = 259) non-compliance for risk-stratified prophylaxis, 35.8% (N = 658) for duration, and 67.8% (N = 1246) for other general recommendations. Symptomatic VTE was experienced up to 90-days post-surgery by 48 people (2.6%). Overall guideline non-compliance (AOR = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.4 to 1.3, p = 0.86) was not associated with a lower risk of symptomatic 90-day VTE. Results were consistent when people with high bleeding risk were excluded (AOR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.44 to 2.34, p = 0.89). Non-compliance with the AOA VTE prophylaxis guidelines was not associated with risk of 90-day VTE after arthroplasty. This counterintuitive finding is concerning and necessitates a rigorous review of the AOA VTE prevention clinical guideline

A randomised clinical trial of a comprehensive exercise program for chronic whiplash: trial protocol

Background: Whiplash is the most common injury following a motor vehicle accident. Approximately 60% of people suffer persistent pain and disability six months post injury. Two forms of exercise; specific motor relearning exercises and graded activity, have been found to be effective treatments for this condition. Although the effect sizes for these exercise programs, individually, are modest, pilot data suggest much larger effects on pain and disability are achieved when these two treatments are combined. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this comprehensive exercise approach for chronic whiplash

Inferential reproduction analysis demonstrated that “paracetamol for acute low back pain” trial conclusions were reproducible

Objectives: The aim of this study was to reanalyze and reinterpret data obtained in Paracetamol in Acute Low Back Pain (PACE), the first large randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of paracetamol in acute low back pain, to assess the inferential reproducibility of the original conclusions. Study Design and Setting: Mixed effects models were used to reanalyze pain intensity (primary outcome; 11-point Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, and time until recovery (as secondary outcomes), according to the intention-to-treat principle. The original authors of the PACE study were not involved in the development of the methods for this reanalysis. Results: The reproduction analyses indicated no effect of treatment on pain intensity and confidence intervals excluded clinically worthwhile effects (adjusted main effect for regular paracetamol vs. placebo 0.00 [−0.02, 0.01; P = 0.85]; adjusted main effect for paracetamol as-needed vs. placebo 0.00 [−0.02, 0.01; P = 0.92]). Similar results were obtained for all secondary outcomes. Conclusion: This study indicates that the conclusions of the PACE trial are inferentially reproducible, even when using a different analytical approach. This reinforces the notion that the management of acute low back pain should focus on providing patients advice and reassurance without the addition of paracetamol

Lack of uniform diagnostic criteria for cervical radiculopathy in conservative intervention studies: A systematic review

Purpose: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common diagnosis. It is unclear if intervention studies use uniform definitions and criteria for patient selection. Our objective was to assess the uniformity of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in intervention studies to select patients with CR. Methods: We electronically searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Studies were included when evaluating conservative interventions in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with CR. Selection criteria and definitions for patients with CR were extracted and evaluated on their uniformity. Results: Thirteen RCTs were included. Pain was used as an inclusion criterion in 11 studies. Inclusion based on the duration and location of pain varied between studies. Five studies used sensory symptoms in the arm as inclusion crite

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview

Objective: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pai

The prevalence of opioid analgesic use in people with chronic noncancer pain : systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Objective To review studies examining the proportion of people with chronic noncancer pain who report consuming opioids and characteristics associated with their use. Design Systematic review. Methods We searched databases from inception to February 8, 2020, and conducted citation tracking. We included observational studies reporting the proportion of adults with chronic noncancer pain who used opioid analgesics. Opioids were categorized as weak (e.g., codeine) or strong (e.g., oxycodone). Study risk of bias was assessed, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations provided a summary of the overall quality. Results were pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression determined factors associated with opioid use. Results Sixty studies (N=3,961,739) reported data on opioid use in people with chronic noncancer pain from 1990 to 2017. Of these 46, 77% had moderate risk of bias. Opioid use was reported by 26.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1–30.8; moderate-quality evidence) of people with chronic noncancer pain. The use of weak opioids (17.3%; 95% CI 11.9–24.4; moderate-quality evidence) was more common than the use of strong opioids (9.8%; 95% CI, 6.8–14.0; low-quality evidence). Meta-regression determined that opioid use was associated with geographic region (P=0.02; lower in Europe than North America), but not sampling year (P=0.77), setting (P=0.06), diagnosis (P=0.34), or disclosure of funding (P=0.77). Conclusions Our review summarized data from over 3.9 million people with chronic noncancer pain reporting their opioid use. Between 1990 and 2017, one-quarter of people with chronic noncancer pain reported taking opioids, and this proportion did not change over time

Deprescribing opioids in chronic non-cancer pain : systematic review of randomised trials

Background Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Methods We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) − 19.9 MME, 95% CI − 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) − 0.1, 95% CI − 0.2 to − 0.1), dose (MD − 5.3 MME, 95% CI − 6.2 to − 4.5) and use (RD − 0.1, 95% CI − 0.1 to − 0.0) in the long term

PRECISE - pregabalin in addition to usual care for sciatica: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Sciatica is a type of neuropathic pain that is characterised by pain radiating into the leg. It is often accompanied by low back pain and neurological deficits in the lower limb. While this condition may cause significant suffering for the individual, the lack of evidence supporting effective treatments for sciatica makes clinical management difficult. Our objectives are to determine the efficacy of pregabalin on reducing leg pain intensity and its cost-effectiveness in patients with sciatica.Methods/Design: PRECISE is a prospectively registered, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin compared to placebo, in addition to usual care. Inclusion criteria include moderate to severe leg pain below the knee with evidence of nerve root/spinal nerve involvement. Participants will be randomised to receive either pregabalin with usual care (n = 102) or placebo with usual care (n = 102) for 8 weeks. The medicine dosage will be titrated up to the participant's optimal dose, to a maximum 600 mg per day. Follow up consultations will monitor individual progress, tolerability and adverse events. Usual care, if deemed appropriate by the study doctor, may include a referral for physical or manual therapy and/or prescription of analgesic medication. Participants, doctors and researchers collecting participant data will be blinded to treatment allocation. Participants will be assessed at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52. The primary outcome will determine the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity. Secondary outcomes will include back pain intensity, disability and quality of life. Data analysis will be blinded and by intention-to-treat. A parallel economic evaluation will be conducted from health sector and societal perspectives.Discussion: This study will establish the efficacy of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity in patients with sciatica and provide important information regarding the effect of pregabalin treatment on disability and quality of life. The impact of this research may allow the future development of a cost-effective conservative treatment strategy for patients with sciatica.Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, ACTRN 12613000530729

PRECISE - pregabalin in addition to usual care: Statistical analysis plan

Background: Sciatica is a severe, disabling condition that lacks high quality evidence for effective treatment strategies. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methodology of analysis for the PRECISE study. Methods/design: PRECISE is a prospectively registered, double blind, randomised placebo controlled trial of pregabalin compared to placebo, in addition to usual care in patients with sciatica. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in reducing leg pain intensity (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include disability (key secondary), back pain intensity, quality of life, participants' perceived global effect, work absenteeism and health utilisation. Information about medication usage and tolerability are also collected. Outcomes are collected over one year (weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52). Double data entry will be conducted for primary and key secondary outcomes. Other outcomes will be checked using a risk-based approach. Analyses will be consistent with the intention-to-treat principle. Statistical tests will be two-tailed with a p value <0.05 considered significant. Group allocation will remain masked until analyses and interpretation are finalised. Repeated-measure linear mixed models will assess the effect of treatment (pregabalin versus placebo) on primary and secondary outcomes at all time points. Fixed effects will include group allocation, visit as a categorical variable and the interaction between group and visit. Covariates will include baseline leg pain and symptom duration, with an interaction term between baseline leg pain and visit. Pairwise differences between groups will be tested at weeks 8 and 52. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events will be reported, and the proportion of patients per group who have at least one event will be compared using Fisher's exact test. An economic evaluation will be conducted if there is a treatment effect on the primary outcome at week 8. A subgroup analysis will assess whether presenting features of neuropathic pain at baseline modify the treatment effect of leg pain at week 8. Discussion: This statistical analysis plan provides detailed methodology for the analysis of the PRECISE study, which aims to deliver much needed evidence about effective and affordable management of sciatica. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12613000530729. Registered 13 May 2013