Chronic non-specific low back pain - sub-groups or a single mechanism?

Copyright 2008 Wand and O'Connell; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: Low back pain is a substantial health problem and has subsequently attracted a considerable amount of research. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a variety of interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain indicate limited effectiveness for most commonly applied interventions and approaches. Discussion: Many clinicians challenge the results of clinical trials as they feel that this lack of effectiveness is at odds with their clinical experience of managing patients with back pain. A common explanation for this discrepancy is the perceived heterogeneity of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. It is felt that the effects of treatment may be diluted by the application of a single intervention to a complex, heterogeneous group with diverse treatment needs. This argument presupposes that current treatment is effective when applied to the correct patient. An alternative perspective is that the clinical trials are correct and current treatments have limited efficacy. Preoccupation with sub-grouping may stifle engagement with this view and it is important that the sub-grouping paradigm is closely examined. This paper argues that there are numerous problems with the sub-grouping approach and that it may not be an important reason for the disappointing results of clinical trials. We propose instead that current treatment may be ineffective because it has been misdirected. Recent evidence that demonstrates changes within the brain in chronic low back pain sufferers raises the possibility that persistent back pain may be a problem of cortical reorganisation and degeneration. This perspective offers interesting insights into the chronic low back pain experience and suggests alternative models of intervention. Summary: The disappointing results of clinical research are commonly explained by the failure of researchers to adequately attend to sub-grouping of the chronic non-specific low back pain population. Alternatively, current approaches may be ineffective and clinicians and researchers may need to radically rethink the nature of the problem and how it should best be managed

The COPE LBP trial: Cognitive Patient Education for Low Back Pain - a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is usually self-limiting within 4-6 weeks. Longstanding pain and disability are not predictable from clinical signs or pathoanatomical findings. Pain cognition and physical performance have been shown to improve patients with chronic LBP following neurophysiological education. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether a specific cognitive based education programme for patients with LBP in primary care is more effective than normal care in terms of increased function. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether this intervention also results in earlier return to work, decreased pain, increased patient satisfaction, increased quality-of-life, and cost utility.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Cluster randomised controlled trial with 20 general practitioners and 20 physiotherapists in primary care as the unit of randomisation. Each practitioner will recruit up to 10 patients, aged 20 to 55 years, with non-specific sub-acute/chronic LBP of more than four weeks but less than 1 year's duration. Practitioners in the intervention arm will provide cognitive patient education intervention in up to four weekly sessions, each lasting 30 minutes. Practitioners in the control arm will provide normal treatment, but have to make four appointments for the patients. Patients, outcome assessors, and study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We present the rationale and design of an ongoing RCT study that potentially offers an easily implemented treatment strategy for LBP patients in primary care. The results will be available in 2012.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN04323845</p

Multidisciplinary consensus on screening for, diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction in the Netherlands

Screening for, diagnosis and management of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is often performed in multidisciplinary collaboration. However, variation in screening methods, diagnosis and management of IUGR may lead to confusion. In the Netherlands two monodisciplinary guidelines on IUGR do not fully align. To facilitate effective collaboration between different professionals in perinatal care, we undertook a Delphi study with uniform recommendations as our primary result, focusing on issues that are not aligned or for which specifications are lacking in the current guidelines. We conducted a Delphi study in three rounds. A purposively sampled selection of 56 panellists participated: 27 representing midwife-led care and 29 obstetrician-led care. Consensus was defined as agreement between the professional groups on the same answer and among at least 70% of the panellists within groups. Per round 51 or 52 (91% - 93%) panellists responded. This has led to consensus on 27 issues, leading to four consensus based recommendations on screening for IUGR in midwife-led care and eight consensus based recommendations on diagnosis and eight on management in obstetrician-led care. The multidisciplinary project group decided on four additional recommendations as no consensus was reached by the panel. No recommendations could be made about induction of labour versus expectant monitoring, nor about the choice for a primary caesarean section. We reached consensus on recommendations for care for IUGR within a multidisciplinary panel. These will be implemented in a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound for monitoring fetal growth. Research is needed to evaluate the effects of implementation of these recommendations on perinatal outcomes. NTR436

Molecular Subgroup of Primary Prostate Cancer Presenting with Metastatic Biology

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4-25% of patients with early prostate cancer develop disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To identify a molecular subgroup of prostate cancers with metastatic potential at presentation resulting in a high risk of recurrence following radical prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed using gene expression data from 70 primary resections, 31 metastatic lymph nodes and 25 normal prostate samples. Independent assay validation was performed using 322 radical prostatectomy samples from four sites with a mean follow-up of 50.3 months. OUTCOME MEASURES & STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Molecular subgroups were identified using unsupervised hierarchical clustering. A partial least squares approach was used to generate a gene expression assay. Relationships with outcome (time to biochemical and metastatic recurrence) were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression and log-rank analysis. RESULTS & LIMITATIONS: A molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer with biology similar to metastatic disease was identified. A 70-transcript signature (Metastatic Assay) was developed and independently validated in the radical prostatectomy samples. Metastatic Assay positive patients had increased risk of biochemical recurrence (Multivariable HR 1.62 [1.13-2.33]; p= 0.0092) and metastatic recurrence (Multivariable HR=3.20 (1.76-5.80); p=0.0001). A combined model with CAPRA-S identified patients at increased risk of biochemical and metastatic recurrence superior to either model alone (HR=2.67 [1.90-3.75]; p<0.0001 and HR=7.53 [4.13-13.73]; p<0.0001 respectively. The retrospective nature of the study is acknowledged as a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: The Metastatic Assay may identify a molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancers with metastatic potential. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Metastatic Assay may improve the ability to detect patients at risk of metastatic recurrence following radical prostatectomy. The impact of adjuvant therapies should be assessed in this higher risk population

Molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer presenting with metastatic biology.

Background Approximately 4–25% of patients with early prostate cancer develop disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Objective To identify a molecular subgroup of prostate cancers with metastatic potential at presentation resulting in a high risk of recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participants Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed using gene expression data from 70 primary resections, 31 metastatic lymph nodes, and 25 normal prostate samples. Independent assay validation was performed using 322 radical prostatectomy samples from four sites with a mean follow-up of 50.3 [34TD DIF]months. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Molecular subgroups were identified using unsupervised hierarchical clustering. A partial least squares approach was used to generate a gene expression assay. Relationships with outcome (time to biochemical and metastatic recurrence) were analysed using multivariable Cox regression and log-rank analysis. Results and limitations A molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer with biology similar to metastatic disease was identified. A 70-transcript signature (metastatic assay) was developed and independently validated in the radical prostatectomy samples. Metastatic assay[35TD DIF] positive patients had increased risk of biochemical recurrence (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] 1.62 [1.13–2.33]; p = 0.0092) and metastatic recurrence (multivariable HR = 3.20 [1.76–5.80]; p = 0.0001). A combined model with Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment [36TD DIF]post surgical (CAPRA-S) identified patients at an increased</p

Molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer presenting with metastatic biology.

Background Approximately 4–25% of patients with early prostate cancer develop disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Objective To identify a molecular subgroup of prostate cancers with metastatic potential at presentation resulting in a high risk of recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participants Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed using gene expression data from 70 primary resections, 31 metastatic lymph nodes, and 25 normal prostate samples. Independent assay validation was performed using 322 radical prostatectomy samples from four sites with a mean follow-up of 50.3 [34TD DIF]months. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Molecular subgroups were identified using unsupervised hierarchical clustering. A partial least squares approach was used to generate a gene expression assay. Relationships with outcome (time to biochemical and metastatic recurrence) were analysed using multivariable Cox regression and log-rank analysis. Results and limitations A molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer with biology similar to metastatic disease was identified. A 70-transcript signature (metastatic assay) was developed and independently validated in the radical prostatectomy samples. Metastatic assay[35TD DIF] positive patients had increased risk of biochemical recurrence (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] 1.62 [1.13–2.33]; p = 0.0092) and metastatic recurrence (multivariable HR = 3.20 [1.76–5.80]; p = 0.0001). A combined model with Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment [36TD DIF]post surgical (CAPRA-S) identified patients at an increased</p

Mirror neurons and their clinical relevance

One of the most exciting events in neurosciences over the past few years has been the discovery of a mechanism that unifies action perception and action execution. The essence of this 'mirror' mechanism is as follows: whenever individuals observe an action being done by someone else, a set of neurons that code for that action is activated in the observers' motor system. Since the observers are aware of the outcome of their motor acts, they also understand what the other individual is doing without the need for intermediate cognitive mediation. In this Review, after discussing the most pertinent data concerning the mirror mechanism, we examine the clinical relevance of this mechanism. We first discuss the relationship between mirror mechanism impairment and some core symptoms of autism. We then outline the theoretical principles of neurorehabilitation strategies based on the mirror mechanism. We conclude by examining the relationship between the mirror mechanism and some features of the environmental dependency syndromes