Clinical course of pain and disability following primary lumbar discectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2020, The Author(s). Purpose: To conduct a meta-analysis to describe clinical course of pain and disability in adult patients post-lumbar discectomy (PROSPERO: CRD42015020806). Methods: Sensitive topic-based search strategy designed for individual databases was conducted. Patients (> 16 years) following first-time lumbar discectomy for sciatica/radiculopathy with no complications, investigated in inception (point of surgery) prospective cohort studies, were included. Studies including revision surgery or not published in English were excluded. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, assessed eligibility at title/abstract and full-text stages, extracted data, assessed risk of bias (modified QUIPs) and assessed GRADE. Authors were contacted to request raw data where data/variance data were missing. Meta-analyses evaluated outcomes at all available time points using the variance-weighted mean in random-effect meta-analyses. Means and 95% CIs were plotted over time for measurements reported on outcomes of leg pain, back pain and disability. Results: A total of 87 studies (n = 31,034) at risk of bias (49 moderate, 38 high) were included. Clinically relevant improvements immediately following surgery (> MCID) for leg pain (0–10, mean before surgery 7.04, 50 studies, n = 14,910 participants) and disability were identified (0–100, mean before surgery 53.33, 48 studies, n = 15,037). Back pain also improved (0–10, mean before surgery 4.72, 53 studies, n = 14,877). Improvement in all outcomes was maintained (to 7 years). Meta-regression analyses to assess the relationship between outcome data and a priori potential covariates found preoperative back pain and disability predictive for outcome. Conclusion: Moderate-level evidence supports clinically relevant immediate improvement in leg pain and disability following lumbar discectomy with accompanying improvements in back pain. Graphic abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Cost effectiveness of epidural steroid injections to manage chronic lower back pain

Background The efficacy of epidural steroid injections in the management of chronic low back pain is disputed, yet the technique remains popular amongst physicians and patients alike. This study assesses the cost effectiveness of injections administered in a routine outpatient setting in England. Methods Patients attending the Nottingham University Hospitals’ Pain Clinic received two injections of methylprednisolone plus levobupivacaine at different dosages, separated by at least 12 weeks. Prior to each injection, and every week thereafter for 12 weeks, participants completed the EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument. For each patient for each injection, total health state utility gain relative to baseline was calculated. The cost of the procedure was modelled from observed clinical practice. Cost effectiveness was calculated as procedure cost relative to utility gain. Results 39 patients provided records. Over a 13-week period commencing with injection, mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains per patient for the two dosages were 0.028 (SD 0.063) and 0.021 (SD 0.057). The difference in QALYs gained by dosage was insignificant (paired t-test, CIs -0.019 – 0.033). Based on modelled resource use and data from other studies, the mean cost of an injection was estimated at £219 (SD 83). The cost utility ratio of the two injections amounted to £8,975 per QALY gained (CIs 5,480 – 22,915). However, at costs equivalent to the tariff price typically paid to providers by health care purchasers, the ratio increased to £27,459 (CIs 16,779 – 70,091). Conclusions When provided in an outpatient setting, epidural steroid injections are a short term, but nevertheless cost effective, means of managing chronic low back pain. However, designation of the procedure as a day case requires the National Health Service to reimburse providers at a price which pushes the procedure to the margin of cost effectiveness

Variable selection under multiple imputation using the bootstrap in a prognostic study

Background: Missing data is a challenging problem in many prognostic studies. Multiple imputation (MI) accounts for imputation uncertainty that allows for adequate statistical testing. We developed and tested a methodology combining MI with bootstrapping techniques for studying prognostic variable selection. Method: In our prospective cohort study we merged data from three different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess prognostic variables for chronicity of low back pain. Among the outcome and prognostic variables data were missing in the range of 0 and 48.1%. We used four methods to investigate the influence of respectively sampling and imputation variation: MI only, bootstrap only, and two methods that combine MI and bootstrapping. Variables were selected based on the inclusion frequency of each prognostic variable, i.e. the proportion of times that the variable appeared in the model. The discriminative and calibrative abilities of prognostic models developed by the four methods were assessed at different inclusion levels. Results: We found that the effect of imputation variation on the inclusion frequency was larger than the effect of sampling variation. When MI and bootstrapping were combined at the range of 0% (full model) to 90% of variable selection, bootstrap corrected c-index values of 0.70 to 0.71 and slope values of 0.64 to 0.86 were found. Conclusion: We recommend to account for both imputation and sampling variation in sets of missing data. The new procedure of combining MI with bootstrapping for variable selection, results in multivariable prognostic models with good performance and is therefore attractive to apply on data sets with missing values

The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the course of low back pain (LBP) symptoms in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) follows a pattern of large improvement regardless of the type of treatment. A similar pattern was independently observed in observational studies. However, there is an assumption that the clinical course of symptoms is particularly influenced in RCTs by mere participation in the trials. To test this assumption, the aim of our study was to compare the course of LBP in RCTs and observational studies. METHODS: Source of studies CENTRAL database for RCTs and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and hand search of systematic reviews for cohort studies. Studies include individuals aged 18 or over, and concern non-specific LBP. Trials had to concern primary care treatments. Data were extracted on pain intensity. Meta-regression analysis was used to compare the pooled within-group change in pain in RCTs with that in cohort studies calculated as the standardised mean change (SMC). RESULTS: 70 RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included, out of 1134 and 653 identified respectively. LBP symptoms followed a similar course in RCTs and cohort studies: a rapid improvement in the first 6 weeks followed by a smaller further improvement until 52 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled SMC between RCTs and cohort studies at any time point:- 6 weeks: RCTs: SMC 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.2 (0.7to 1.7); 13 weeks: RCTs 1.2 (1.1 to 1.3) and cohorts 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3); 27 weeks: RCTs 1.1 (1.0 to 1.2) and cohorts 1.2 (0.8 to 1.7); 52 weeks: RCTs 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0) and cohorts 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of LBP symptoms followed a pattern that was similar in RCTs and cohort observational studies. In addition to a shared 'natural history', enrolment of LBP patients in clinical studies is likely to provoke responses that reflect the nonspecific effects of seeking and receiving care, independent of the study design

Cost-effectiveness of minimal interventional procedures for chronic mechanical low back pain: design of four randomised controlled trials with an economic evaluation

Background: Minimal interventional procedures are frequently applied in patients with mechanical low back pain which is defined as pain presumably resulting from single sources: facet, disc, sacroiliac joint or a combination of these. Usually, these minimal interventional procedures are an integral part of a multidisciplinary pain programme. A recent systematic review issued by the Dutch Health Insurance Council showed that the effectiveness of these procedures for the total group of patients with chronic low back pain is yet unclear and cost-effectiveness unknown. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether a multidisciplinary pain programme with minimal interventional procedures is cost-effective compared to the multidisciplinary pain programme alone for patients with chronic mechanical low back pain who did not respond to conservative primary care and were referred to a pain clinic. Methods. All patients with chronic low back pain who are referred to one of the 13 participating pain clinics will be asked to participate in an observational study. Patients with a suspected diagnosis of facet, disc or sacroiliac joint problems will receive a diagnostic block to confirm this diagnosis. If confirmed, they will be asked to participate in a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). For each single source a separate RCT will be conducted. Patients with a combination of facet, disc or sacroiliac joint problems will be invited for participation in a RCT as well. An economic evaluation from a societal perspective will be performed alongside these four RCTs. Patients will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after start of the treatment

Effectiveness of physical training for self-employed persons with musculoskeletal disorders: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the fact that the population of self-employed persons is still growing and at risk for long term disability due to a number of risk factors, there is still a lack of information on the effectiveness of interventions for this specific group.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To determine the effectiveness of physical training without a cognitive behavioral component and workplace specific exercises (PT) and physical training with a cognitive behavioral component and workplace specific exercises (PTCBWE), we conducted a pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial, stratified into two groups. Self-employed persons with a new work disability claim because of musculoskeletal disorders were randomized to PT (n = 53) or PTCBWE (n = 76), or to a corresponding usual care group (n = 50 and n = 75 respectively). Both types of training consisted of cardiovascular training, strengthening, relaxation and posture exercises and took place two or three times a week, for 1–1.5 hours, during three months, also if someone had already returned to work full-time. The primary outcome measure was claim duration (in days) during 12 months follow-up. Pain severity and functional status were secondary outcome measures. All data were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. The data with regard to claim duration were analyzed by survival analysis and Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome measures were analyzed by means of linear regression analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After 12 months of follow-up there was no difference in claim duration between PT and usual care (Hazard Ratio 0.7; 95%CI, 0.4–1.1; p = 0.12) or PTCBWE and usual care (Hazard Ratio 0.9; 95%CI, 0.6–1.4; p = 0.72). Both types of physical training and usual care improved in pain and functional status over time, but there was only a statistically significant difference in favor of PT on pain improvement at 6 months.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this study, physical training with and without a cognitive behavioral component and workplace specific exercises for self-employed persons with musculoskeletal disorders was not shown to be effective on claim duration, pain severity and functional status at 12 months follow-up.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67766245.</p

The European Hematology Association Roadmap for European Hematology Research. A Consensus Document

Abstract The European Hematology Association (EHA) Roadmap for European Hematology Research highlights major achievements in diagnosis and treatment of blood disorders and identifies the greatest unmet clinical and scientific needs in those areas to enable better funded, more focused European hematology research. Initiated by the EHA, around 300 experts contributed to the consensus document, which will help European policy makers, research funders, research organizations, researchers, and patient groups make better informed decisions on hematology research. It also aims to raise public awareness of the burden of blood disorders on European society, which purely in economic terms is estimated at Euro 23 billion per year, a level of cost that is not matched in current European hematology research funding. In recent decades, hematology research has improved our fundamental understanding of the biology of blood disorders, and has improved diagnostics and treatments, sometimes in revolutionary ways. This progress highlights the potential of focused basic research programs such as this EHA Roadmap. The EHA Roadmap identifies nine sections in hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid and myeloid diseases, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These sections span 60 smaller groups of diseases or disorders. The EHA Roadmap identifies priorities and needs across the field of hematology, including those to develop targeted therapies based on genomic profiling and chemical biology, to eradicate minimal residual malignant disease, and to develop cellular immunotherapies, combination treatments, gene therapies, hematopoietic stem cell treatments, and treatments that are better tolerated by elderly patients. Received December 15, 2015. Accepted January 27, 2016. Copyright © 2016, Ferrata Storti Foundatio

Stratified care integrated with eHealth versus usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient's risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient's suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. DISCUSSION: The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL8249 . Officially registered since 27 December 2019. Date of first enrollment: 30 September 2020. Study status: ongoing, data collection

Illness behavior in patients on long-term sick leave due to chronic musculoskeletal pain

Background and purpose Methods for identification of patients with illness behavior in orthopedic settings are still being debated. The purpose of this study was to test the association between illness behavior, depressed mood, pain intensity, self-rated disability, and clinical status in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP)