Is comorbidity in adolescence a predictor for adult low back pain? A prospective study of a young population

BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that low back pain (LBP) often presents already in the teenage years and that previous LBP predicts future LBP. It is also well documented that there is a large degree of comorbidity associated with LBP, both in adolescents and adults. The objective of this study is to gain a deeper insight into the etiology of low back pain and to possibly develop a tool for early identification of high-risk groups. This is done by investigating whether different types of morbidity in adolescence are associated with LBP in adulthood. METHODS: Almost 10,000 Danish twins born between 1972 and 1982 were surveyed by means of postal questionnaires in 1994 and again in 2002. The questionnaires dealt with various aspects of general health, including the prevalence of LBP, classified according to number of days affected during the previous year (0, 1–7, 8–30, >30). The predictor variables used in this study were LBP, headache, asthma and atopic disease at baseline; the outcome variable was persistent LBP (>30 days during the past year) at follow-up. Associations between morbidity in 1994 and LBP in 2002 were investigated. RESULTS: LBP, headache and asthma in adolescence were positively associated with future LBP. There was no association between atopic disease and future LBP. Individuals with persistent LBP at baseline had an odds ratio of 3.5 (2.8–4.5) for future LBP, while the odds ratio for those with persistent LBP, persistent headache and asthma was 4.5 (2.5–8.1). There was a large degree of clustering of these disorders, but atopic disease was not part of this pattern. CONCLUSION: Young people from 12 to 22 years of age with persistent LBP during the previous year have an odds ratio of 3.5 persistent LBP eight years later. Both headache and asthma are also positively associated with future LBP and there is a large clustering of LBP, headache and asthma in adolescence

Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review

Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more cost-effective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves

Risk factors for sickness absence due to low back pain and prognostic factors for return to work in a cohort of shipyard workers

The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for the occurrence of sickness absence due to low back pain (LBP) and to evaluate prognostic factors for return to work. A longitudinal study with 1-year follow-up was conducted among 853 shipyard workers. The cohort was drawn around January 2004 among employees in the shipyard industry. Baseline information was obtained by questionnaire on physical and psychosocial work load, need for recovery, perceived general health, musculoskeletal complaints, sickness absence, and health care use during the past year. During the 1-year follow-up for each subject medical certifications were retrieved for information on the frequency and duration of spells of sickness absence and associated diagnoses. Cox regression analyses were conducted on occurrence and on duration of sickness absence with hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as measure of association. During the 1-year follow-up period, 14% of the population was on sick leave at least once with LBP while recurrence reached 41%. The main risk factors for sickness absence were previous absence due to a health problem other than LBP (HR 3.07; 95%CI 1.66–5.68) or previous sickness absence due to LBP (HR 6.52; 95%CI 3.16–13.46). Care seeking for LBP and lower educational level also hold significant influences (HR 2.41; 95%CI 1.45–4.01 and HR 2.46; 95%CI 1.19–5.07, respectively). Living with others, night shift and supervising duties were associated with less absenteeism due to LBP. Workers with a history of herniated disc had a significantly decreased rate of returning to work, whereas those who suffered from hand-wrist complaints and LBP returned to work faster. Prior sick leave due to LBP partly captured the effects of work-related physical and psychosocial factors on occurrence of sick leave. Our study showed that individual and job characteristics (living alone, night shift, lower education, sick leave, or care seeking during the last 12 months) influenced the decision to take sick leave due to LBP. An increased awareness of those frequently on sick leave and additional management after return to work may have a beneficial effect on the sickness absence pattern

Frequency and Interrelations of Risk Factors for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Primary Care Setting

INTRODUCTION: Many risk factors have been identified for chronic low back pain (cLBP), but only one study evaluated their interrelations. We aimed to investigate the frequency of cLBP risk factors and their interrelations in patients consulting their general practitioners (GPs) for cLBP. METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive, national survey was performed. 3000 GPs randomly selected were asked to include at least one patient consulting for cLBP. Demographic, clinical characteristics and the presence of cLBP risk factors were recorded. The frequency of each cLBP risk factor was calculated and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was performed to study their interrelations. RESULTS: A total of 2068 GPs (68.9%) included at least 1 patient, for 4522 questionnaires analyzed. In the whole sample of patients, the 2 risk factors most commonly observed were history of recurrent LBP (72.1%) and initial limitation of activities of daily living (66.4%). For working patients, common professional risk factors were beliefs, that LBP was due to maintaining a specific posture at work (79.0%) and frequent heavy lifting at work (65.5%). On MCA, we identified 3 risk-factor dimensions (axes) for working and nonworking patients. The main dimension for working patients involved professional risk factors and among these factors, patients' job satisfaction and job recognition largely contribute to this dimension. DISCUSSION: Our results shed in light for the first time the interrelation and the respective contribution of several previously identified cLBP risk factors. They suggest that risk factors representing a "work-related" dimension are the most important cLBP risk factors in the working population

Costs of shoulder pain and resource use in primary health care: a cost-of-illness study in Sweden

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Painful shoulders pose a substantial socioeconomic burden. A prospective cost-of-illness study was performed to assess the costs associated with healthcare use and loss of productivity in patients with shoulder pain in primary health care in Sweden.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was performed in western Sweden, in a region with 24 000 inhabitants. Data were collected during six months from electronic patient records at three primary healthcare centres in two municipalities. All patients between 20 and 64 years of age who presented with shoulder pain to a general practitioner or a physiotherapist were included. Diagnostic codes were used for selection, and the cases were manually controlled. The cost for sick leave was calculated according to the human capital approach. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore uncertainty in various factors used in the model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>204 (103 women) patients, mean age 48 (SD 11) years, were registered. Half of the cases were closed within six weeks, whereas 32 patients (16%) remained in the system for more than six months. A fifth of the patients were responsible for 91% of the total costs, and for 44% of the healthcare costs. The mean healthcare cost per patient was €326 (SD 389) during six months. Physiotherapy treatments accounted for 60%. The costs for sick leave contributed to 84% of the total costs. The mean annual total cost was €4139 per patient. Estimated costs for secondary care increased the total costs by one third.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The model applied in this study provides valuable information that can be used in cost evaluations. Costs for secondary care and particularly for sick leave have a major influence on total costs and interventions that can reduce long periods of sick leave are warranted.</p

Cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for low back pain: a systematic review

Healthcare costs for low back pain (LBP) are increasing rapidly. Hence, it is important to provide treatments that are effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of guideline-endorsed treatments for LBP. We searched nine clinical and economic electronic databases and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies for eligible studies. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for LBP endorsed by the guideline of the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society were included. Two independent reviewers screened search results and extracted data. Data extracted included the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, the treatment comparators, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatment comparators. Twenty-six studies were included. Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP. Massage alone was unlikely to be cost-effective. There were inconsistent results on the cost-effectiveness of advice, insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP, and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications, yoga or relaxation. This review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP. There is little or inconsistent evidence for other treatments endorsed in the guideline

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