Efficacy of metamizole versus ibuprofen and a short educational intervention versus standard care in acute and subacute low back pain: a study protocol of a randomised, multicentre, factorial trial (EMISI trial)

IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is among the top three most common diseases worldwide, resulting in a life with pain-related disability. To date, no study has assessed the efficacy of metamizole (dipyrone), a non-opioid analgesic and antipyretic prodrug compared with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen, in patients with an acute LBP episode. Further, it is unclear, whether a short educational intervention is superior to usual care alone.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to assess first, whether metamizole is non-inferior to ibuprofen in a new episode of acute or subacute LBP. Second, we aim to assess whether a short educational intervention including evidence-based patient information on the nature of LBP is superior to usual care alone.Methods and analysisAn investigator-initiated multicentre, randomised, double blind trial using a factorial design will be performed. A total of 120 participants with a new episode of LBP will be recruited from GP practices, outpatient clinics and from emergency departments, and randomised into four different treatment groups: ibuprofen alone, ibuprofen and short intervention, metamizole alone, metamizole and short intervention. The primary endpoint for the medical treatment will be change in pain assessed on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale after 14 days. The primary outcome for the short intervention will be change in the Core Outcome Measures Index assessed after 42 days.Ethics, dissemination and fundingThis study has been approved by the responsible Ethics Board (Ethikkommission Bern/2018-01986) and the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic/2019DR4002). Results will be published in open access policy peer-reviewed journals. The study is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 32 003B-179346).Trial registration numberNCT04111315

Do Different Types of Anaesthesia for Cesarean Delivery cause Subacute Low Back Pain ?

Background: Low back pain is a common complaint after cesarean delivery, different causes may be involved however they are poorly understood due to many confounders. Methodology: We performed this retrospective cohort study to assess the intensity of low back pain among 38 women (26 of them underwent cesarean delivery, assessed after 6 to 12 weeks from delivery date, they were classified into: epidural anaesthetic group (Group A) n.=6, spinal anaesthetic group (Group B) n.=13, general anaesthetic group (Group C) n.=7 and they were either primiparous or multiparous who did not receive any type of anaesthesia for at least one year prior to the last obstetric anaesthesia while the other 12 women were the control group (Group D) who didn’t experience any pregnancy or anaesthesia. Results: The mean values of visual analogue scale (VAS) in Group A, Group B, Group C, and Group D were 5.00 ±1.67, 4.62 ±1.12, 5.14 ±1.21, and 2.17 ±0.71, respectively. The ANOVA test revealed a significant difference in VAS among groups A, B, C, and D. Despite, the post-hoc test revealed a significant difference in VAS between group A versus group D, group B versus group D, and group C versus group D, but there were no significant differences between group A versus group B, group A versus group C, and group B versus group C. Conclusion: Cesarean delivery with different anaesthetic types as: epidural, spinal and general anaesthesia was associated with subacute low back pain without significant differences in pain intensity between these anaesthetic types. Key words: Neuraxial Anaesthesia, General Anaesthesia,Cesarean Delivery, Subacute Period, Low Back Pain.

Brief Review on the Etiologies of the Acute and Subacute Low Back Pain

Acute low back pain is a type of pain which usually lasts for six weeks. In the cases that the pain lasts for more than six weeks, subacute low back pain would be defined. This is a brief review on the etiologies of the acute and subacute low back pain.

Effect of Physiotherapy Treatment in the Autonomic Activation and Pain Perception in Male Patients with Non-Specific Subacute Low Back Pain

Introduction: Physiotherapy treatment is a common intervention for low back pain (LBP) patients. These interventions have been related to physiological effects in the central nervous system. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the effect of physiotherapy treatment in patients with LBP in the autonomic nervous system activation and subjective pain perception of patients. Methods: A total of 30 male subjects diagnosed with non-specific subacute LBP received a 50 min session consisting of (a) a manual therapy based on joint mobilization and soft tissues techniques in the lumbo-pelvic area, (b) a stretching program, and (c) motor control exercises of the core muscles. The autonomic modification of participants was assessed prior to and after the physiotherapy treatment. Results: Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis reported a significant increase in average RR (p = 0.001), RMSSD (p = 0.008), LRMSSD (p = 0.001), SDNN (p = 0.005), and PNN50 (p = 0.024) after the session. Frequency-domain measures showed a significant increase in LF (p = 0.030) and HF (p = 0.014), and a decrease in LF/HF ratio (p = 0.046). A significant decrease was found in minimum HR values (p = 0.001) and average HR (p = 0.001). Moreover, maximal HR decreased its value from 116.7 ± 26.1 to 113.7 ± 40.8 after intervention. In addition, subjective pain perception (VAS scores) was significantly lower (p = 0.001) in the post-session assessment. Conclusions: Physiotherapy treatment produced an increase in parasympathetic nervous system activation and a decrease in subjective pain perception in non-specific subacute LBP patients.

Subacute Low Back Pain: infectious spondylodiscitis with epidural and psoas abscess

We describe a case of infectious spondylodiscitis of the lumbar spine complicated by epidural and bilateral psoas abscesses which started with subtle symptoms and a non-specific clinical picture. Diagnosis is based on clinical, laboratory and radiological features. It can be difficult and often delayed due to the rarity of the disease and the high frequency of low back pain in the general population. Our aim is to raise awareness for the possibility of specific low back pain which requires quick and indispensable action from the physician.

Cost comparison of two approaches to chiropractic care for patients with acute and sub-acute low Back pain care episodes: a cohort study

Background Low back pain (LBP) imposes a costly burden upon patients, healthcare insurers, and society overall. Spinal manipulation as practiced by chiropractors has been found be cost-effective for treatment of LBP, but there is wide variation among chiropractors in their approach to clinical care, and the most cost-effective approach to chiropractic care is uncertain. To date, little has been published regarding the cost effectiveness of different approaches to chiropractic care. Thus, the current study presents a cost comparison between chiropractic approaches for patients with acute or subacute care episodes for low back pain. Methods We employed a retrospective cohort design to examine costs of chiropractic care among patients diagnosed with acute or subacute low back pain. The study time period ranged between 07/01/2016 and 12/22/2017. We compared cost outcomes for patients of two cohorts of chiropractors within health care system: Cohort 1) a general network of providers, and Cohort 2) a network providing conservative evidence-based care for rapid resolution of pain. We used generalized linear regression modeling to estimate the comparative influence of demographic and clinical factors on expenditures. Results A total of 25,621 unique patients were included in the analyses. The average cost per patient for Cohort 2 (mean allowed amount $252) was lower compared to Cohort 1 (mean allowed amount $326; 0.77, 95% CI 0.75–0.79, p < .001). Patient and clinician related factors such as health plan, provider region, and sex also significantly influenced costs. Conclusions This study comprehensively analyzed cost data associated with the chiropractic care of adults with acute or sub-acute low back pain cared by two cohorts of chiropractic physicians. In general, providers in Cohort 2 were found to be significantly associated with lower costs for patient care as compared to Cohort 1. Utilization of a clinical model characterized by a patient-centered clinic approach and standardized, best-practice clinical protocols may offer lower cost when compared to non-standardized clinical approaches to chiropractic care.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionLow back pain accounts for more disability than any other musculoskeletal condition and is associated with severe economic burden. Patients commonly present with negative beliefs about low back pain and this can have detrimental effects on their health outcomes. Providing evidence-based, patient-centred education that meets patient needs could help address these negative beliefs and alleviate the substantial low back pain burden. The primary aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of patient education materials on immediate process, clinical and health system outcomes.Methods and analysisThe search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian and systematic searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus. We will also search trial registries and grey literature through the OpenGrey database. Study selection will include a title and abstract scan and full-text review by two authors. Only randomised controlled trials will be included in this review. Trials must include patients with low back pain or sciatica and investigate educational interventions with at least one of the following contrasts: (1) education alone versus no intervention; (2) education alone versus another intervention; (3) education in addition to another intervention versus the same intervention with no education. Data extraction, risk of bias and grading of the quality of evidence will be performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using the PEDro scale, and the quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A random-effects model will be used for each contrast, and results will be pooled if the participants, interventions, and outcomes are homogeneous. If heterogeneity is high (I2 >75%), we will evaluate the magnitude and direction of the differences in effect sizes across studies to determine if it remains reasonable to pool the results. Analyses of acute and subacute low back pain (less than 12 weeks duration) will be performed separately from chronic low back pain (12 weeks or greater duration). Likewise, analyses of short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (6 months or greater) follow-up will be performed separately. Subgroup analyses will be performed on non-specific low back pain, sciatica and mixed populations.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. This study, along with its results, will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

A user-friendly clinical practice guideline summary for managing low back pain in South Africa

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide conveniently packaged evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical decisions. However, intended end-users often do not know how to source, appraise, interpret or choose among CPGs. Moreover, it can be confusing when recommendations on the same topic differ among CPGs, in wording, intent and underpinning evidence.Objectives: This article reports on the processes of: (1) identifying current CPGs for acute and subacute low back pain (LBP) to fit the needs of South African physiotherapists, (2) collating and summarising CPG recommendations to produce a user-friendly end-user product and (3) testing the utility of the summary CPG document on South African physiotherapy clinicians to efficiently determine acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility to inform clinical decision-making.Method: An adapted approach was followed by systematically searching online CPG repositories and online databases for LBP CPGs; screening and critically appraising identified CPGs; summarising recommendations from relevant CPGs and organising them into clinical practice activities. Feedback on utility was obtained from 11 physiotherapists.Results: Three high-quality, international CPGs provided 25 recommendations on the assessment and management of acute and subacute LBP relevant to South African physiotherapy practice. They were organised into 10 headings. Physiotherapy user feedback suggested that this document would assist in clinical decision-making.Conclusion: Organised recommendations extracted from multiple, relevant CPGs provide an end-user-friendly resource for physiotherapists treating LBP.Clinical implications: Collated and organised CPG recommendations may effectively assist South African physiotherapists’ clinical decision-making in assessing and managing patients with acute and subacute LBP.