Developing clinical prediction models for nonrecovery in older patients seeking care for back pain: the back complaints in the elders prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide and is common in older adults. No clinical prediction models for poor long-term outcomes have been developed in older patients with back pain. This study aimed to develop and internally validate 3 clinical prediction models for nonrecovery in this population. A prospective cohort study in general practice was conducted (Back Complaints in the Elders, Netherlands), including 675 patients >55 years with a new episode of care for back pain. Three definitions of nonrecovery were used combining 6-month and 12-month follow-up data: (1) persistent back pain, (2) persistent disability, and (3) perceived nonrecovery. Sample size calculation resulted in a maximum of 14 candidate predictors that were selected from back pain prognostic literature and clinical experience. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop the models (backward selection procedure). Models' performance was evaluated with explained variance (Nagelkerke's R2), calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test), and discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]) measures. The models were internally validated in 250 bootstrapped samples to correct for overoptimism. All 3 models displayed good overall performance during development and internal validation (ie, R2 > 30%; AUC > 0.77). The model predicting persistent disability performed best, showing good calibration, discrimination (AUC 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.89; optimism-adjusted AUC 0.85), and explained variance (R2 49%, optimism-adjusted R2 46%). Common predictors in all models were: age, chronic duration, disability, a recent back pain episode, and patients' recovery expectations. Spinal morning stiffness and pain during spinal rotation were included in 2 of 3 models. These models should be externally validated before being used in a clinical primary care setting.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.

Natural History of Back Pain in Older Adults over Five Years.

INTRODUCTION: Back pain is a prevalent health problem. Research often focuses on adults. Evidence on the long-term course of back pain in older patients is limited. A prospective cohort study (BACE) was conducted in a primary care setting in the Netherlands. We aim to investigate the 5-year course and medical consumption of older adults (>55 years) presenting with back pain in general practice. METHODS: Patients aged >55 years, consulting their general practitioner with a new back pain episode, were included between 2009 to 2011. Follow-up questionnaires included, for example, pain severity, disability, quality of life, recovery, and medical consumption. RESULTS: A total of 675 patients (mean age ± SD, 66.4 ± 7.6 years) participated, showing a mean (± SD) back pain reduction from 5.2 (± 2.7) to 3.6 (± 2.8) (numeric rating scale, 0 to 10) at 3 months follow-up; disability decreased from 9.8 (± 5.8) to 7.8 (± 6.2) (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, 0 to 24). After 6 months, this remained practically constant over time. Medical consumption was highest in the first months; medication was used by 72% at baseline and approximately one-third (25% to 39%) during follow-up. At 5-year follow-up (response rate 58%; n = 392), 43% had recovered; a majority reported persistent or recurrent back pain. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant improvements in back pain intensity and disability were seen in the first 3 to 6 months of follow-up. A majority of patients does not become pain free within 3 months; this does not improve over 5 years. However, most patients stop consulting health care professionals during follow-up. Current medical strategies may not be sufficient in older back pain patients, where back pain becomes a recurrent or chronic condition in the majority of patients.

Discontinuation of a randomised controlled trial in general practice due to unsuccessful patient recruitment.

BACKGROUND: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice, recruiting incident patients with (sub)acute sciatica, was discontinued because of insufficient recruitment. AIM: To describe factors that influenced the recruitment process and ultimately led to discontinuation of this trial, and to enable others to learn from this experience. DESIGN & SETTING: A pragmatic RCT was designed to compare two pain medication prescription strategies for treatment of (sub)acute sciatica in general practice. After 1 year of patient recruitment, the trial was prematurely terminated. METHOD: To analyse the underperforming recruitment, patient information systems of 20 general practices were screened twice a month to search for eligible patients and identify reasons for non-eligibility. Secondly, after study termination, an open question was distributed to the participating GPs for their views on the recruitment process. RESULTS: A total of 116 GPs from 37 general practices collaborated in the trial. Only eight of 234 patients were included after 12 months. The 22 GPs who offered their opinion on the main reasons for unsuccessful recruitment considered that these were the low incidence rate and strict eligibility criteria, a strong patient and/or GP preference, and time constraints. CONCLUSION: For this RCT, multiple factors were related to recruitment problems but it remains unknown which determinants prevailed. As the research question is unanswered but remains relevant, it is recommended that GPs' daily practice is taken into account when designing an RCT, a pilot study should be performed for feasibility of recruitment, and GP assistants should be involved at an early stage.