Dataset Information

Are endogenous opioid mechanisms involved in the effects of aerobic exercise training on chronic low back pain? A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Aerobic exercise is believed to be an effective chronic low back pain (CLBP) intervention, although its mechanisms remain largely untested. This study evaluated whether endogenous opioid (EO) mechanisms contributed to the analgesic effects of an aerobic exercise intervention for CLBP. Individuals with CLBP were randomized to a 6-week, 18-session aerobic exercise intervention (n = 38) or usual activity control (n = 44). Before and after the intervention, participants underwent separate laboratory sessions to assess responses to evoked heat pain after receiving saline placebo or intravenous naloxone (opioid antagonist) in a double-blinded, crossover fashion. Chronic pain intensity and interference were assessed before and after the intervention. Endogenous opioid analgesia was indexed by naloxone-placebo condition differences in evoked pain responses (blockade effects). Relative to controls, exercise participants reported significantly greater pre-post intervention decreases in chronic pain intensity and interference (Ps < 0.04) and larger reductions in placebo condition evoked pain responsiveness (McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form [MPQ]-Total). At the group level, EO analgesia (MPQ-Total blockade effects) increased significantly pre-post intervention only among female exercisers (P = 0.03). Dose-response effects were suggested by a significant positive association in the exercise group between exercise intensity (based on meeting heart rate targets) and EO increases (MPQ-Present Pain Intensity; P = 0.04). Enhanced EO analgesia (MPQ-Total) was associated with a significantly greater improvement in average chronic pain intensity (P = 0.009). Aerobic exercise training in the absence of other interventions appears effective for CLBP management. Aerobic exercise-related enhancements in endogenous pain inhibition, in part EO-related, likely contribute to these benefits.

SUBMITTER: Bruehl S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7669643 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionExercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis.Methods and analysisParticipants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04283409.

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Dataset Information

Are endogenous opioid mechanisms involved in the effects of aerobic exercise training on chronic low back pain? A randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets