Dataset Information

AAAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Low Back Pain with and Without Lower Extremity Pain.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for which people visit their doctor. Between 12% and 15% of the US population seek care for spine pain each year, with associated costs exceeding $200 billion. Up to 80% of adults will experience acute low back pain at some point in their lives. This staggering prevalence supports the need for increased research to support tailored clinical care of low back pain. This work proposes a multidimensional conceptual taxonomy.

Methods

A multidisciplinary task force of the ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) with clinical and research expertise performed a focused review and analysis, applying the AAAPT five-dimensional framework to acute low back pain.

Results

Application of the AAAPT framework yielded the following: 1) Core Criteria: location, timing, and severity of acute low back pain were defined; 2) Common Features: character and expected trajectories were established in relevant subgroups, and common pain assessment tools were identified; 3) Modulating Factors: biological, psychological, and social factors that modulate interindividual variability were delineated; 4) Impact/Functional Consequences: domains of impact were outlined and defined; 5) Neurobiological Mechanisms: putative mechanisms were specified including nerve injury, inflammation, peripheral and central sensitization, and affective and social processing of acute low back pain.

Conclusions

The goal of applying the AAAPT taxonomy to acute low back pain is to improve its assessment through a defined evidence and consensus-driven structure. The criteria proposed will enable more rigorous meta-analyses and promote more generalizable studies of interindividual variation in acute low back pain and its potential underlying mechanisms.

SUBMITTER: Nicol AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8453619 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chronic low back and lower extremity pain is mainly caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and radiculitis. Various surgery and nonsurgical modalities, including epidural injections, have been used to treat LDH or radiculitis. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the effects of the two interventions in managing various chronic low and lower extremity pain.A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effect of local anesthetic with or without steroids. The outcomes included pain relief, functional improvement, opioid intake, and therapeutic procedural characteristics. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects or fixed-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity between the included studies.10 RCTs (involving 1111 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that 41.7% of patients who received local anesthetic with steroid (group 1) and 40.2% of patients who received local anesthetic alone (group 2) had significant improvement in pain relief. And the Numeric Rating Scale pain scales were significantly reduced by 4.09 scores (95% CI: -4.26, -3.91), and 4.12 (95% CI: -4.35, -3.89) scores, respectively. Similarly, 39.8% of patients in group 1 and 40.7% of patients in group 2 achieved significantly improved functional status. The Oswestry Disability Index in the two groups were reduced by 14.5 (95% CI: -15.24, -13.75) and 12.37 (95% CI: -16.13, -8.62), respectively. The average procedures per year in group 1 was 3.68 ± 1.17 and 3.68 ± 1.26 in group 2 with an average total relief per year of 31.67 ± 13.17 weeks and 32.64 ± 13.92 weeks, respectively. The opioid intake decreased from baseline by 8.81 mg (95% CI: -12.24, -5.38) and 16.92 mg (95% CI: -22.71, -11.12) in the two groups, respectively.This meta-analysis confirms that epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids have beneficial but similar effects in the treatment of patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain.

Project description:ImportanceLow back pain (LBP) with or without lower extremity pain (LEP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Previous studies investigating costs in this population targeted patients receiving surgery. Little is known about health care utilization among patients who do not undergo surgery.ObjectivesTo assess use of health care resources for LBP and LEP management and analyze associated costs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used a retrospective analysis of a commercial database containing inpatient and outpatient data for more than 75 million individuals. Participants were US adults who were newly diagnosed with LBP or LEP between 2008 and 2015, did not have a red-flag diagnosis, and were opiate naive prior to diagnosis. Dates of analysis were October 6, 2018, to March 7, 2019.ExposuresNewly diagnosed LBP or LEP.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was total cost of care within the first 6 and 12 months following diagnosis, stratified by whether patients received spinal surgery. An assessment was performed to determine whether patients who did not undergo surgery received care in accordance with proposed guidelines for conservative LBP and LEP management. Costs resulting from use of different health care services were estimated.ResultsA total of 2 498 013 adult patients with a new LBP or LEP diagnosis (median [interquartile range] age, 47 [36-58] years; 1 373 076 [55.0%] female) were identified. More than half (55.7%) received no intervention. Only 1.2% of patients received surgery, but they accounted for 29.3% of total 12-month costs ($784 million). Total costs of care among the 98.8% of patients who did not receive surgery were $1.8 billion. Patients who did not undergo surgery frequently received care that was inconsistent with clinical guidelines for LBP and LEP: 32.3% of these patients received imaging within 30 days of diagnosis and 35.3% received imaging without a trial of physical therapy.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that surgery is rare among patients with newly diagnosed LBP and LEP but remains a significant driver of spending. Early imaging in patients who do not undergo surgery was also a major driver of increased health care expenditures. Avoidable costs among patients with typically self-limited conditions result in considerable economic burden to the US health care system.

Project description:BackgroundThe morbidity and mortality associated with opioid and benzodiazepine co-prescription is a pressing national concern. Little is known about patterns of opioid and benzodiazepine use in patients with acute low back pain or lower extremity pain.ObjectiveTo characterize patterns of opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among opioid-naïve, newly diagnosed low back pain (LBP) or lower extremity pain (LEP) patients and to investigate the relationship between benzodiazepine prescribing and long-term opioid use.Design/settingWe performed a retrospective analysis of a commercial database containing claims for more than 75 million enrollees in the USA.ParticipantsParticipants were adult patients newly diagnosed with LBP or LEP between 2008 and 2015 who did not have a red flag diagnosis, had not received an opioid prescription in the 6 months prior to diagnosis, and had 12 months of continuous enrollment after diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresAmong patients receiving at least one opioid prescription within 12 months of diagnosis, we defined discrete patterns of benzodiazepine prescribing-continued use, new use, stopped use, and never use. We tested the association of these prescription patterns with long-term opioid use, defined as six or more fills within 12 months.ResultsWe identified 2,497,653 opioid-naïve patients with newly diagnosed LBP or LEP. Between 2008 and 2015, 31.9% and 11.5% of these patients received opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, respectively, within 12 months of diagnosis. Rates of opioid prescription decreased from 34.8% in 2008 to 27.0% in 2015 (P?<?0.001); however, prescribing of benzodiazepines only decreased from 11.6% in 2008 to 10.8% in 2015. Patients with continued or new benzodiazepine use consistently used more opioids than patients who never used or stopped using benzodiazepines during the study period (one-way ANOVA, P?<?0.001). For patients with continued and new benzodiazepine use, the odds ratio of long-term opioid use compared with those never prescribed a benzodiazepine was 2.99 (95% CI, 2.89-3.08) and 2.68 (95% CI, 2.62-2.75), respectively.LimitationsThis study used administrative claims analyses, which rely on accuracy and completeness of diagnostic, procedural, and prescription codes.ConclusionOverall opioid prescribing for low back pain or lower extremity pain decreased substantially during the study period, indicating a shift in management within the medical community. Rates of benzodiazepine prescribing, however, remained at approximately 11%. Concurrent prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids after LBP or LEP diagnosis were associated with increased risk of long-term opioid use.

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.