Low Back Pain

Take the Guideline Challenge

By Frank M. Painter|May 16, 2017|Clinical Guidelines, Low Back Pain|

Take the Guideline Challenge

SOURCE: ACA News ~ May 15, 2017

By Christine Goertz, DC, PhD

Dr. Goertz is senior scientific advisor for the ACA. She also serves as vice chancellor for research and health policy at Palmer College of Chiropractic and is the CEO of the Spine Institute for Quality (Spine IQ)

In my last blog post, I talked about the unprecedented opportunity the chiropractic profession has to make a critical difference in areas of great public health impact, such as low back pain. I strongly believe that if we do the right thing right now, the chiropractic profession is uniquely positioned to significantly impact the quality of spine care delivery, increasing access to chiropractic care for millions of patients who desperately need conservative treatment for spine-related conditions. The flipside is that if we don’t take right action now, chiropractic risks becoming a marginalized profession that’s on the outside looking in as other health care providers take ownership of musculoskeletal conditions and spinal manipulation.

So what is right action? Recently, I asked this question of several of my colleagues who influence policy at the highest levels of research and/or health care delivery in the United States. One of those people was Francis Collins, MD, PhD, director of the National Institutes of Health. [1] Dr. Collins responded by saying:

Chiropractic’s commitment to evidence-based practice and to addressing gaps in the scientific basis of chiropractic care is vital for the progress of the field. Robust research on the safety and effectiveness of chiropractic therapies in the management of common musculoskeletal complaints must continue to be a high priority for the profession. Advancing evidence-based chiropractic care will further the integration of chiropractic into medical systems at a time when the need for effective approaches to improve outcomes for patients with chronic pain could not be more pressing.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain Guidelines Page and the:

Best Practices in Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

Elevated Production of Nociceptive CC-chemokines

By Frank M. Painter|April 22, 2017|Low Back Pain, Spinal Joint Pain|

Elevated Production of Nociceptive CC-chemokines and sE-selectin in Patients with Low Back Pain and the Effects of Spinal Manipulation: A Non-randomized Clinical Trial

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Clin J Pain. 2017 (Apr 19) [Epub]

Julita A. Teodorczyk-Injeyan, PhD,
Marion McGregor, PhD, DC,
John J. Triano, DC, PhD,
H. Stephen Injeyan, PhD, DC

Graduate Education and Research Programs,
Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND: The involvement of inflammatory components in the pathophysiology of low back pain is poorly understood. It has been suggested that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) may exert anti-inflammatory effects.

PURPOSE: To determine the involvement of inflammation-associated chemokines (CC series) in the pathogenesis of non-specific low back pain and to evaluate the effect of SMT on that process.

METHODS: Patients presenting with non-radicular, non-specific low back pain (minimum pain score 3 on 10 point visual analogue scale, VAS) were recruited according to stringent inclusion criteria. They were evaluated for appropriateness to treat using a high velocity low amplitude manipulative thrust (HVLT) in the lumbar-lumbosacral region. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and following the administration of a series of 6 HVLTs on alternate days over the period of two weeks. The in vitro levels of CC chemokines (CCL2, CCL3 and CCL4) production and plasma levels of an inflammatory biomarker, soluble E-selectin, were determined at baseline and at the termination of treatments two weeks later.

RESULTS: Compared with asymptomatic controls baseline production of all chemokines was significantly elevated in acute (P=0.004 – <0.0001), and that of CCL2 and CCL4 in chronic LBP patients (P<0.0001). Furthermore, CCL4 production was significantly higher (P<0.0001) in the acute versus chronic LBP group. sE-selectin levels were significantly higher (P=0.003) in chronic but not in acute LBP patients. Following SMT, patient reported outcomes showed significant (P<0.0001) improvements in VAS and ODI scores. This was accompanied by a significant decline in CCL 3 production (P<0.0001) in both groups of patients. Change scores for CCL4 production differed significantly (P<0.0001) only for the acute LBP cohort, and no effect on the production of CCL2 or plasma sE-selectin levels was noted in either group.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic Page and the:

Chiropractic and Spinal Pain Management

(more…)

0

Do Older Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain Differ

By Frank M. Painter|April 11, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Low Back Pain|

Do Older Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain Differ from Younger Adults in Regards to Baseline Characteristics and Prognosis?

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Eur J Pain. 2017 (Mar 14) [Epub]

Manogharan S, Kongsted A, Ferreira ML, Hancock MJ.

Faculty of Medicine and Health Science,
Macquarie University,
Sydney, NSW, Australia

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) in older adults is poorly understood because the vast majority of the LBP research has focused on the working aged population. The aim of this study was to compare older adults consulting with chronic LBP to middle aged and young adults consulting with chronic LBP, in terms of their baseline characteristics, and pain and disability outcomes over 1 year.

METHODS: Data were systematically collected as part of routine care in a secondary care spine clinic. At initial presentation patients answered a self-report questionnaire and underwent a physical examination. Patients older than 65 were classified as older adults and compared to middle aged (45-65 years old) and younger adults (17-44 years old) for 10 baseline characteristics. Pain intensity and disability were collected at 6 and 12 month follow-ups and compared between age groups.

RESULTS: A total of 14,479 participants were included in the study. Of these 3,087 (21%) patients were older adults, 6,071 (42%) were middle aged and 5,321 (37%) were young adults. At presentation older adults were statistically different to the middle aged and younger adults for most characteristics measured (e.g. less intense back pain, more leg pain and more depression); however, the differences were small. The change in pain and disability over 12 months did not differ between age groups.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

Pain Location Matters: The Impact of Leg Pain on Health Care Use, Work Disability and Quality of Life in Patients with Low Back Pain

By Frank M. Painter|April 5, 2017|Low Back Pain, Outcome Assessment, Sciatica|

Pain Location Matters: The Impact of Leg Pain on Health Care Use, Work Disability and Quality of Life in Patients with Low Back Pain

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Eur Spine J. 2015 (Mar); 24 (3): 444–451

Samantha L. Hider, David G. T. Whitehurst,
Elaine Thomas, Nadine E. Foster

Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre,
Keele University, Keele,
Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.

PURPOSE: In low back pain (LBP) patients, those with radiating leg pain or sciatica have poorer pain and disability outcomes. Few studies have assessed the effect of leg pain on health care use and quality of life.

METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 1,581 UK LBP primary care consulters. Back pain, employment, health care utilisation, and quality of life (EQ-5D) data were collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. At baseline, patients were classified as reporting

(1) LBP only

(2) LBP and leg pain above the knee only (LBP + AK) or

(3) LBP and leg pain extending below the knee (LBP + BK).

RESULTS: Self-reported leg pain was common; at baseline 645 (41%) reported LBP only, 392 (25%) reported LBP + AK and 544 (34%) reported LBP + BK. Patients with LBP + BK, compared to those with LBP only, were significantly more likely to be unemployed, take time off work, consult their family doctor, receive physical therapy, or be referred to other health care practitioners. There were statistically significant decrements in EQ-5D scores for LBP + AK compared to LBP only, and for LBP + BK compared to LBP + AK (p ≤ 0.05 for all comparisons).

There are more articles like this @ our:

Radiculopathy and Chiropractic Page and the:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

A Comparison of Chiropractic Manipulation Methods and Usual Medical Care for Low Back Pain

By Frank M. Painter|February 22, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Low Back Pain|

A Comparison of Chiropractic Manipulation Methods and Usual Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: J Altern Complement Med. 2014 (May); 20 (5): A22–23

Michael Schneider, Mitchell Haas, Joel Stevans,
Ronald Glick, Doug Landsittel

University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to compare manual and mechanical methods of spinal manipulation (Activator) for patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain. These are the two most common methods of spinal manipulation used by chiropractors, but there is insufficient evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness against each other. Our secondary aim was to compare both methods with usual medical care.

Methods: In a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, we randomized 107 participants with acute and sub-acute low back pain to: 1) usual medical care; 2) manual side-posture manipulation; and 3) mechanical manipulation (Activator). The primary outcome was self-reported disability (Oswestry) at four weeks. Pain was rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. Pain and disability scores were regressed on grouping variables adjusted for baseline covariates.

Results: Manual manipulation demonstrated a clinically important and statistically significant reduction of disability and pain compared to Activator (adjusted mean difference=7.9 and 1.3 points respectively, P<.05) and compared to usual medical care (7.0 and 1.8 points respectively, P<.05). There were no significant adjusted mean differences between Activator and usual medical care in disability and pain (0.9 and 0.5 points respectively, P>.05).

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic

(more…)

0

Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain

By Frank M. Painter|February 15, 2017|Guidelines, Low Back Pain|

Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Annals of Internal Medicine 2017 (Apr 4); 166 (7): 514–530 ~ FULL TEXT

Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA; Timothy J. Wilt, MD, MPH;
Robert M. McLean, MD; Mary Ann Forciea, MD;
for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians (*)

From the American College of Physicians
and Penn Health System,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, Connecticut.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) released updated guidelines this week that recommend the use of noninvasive, non-drug treatments for low back pain before resorting to drug therapies, which were found to have limited benefits. One of the non-drug options cited by ACP is spinal manipulation.

Chiropractors, who diagnose and treat musculoskeletal disorders, are experts in spinal manipulation.

This is just one article from a series of 5:

The Non-pharmacologic Therapies Low Back Pain

On May 1, 2017, the New York Times published an editorial by Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., that mentions the new guideline in a generally positive light. The article appeared in a major, mainstream publication read by millions of people. “Spinal manipulation — along with other less traditional therapies like heat, meditation and acupuncture — seems to be as effective as many other more medical therapies we prescribe, and as safe, if not safer,” he wrote.

Talking points on new ACP guideline:

The chiropractic profession has advocated for decades that conservative care choices such as chiropractic be the first line of treatment for low-back pain. Now, with this new guideline, the medical profession is recognizing the benefits of conservative care for this common problem.
Thanks to this guideline, it’s possible more medical doctors will choose to refer their patients with low-back pain to chiropractors.
The ACP guideline was adopted by the American Chiropractic Association, which also adopted the Clinical Compass guidelines on chiropractic for LBP at its HOD meeting in March.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain.

METHODS: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews published through April 2015 on noninvasive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain. Updated searches were performed through November 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall function, improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in work disability and return to work, global improvement, number of back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation).

WARNING: Before following Recommendation #1,
please review the Contra-indications to NSAIDS use.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Guidelines Section

(more…)

0