Active exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy for persistent disabling low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Opioid substitution to improve the effectiveness of chronic noncancer pain control: a chart review. Chronic disease self-management program for low back pain in the elderly. Counseling plus buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance therapy for opioid dependence. Improving the quality of pain treatment by a tailored pain education programme for cancer patients in chronic pain. Evaluating the accuracy of a simple heuristic to identify serious causes of low back pain. Long-term oral opioid therapy in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. Comparison of short-term response to two spinal manipulation techniques for patients with low back pain in a military beneficiary population. Intrathecal opioid treatment for chronic non-malignant pain: a 3-year prospective study.
A randomized controlled trial.
                To determine 1) whether, among patients with persistent disabling low back pain (LBP), a group program of exercise and education using a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approach, reduces pain and disability over a subsequent 12-month period; 2) the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and 3) whether a priori preference for type of treatment influences outcome.
                There is evidence that both exercise and CBT delivered in specialist settings is effective in improving LBP. There is a lack of evidence on whether such interventions, delivered by trained individuals in primary care, result in improved outcomes.
                The study was conducted in nine family medical practices in East Cheshire, UK. Patients 18 to 65 years of age, consulting with LBP, were recruited; those still reporting LBP 3 months after the initial consultation were randomized between the two trial arms. The intervention arm received a program of eight 2-hour group exercise session over 6 weeks comprising active exercise and education delivered by physiotherapists using a CBT approach. Both arms received an educational booklet and audio-cassette. The primary outcome measures were pain (0-100 Visual Analogue Scale) and disability (Roland and Morris Disability Scale; score 0-24).
                A total of 196 subjects (84%) completed follow-up 12 months after the completion of the intervention program. The intervention showed only a small and nonsignificant effect at reducing pain (-3.6 mm; 95% confidence interval, -8.5, 1.2 mm) and disability (-0.6 score; 95% confidence interval, -1.6, 0.4). The cost of the intervention was low with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound5000 (U.S. $8650) per quality adjusted life year. In addition, patients allocated to the intervention that had expressed a preference for it had clinically important reductions in pain and disability.
                This intervention program produces only modest effects in reducing LBP and disability over a 1-year period. The observation that patient preference for treatment influences outcome warrants further investigation. We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of opioids in the long-term management of chronic noncancer pain. This retrospective chart review included 86 outpatients who started receiving, between 1994 and 1998, long-acting opioids. For each patient, the number of different opioids used and the efficacy and tolerability of each opioid prescribed were noted. During a mean follow-up of 8.8 +/- 6.3 mo, the number of opioids used by each patient was 2.3 +/- 1.4. Patient diagnoses were: back pain (31), neuropathy (20), joint pain (13), visceral pain (7), reflex sympathetic dystrophy (7), headache (5), fibromyalgia (3). The first opioid prescribed was effective for 36% of patients, was stopped because of side effects in 30%, and was stopped for ineffectiveness in 34%. Of the remaining patients, the second opioid prescribed after the failure of the first was effective in 31%, the third in 40%, the fourth in 56%, and the fifth in 14%. There was one case of addiction and no case of tolerance. We conclude that if it is necessary to change the opioid prescription because of intolerable side effects or ineffectiveness, the cumulative percentage of efficacy increases with each new opioid tested. Failure of one opioid cannot predict the patient's response to another. Implications: This study showed that if a patient receiving chronic opioid therapy experiences an intolerable side effect or if the drug is ineffective, changing to a different opioid may result in a lessening or elimination of the side effect and/or improved analgesia. To evaluate the effectiveness of Stanford's Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) for chronic low back pain (LBP) in older Americans.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Community-based program offered at 12 locations.
                Community-dwelling seniors (n = 109) aged 60 and older with chronic LBP of mechanical origin.
                Patients were randomly allocated to the CDSMP or to a 6-month, wait-list control group. The program included one 2.5-hour session per week for 6 weeks. Outcomes evaluated at 6 months included 100-point modified Von Korff pain and disability scales; days with pain and disability; SF-36 general health, energy-fatigue, and emotional well-being scales; 2 scales from the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, self-care attitudes/behaviors, and health services utilization.
                For pain at 6 months, the primary outcome, the adjusted mean difference between the program and control, was -1.0 (P = .835). There was a sizable advantage for the program in disability averaged over the course of the entire 6-month study (-9.2, P = .027), but not at the 6-month follow-up (-5.8, P = .278). There was an interaction between intervention and baseline disability days favoring the program for higher baseline values (P = .007). The CDSMP affected emotional well-being (7.6, P = .037) and energy-fatigue (5.1, P = .274). There were no differences for self-efficacy, pain days, and general health.
                There was no advantage for the CDSMP over a wait-list control for improving pain, general health, self-efficacy, and self-care attitudes in older Americans with chronic LBP. A benefit was suggested for emotional well-being, fatigue, functional disability, and days with disability. The optimal level of counseling and frequency of attendance for medication distribution has not been established for the primary care, office-based buprenorphine-naloxone treatment of opioid dependence.
                We conducted a 24-week randomized, controlled clinical trial with 166 patients assigned to one of three treatments: standard medical management and either once-weekly or thrice-weekly medication dispensing or enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing. Standard medical management was brief, manual-guided, medically focused counseling; enhanced management was similar, but each session was extended. The primary outcomes were the self-reported frequency of illicit opioid use, the percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens, and the maximum number of consecutive weeks of abstinence from illicit opioids.
                The three treatments had similar efficacies with respect to the mean percentage of opioid-negative urine specimens (standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing, 44 percent; standard medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, 40 percent; and enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing, 40 percent; P=0.82) and the maximum number of consecutive weeks during which patients were abstinent from illicit opioids. All three treatments were associated with significant reductions from baseline in the frequency of illicit opioid use, but there were no significant differences among the treatments. The proportion of patients remaining in the study at 24 weeks did not differ significantly among the patients receiving standard medical management and once-weekly medication dispensing (48 percent) or thrice-weekly medication dispensing (43 percent) or enhanced medical management and thrice-weekly medication dispensing (39 percent) (P=0.64). Adherence to buprenorphine-naloxone treatment varied; increased adherence was associated with improved treatment outcomes.
                Among patients receiving buprenorphine-naloxone in primary care for opioid dependence, the efficacy of brief weekly counseling and once-weekly medication dispensing did not differ significantly from that of extended weekly counseling and thrice-weekly dispensing. Strategies to improve buprenorphine-naloxone adherence are needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023283 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
                Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society. Educational interventions, aiming to increase patients' knowledge and attitude regarding pain, can affect pain treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a Pain Education Programme (PEP), on adequacy of pain treatment, and to describe characteristics predicting change in adequacy. The PEP consists of a multi-method approach in which patients are educated about the basic principles regarding pain, instructed how to report pain in a pain diary, how to communicate about pain, and how to contact healthcare providers. The effects of the PEP were evaluated taking into consideration the lack of well-established outcome measures to evaluate adequacy of pain treatment, the lack of long-term follow-up, and the influence of missing data.A prospective, randomized study was utilized in which 313 chronic cancer patients were followed-up until 8 weeks postdischarge. Adequacy of pain treatment was evaluated by means of the Amsterdam Pain Management Index (APMI), consisting of an integrated score of patients' Present Pain Intensity, Average Pain Intensity, and Worst Pain Intensity, corrected for patients' Tolerable Present Pain, with the analgesics used by the patient. At pretest, 60% of the patients in the hospital were treated inadequately for their pain. Postdischarge, the control group patients were significantly more inadequately treated at 2 weeks after discharge (56% vs 41%), at 4 weeks after discharge (62% vs 42%) and at 8 weeks after discharge (57% vs 51%) than the intervention group patients. While the level of inadequacy in the control groups remained relatively stable at all assessment points, a slight increase in the percentage of patients being treated inadequately was found in the intervention group patients over time. A beneficial effect of the PEP was found for patients both with and without district nursing. Variables predicting an improvement in adequacy of pain treatment consisted of the PEP, the APMI score at baseline, patients' level of physical functioning, patients' level of social functioning, the extent of adherence to pain medication, patients' pain knowledge, and the amount of analgesics used. These findings suggest that quality of pain treatment in cancer patients with chronic pain can be enhanced by educating patients about pain and improving active participation in their own pain treatment. The benefit from the PEP, however, decreases slightly over time, pointing at a need for ongoing education.
                Copyright 2001 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Among patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), GPs have to identify those with serious, treatable conditions. However, excluding these conditions in every patient with LPB is time consuming and of low yield. We have suggested that identifying those patients where these serious conditions need to be considered can be made more efficient through asking patient if they feel their LBP is new or unfamiliar in some way.
                To evaluate the diagnostic validity of a simple heuristic based on the patient's view of the familiarity of LBP.
                Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard, nested within a three-arm randomized trial of quality improvement for LBP. A total of 1378 patients presenting, with LBP, to one of 126 participating GPs were included. They were asked whether their LBP was familiar or not (index test). At 1 year, patients were interviewed with regard to relevant conditions that in hindsight might explain their LBP. Reviewers deciding on disease status (reference standard) were blinded to the results of the index test.
                Totally 1190 patients answered the index test question and were available for interview at 1 year. Only four of these had a serious cause of their LBP. Two of these were identified by the familiarity heuristic, resulting in low sensitivity.
                The number of diseased patients was too small to obtain a reliable estimate of sensitivity. Low prevalence of serious disease in primary care poses difficulties for diagnostic research. In hindsight we would question whether an RCT-setting emphasizing non-specific LBP is suitable for this kind of research. At present, the familiarity heuristic cannot be recommended for patients presenting with LBP. In contrast to the use of opioids for the treatment of acute and chronic cancer pain, the administration of chronic opioid therapy for pain not due to malignancy remains controversial. We describe 100 patients who were chronically given opioids for treatment of nonmalignant pain. Most patients experienced neuropathic pain or back pain. We used sustained-release dihydrocodeine, buprenorphine, and sustained-release morphine. Pain reduction was measured with visual analogue scales (VAS), and the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale was used to assess the patient's function. Good pain relief was obtained in 51 patients and partial pain relief was reported by 28 patients. Only 21 patients had no beneficial effect from opioid therapy. There was a close correlation between the sum and the peak VAS values (r = 0.983; p less than 0.0001) and pain reduction was associated with an increase in performance (p less than 0.0001). The most common side effects were constipation and nausea. There were no cases of respiratory depression or addiction to opioids. Our results indicate that opioids can be effective in chronic nonmalignant pain, with side effects that are comparable to those that complicate the treatment of cancer pain. To determine whether military health care beneficiaries with low back pain (LBP) who are likely to respond successfully to spinal manipulation experience a difference in short-term clinical outcomes based on the manipulation technique that is used.
                Sixty patients with LBP identified as likely responders to manipulation underwent a standardized clinical examination and were randomized to receive a lumbopelvic (LP) or lumbar neutral gap (NG) manipulation technique. Outcome measures were a numeric pain rating scale and the modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
                Both the LP and NG groups experienced statistically significant reductions in pain and disability at 48 hours postmanipulation. The improvements seen in each group were small because of the short follow-up. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in pain or disability between the two groups.
                The two manipulation techniques used in this study were equally effective at reducing pain and disability when compared at 48 hours posttreatment. Clinicians may employ either technique for the treatment of LBP and can expect similar outcomes in those who satisfy the clinical prediction rule (CPR). Further research is required to determine whether differences exist at longer-term follow-up periods, after multiple treatment sessions, or in different clinical populations. Intrathecal (IT) opioid therapy is a treatment alternative for patients with severe chronic non-malignant pain. Several uncontrolled retrospective and prospective outcome studies have suggested a benefit in chronic non-malignant pain patients, but uncertainties about patient selection in these studies weaken the results. This study evaluated long-term outcome of IT opioid therapy in chronic non-malignant pain prospectively, and included two comparative groups to improve understanding of selection criteria and relative severity of intrathecal pump recipients (PRs). The study subjects included 38 PRs while the comparative groups included 31 intrathecal candidates who either had an unsuccessful trial, or declined the IT therapy, and another group of 41 newly referred patients. The following data were analyzed at study entry, and at 6 monthly intervals for a 3-year period: Symptom Check List 90 (SLC-90), SF-36 Health survey, Beck Depression Inventory, McGill Pain Questionnaire (short form), Oswestry Disability Index, Pain Drawings and Pain rating on visual analogue scale. Data analysis suggests the study group of PRs had improvements in pain, mood, and function from baseline to 36 months. These same parameters improved among new referrals (less severe patients receiving conservative pain management) while non-recipients significantly worsened. Although PRs improved, they were still worse off at 36 months than new referrals were at baseline. The study showed that when patients with extremely severe pain problems are selected as pump candidates, they will likely improve with the therapy, but their overall severity of pain and symptoms still remains high.
Despite concerns surrounding the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic LBP, there remain few high-quality trials assessing their efficacy. The trials in this review, although achieving high internal validity scores, were characterized by a lack of generalizability, inadequate description of study populations, poor intention-to treat analyses, and limited interpretation of functional improvement. Based on our results, the benefits of opioids in clinical practice for the long-term management of chronic LBP remain questionable. Therefore, further high-quality studies that more closely simulate clinical practice are needed to assess the usefulness, and potential risks, of opioids for individuals with chronic LBP.