Search

Background Low back pain (LBP) causes the highest morbidity burden globally. The purpose of the present study was to project and compare the impact of three strategies for reducing the population health burden of LBP: weight loss, ergonomic interventions, and an exercise program. Methods We have developed a microsimulation model of LBP in Canada using a new modeling platform called SimYouLate. The initial population was derived from Cycle 1 (2001) of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). We modeled an open population 20 years of age and older. Key variables included age, sex, education, body mass index (BMI), type of work, having back problems, pain level in persons with back problems, and exercise participation. The effects of interventions on the risk of LBP were obtained from the CCHS for the effect of BMI, the Global Burden of Disease Study for occupational risks, and a published meta-analysis for the effect of exercise. All interventions lasted from 2021 to 2040. The population health impact of the interventions was calculated as a difference in years lived with disability (YLDs) between the base-case scenario and each intervention scenario, and expressed as YLDs averted per intervention unit or a proportion (%) of total LBP-related YLDs. Results In the base-case scenario, LBP in 2020 was responsible for 424,900 YLDs in Canada and the amount increased to 460,312 YLDs in 2040. The effects of the interventions were as follows: 27,993 (95% CI 23,373, 32,614) YLDs averted over 20 years per 0.1 unit change in log-transformed BMI (9.5% change in BMI) among individuals who were overweight and those with obesity, 19,416 (16,275, 22,557) YLDs per 1% reduction in the proportion of workers exposed to occupational risks, and 26,058 (22,455, 29,661) YLDs averted per 1% increase in the proportion of eligible patients with back problems participating in an exercise program. Conclusions The study provides new data on the relationship between three types of interventions and the resultant reductions in LBP burden in Canada. According to our model, each of the interventions studied could potentially result in a substantial reduction in LBP-related disability.

Additional file 1: Table S1. List of administrative databases used in this study. Fig. S1. Cohort Creation Flow-chart. Table S2. Complete list of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) paid for by the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan

Additional file 1: Appendix 1. Technical description of SimYouLate. Appendix 2. Additional tables and figures.

Additional file 1: Supplemental Table 1. Case definition of all-cause mortality, CVD, VTE, and hip fractures. Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular diseases; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; ICD-9, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; MI, myocardial infarction; PE, pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

Background The use of tramadol among osteoarthritis (OA) patients has been increasing rapidly around the world, but population-based studies on its safety profile among OA patients are scarce. We sought to determine if tramadol use in OA patients is associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and hip fractures compared with commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or codeine. Methods Using administrative health datasets from British Columbia, Canada, we conducted a sequential propensity score-matched cohort study among all OA patients between 2005 and 2013. The tramadol cohort (i.e., tramadol initiation) was matched with four comparator cohorts (i.e., initiation of naproxen, diclofenac, cyclooxygenase-2 [Cox-2] inhibitors, or codeine). Outcomes are all-cause mortality, first-ever CVD, VTE, and hip fractures within the year after the treatment initiation. Patients were followed until they either experienced an event, left the province, or the 1-year follow-up period ended, whichever occurred first. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios after adjusting for competing risk of death. Results Overall, 100,358 OA patients were included (mean age: 68 years, 63% females). All-cause mortality was higher for tramadol compared to NSAIDs with rate differences (RDs/1000 person-years, 95% CI) ranging from 3.3 (0.0–6.7) to 8.1 (4.9–11.4) and hazard ratios (HRs, 95% CI) ranging from 1.2 (1.0–1.4) to 1.5 (1.3–1.8). For CVD, no differences were observed between tramadol and NSAIDs. Tramadol had a higher risk of VTE compared to diclofenac, with RD/1000 person-years (95% CI) of 2.2 (0.7–3.7) and HR (95% CI) of 1.7 (1.3–2.2). Tramadol also had a higher risk of hip fractures compared to diclofenac and Cox-2 inhibitors with RDs/1000 person-years (95% CI) of 1.9 (0.4–3.4) and 1.7 (0.2–3.3), respectively, and HRs (95% CI) of 1.6 (1.2–2.0) and 1.4 (1.1–1.9), respectively. No differences were observed between tramadol and NSAIDs for all events. Conclusions OA patients initiating tramadol have an increased risk of mortality, VTE, and hip fractures within 1 year compared with commonly prescribed NSAIDs, but not with codeine.