Search

BACKGROUND: Community-based health check kiosks provide opportunities to improve the detection and long-term monitoring of hypertension. We describe the sociodemographic and cardiovascular characteristics of first-time and repeat users of these kiosks. METHOD: This was an observational study. Deidentified data collected from 430 SiSU Health consumer-facing health check stations in pharmacies across Australia between January 2018 and November 2020 were analyzed. Using a logistic regression, we identified factors associated with repeat checks in the overall cohort and in those with possible hypertension presented as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: A total of 982 122 unique checks were conducted; 54% (n=530 139) of the health check users were female, and the average age of all users was 38.2 (SD 16.0) years. Of those that used the kiosks, 13% used them more than once. Overall, 22% met the definition of possible hypertension, 16% (n=136 345) had blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mm Hg, 4% (n=34 349) had BP >160/100 mm Hg, and 13% (121 282) reported taking BP medicines. In the adjusted analysis, first-time users who were aged 50 to 69 years (aOR 0.91 [95% CI 0.87–0.96]) or ≥70 years (aOR 0.68 [95% CI 0.62–0.74]) were less likely than young users (18–29 years) to return for a second health check. Those in very remote areas were 61% (aOR 0.39 [95% CI 0.19–0.72]), and smokers were 13% less likely to return (aOR 0.87 [95% CI 0.83–0.91]). People taking BP medications were more likely to return (aOR 1.16 [95% CI 1.09–1.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Community-based health checks may identify people with high BP and could provide an option for self-monitoring. Broader implementation is needed to increase the reach in rural areas and among the elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most people with LBP receive the diagnosis of nonspecific LBP or sciatica. Medications are commonly prescribed but have limited analgesic effects and are associated with adverse events. A novel treatment approach is to target neurotrophins such as nerve growth factor (NGF) to reduce pain intensity. NGF inhibitors have been tested in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in recent years, showing promise for the treatment of chronic LBP; however, their efficacy and safety need to be evaluated to guide regulatory actions. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medicines targeting neurotrophins in patients with LBP and sciatica. MethodsIn this systematic review, we will include published and unpublished records of parallel RCTs and the first phase of crossover RCTs that compare the effects of medicines targeting neurotrophins with any control group. We will search the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, and WHO International Clinical Registry Platform databases from inception. Pairs of authors will independently screen the records for eligibility, and we will independently extract data in duplicate. We will conduct a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) with the studies that report sufficient data and compare the medicines of interest versus placebo. We will use random-effects models and calculate estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We will assess the risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and form judgments of confidence in the evidence according to GRADE recommendations. We will use the PRISMA statement to report the findings. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses by condition, type of medication, and time point. We will also assess the impact of a potential new trial on an existing meta-analysis. Data from studies that meet inclusion criteria but cannot be included in the meta-analysis will be reported narratively. ResultsThe protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on May 19, 2020. As of December 2020, we have identified 1932 records. ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of NGF inhibitors for pain in patients with nonspecific LBP and sciatica. The inclusion of new studies and unpublished data may improve the precision of the effect estimates and guide regulatory actions of the medications for LBP and sciatica. Trial RegistrationOpen Science Framework; https://osf.io/b8adn/ International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/22905

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the difference in confidence to become active despite low back pain in people who were exposed to one of 2 video interventions delivered on social media, compared to no intervention. DESIGN: A proof-of-concept, 3-group randomized controlled trial, in a 1:1:1 ratio. METHODS: Participants aged 18 years and over, with and without low back pain, were recruited via the social media channel Facebook, to view either a humorous video, a neutral video, or to no intervention. The videos were delivered online, explained evidence-based management for low back pain, and were designed to "go viral." The primary outcome was confidence in becoming active despite pain, measured using the Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire (Item 10) (ranges from 0 [not at all confident] to 6 [completely confident]) immediately after watching the video. We aimed to capture the real-time impact and immediate reactions that contributed to the content's reach. RESULTS: Among 1933 randomized participants (mean [standard deviation] age: 58.9 [14.0] years, 1285 [75%] women), 1232 [70%] had low back pain and 88.8% completed the primary outcome. One thousand two hundred sixty-four participants were randomized to receive a video intervention, and 633 participants did not receive a video. On a 6-point scale, individuals exposed to either video (n = 1088) showed a mean confidence level 0.3 points higher (95% confidence interval: 0.1, 0.6) compared with no video (n = 630). CONCLUSION: Participants who viewed a brief video intervention reported a very small difference in confidence to become active despite low back pain, compared with no intervention. The difference may lack clinical relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Low back pain contributes to an increasing global health burden exacerbated by unsustained improvements from current treatments. There is a need to develop, and test interventions to maintain initial improvements from low back pain treatments. One option is to implement a booster intervention. This study aimed to develop and test the feasibility of implementing a booster intervention delivered remotely to supplement the benefits from a complex intervention for chronic low back pain. Method: This study was nested in the RESOLVE trial. The booster intervention was developed by an expert group, including a clinical psychologist, exercise physiologist and physiotherapists, and based on a motivational interviewing framework. We developed a conversational flow chart to support the clinician to guide participants towards achieving their pre‐specified personal goals and future low back pain self‐management. Participants with chronic low back pain who were aged over 18 years and fluent in English were recruited. The booster intervention was delivered in one session, remotely, by telephone. The intervention was considered feasible if: participants were able to be contacted or <3 contacts were necessary to arrange the booster session; there were sufficient willing participants (<15% of sample unwilling to participate); and participants and research clinicians reported a perceived benefit of >7/10. Results: Fifty participants with chronic non‐specific low back pain were recruited to test the feasibility of implementing the booster intervention. Less than three contact attempts were necessary to arrange the booster session, only one participant declined to participate. Participants perceived the session to be beneficial; on a 0 to 10 scale of perceived benefit, the average score recorded was 8.3 (SD 2.0). Clinicians also reported a moderate perceived benefit to the participant; the average score recorded by clinicians was 6.3 (SD 1.6). Conclusion: We developed a step by step, simple booster intervention that was perceived to be beneficial to participants with chronic low back pain. The booster can feasibly be delivered remotely following a complex intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explored the relationship between sleep quality and next-day pain intensity for people with low back pain and investigated whether there was any evidence that this relationship was causal. We conducted a secondary analysis of an observational study that investigated sleep quality in people with low back pain. People with low back pain were recruited from primary care and the community. Sleep quality was measured with subjective (self-report) and objective (polysomnography (PSG)) measures. PSG analysis classifies sleep into stages, of which slow-wave sleep (SWS) is thought to have a key role in maintaining or increasing pain intensity. We drew directed acyclic graphs to identify possible confounders of the relationship between both measures of sleep quality, and pain intensity. We constructed two linear regression models to explore the effect of subjective and objective sleep quality on next-day pain intensity before and after confounder adjustment. Thirty-nine participants were included in the study. For participants with low back pain, self-reported better quality sleep β=−0.38 (95% CI −0.63 to −0.13), or spending a greater proportion of time in SWS β=−0.12 (95% CI −0.22 to −0.02) was associated with lower next day pain intensity. After confounder adjustment, the effect reduced and was no longer significant for either self-reported β=−0.18 (95% CI −0.46 to 0.10), or SWS β=−0.08 (95% CI −0.18 to 0.03). Sleep quality, whether measured by self-report or proportion of time in SWS, was associated with next day pain intensity for people with low back pain. However, this relationship is likely to be confounded and therefore not likely to be causal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This observational study evaluated people's attitudes towards educational statements and tested whether this predicted intention to self-manage low back pain (LBP). People with or without LBP who were older than 18 years and fluent in written English were recruited. Participants completed an online survey asking demographic questions and questions on the presence or absence of LBP, its duration, and intensity. We assessed attitude toward educational statements and conducted linear regression analyses to investigate the relationship between attitude toward each statement and intention to self-manage. We recruited 656 participants, n = 345 (53.6%), with LBP of varying duration. On average, participants had a positive attitude toward all statements except one; participants with chronic LBP had a negative attitude toward a statement relating to the cause of LBP. The effect of attitude on intention to self-manage was dependent on whether someone had LBP and for how long. For example, increased intention to self-manage was predicted by a positive attitude toward educational statements related to staying active (β = 0.22 [CI 0.11-0.33]) in participants without pain, statements about reassurance (β = 0.33 [CI 0.16-0.49]) for participants with acute or subacute LBP, and statements about the severity of back pain (β = 0.25 [CI 0.18-0.33]) for participants with chronic LBP. We noted differences in attitude toward educational messages and individuals' intention to self-manage LBP depending on pain duration. Self-management could be encouraged with specific reassurance in people with acute or subacute LBP and education about severity in people with chronic LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. Methods We searched published and trial registry reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. Results Nine studies (3370 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) may reduce pain at 4 weeks (mean difference [MD] −6.75, 95% CI: −8.61, −4.90) and 12 weeks (MD −6.16, 95% CI: −8.38, −3.94), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at 4 weeks (MD −1.40, 95% CI: −8.26, 5.46), at 12 weeks (MD −2.91, 95% CI: −13.69, 7.67) and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.78, 6.00). Conclusion Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects compared to those observed in commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinician time and resources may be underutilised if the treatment they offer does not match patient expectations and attitudes. We developed a questionnaire (AxEL-Q) to guide clinicians toward elements of first-line care that are pertinent to their patients with low back pain.Methods: We used guidance from the COSMIN consortium to develop the questionnaire and evaluated it in a sample of people with low back pain of any duration. Participants were recruited from the community, were over 18 years and fluent in English. Statements that represented first-line care were identified. Semantic scales were used to measure attitude towards these statements. These items were combined to develop the questionnaire draft. Construct validity was evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and hypotheses testing, comparing to the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated and floor and ceiling effects calculated.Results: We recruited 345 participants, and had complete data for analysis for 313 participants. The questionnaire draft was reduced to a 3-Factor questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 comprised 9 items and evaluated Attitude toward staying active, Factor 2 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward low back pain being rarely caused by a serious health problem, Factor 3 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward not needing to know the cause of back pain to manage it effectively. There was a strong inverse association between each factor and the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and a moderate positive association with the modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Each independent factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; Cronbach α Factor 1 = 0.92, Factor 2 = 0.91, Factor 3 = 0.90 and adequate interclass correlation coefficients; Factor 1 = 0.71, Factor 2 = 0.73, Factor 3 = 0.79.Conclusion: This study demonstrates acceptable construct validity and reliability of the AxEL-Q, providing clinicians with an insight into the likelihood of patients following first-line care at the outset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain. Methods: We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology. Discussion: This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019145257 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This systematic review aimed to investigate whether the administration of hypnotic medicines, z-drugs, melatonin or benzodiazepines, reduced pain intensity postoperatively. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Psych info, Central and PubMed databases were searched, from inception to February 2020 to identify relevant trials. The search was extended, post hoc, to include meta-Register of Controlled Trials, the Web of Science and the conference booklets for the 14th, 15th, and 16th International Association for the Study of Pain conferences. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and cross-checked the extracted data. Results: The search retrieved 5546 articles. After full-text screening, 15 trials were included, which had randomised 1252 participants. There is moderate-quality evidence that in the short-term [WMD − 1.06, CI − 1.48 to − 0.64, p ≤.01] and low-quality evidence that in the medium-term [WMD − 0.90, CI − 1.43 to − 0.37, p ≤.01] postoperative period oral zolpidem 5/10 mg with other analgesic medicines reduced pain intensity compared to the same analgesic medicines alone. There is low-quality evidence that melatonin was not effective on postoperative pain intensity compared to placebo. The results of benzodiazepines on pain intensity were mixed. The authors reported no significant adverse events. Conclusions: There is promising evidence that the hypnotic medicine zolpidem, adjuvant to other analgesics, is effective at achieving a minimally clinically important difference in pain intensity postoperatively. There is no consistent effect of melatonin or benzodiazepines on postoperative pain intensity. Readers should interpret these results with some caution due to the lack of data on safety, the small number of trials included in the pooled effects and their sample sizes. Systematic review registration: The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO ID=CRD42015025327. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]