1. Home
  2. Back Pain

Back Pain

Recognizing Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Guide for Primary Care

Author/s: 
Magrey, Marina N., Danve, Abhijeet S., Ermann, Joerg, Walsh, Jessica A.

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is an important cause of chronic low back pain and affects approximately 1% of the US population. The back pain associated with axSpA has a characteristic pattern referred to as inflammatory back pain (IBP). Features of IBP include insidious onset before age 45 years, association with morning stiffness, improvement with exercise but not rest, alternating buttock pain, and good response to treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In patients with IBP, it is essential to look for other features associated with spondyloarthritis (SpA), such as enthesitis, dactylitis, peripheral arthritis, extra-articular manifestations (eg, psoriasis, uveitis, or inflammatory bowel disease), human leukocyte antigen B27 positivity, and a family history of SpA. Axial SpA is underrecognized, and a delay of several years between symptom onset and diagnosis is common. However, with new and effective therapies available for the treatment of active axSpA, early recognition and diagnosis are of critical importance. For this narrative review, we conducted a literature search of English-language articles using PubMed. Individual searches were performed to identify potential articles of interest related to axSpA (search terms: ["axSpA" OR "axial SpA" OR "axial spondyloarthritis" OR "ankylosing spondylitis"]) in combination with terms related to IBP ("inflammatory back pain" OR "IBP" OR "chronic back pain" OR "CBP" OR "lower back pain" OR "LBP"), diagnosis (["diagn∗" OR "classification"] AND ["criteria" OR "recommend∗" OR "guidelines"]), and referral ("refer∗"). No date range was formally selected, as we were interested in providing an overview of the evolution of these concepts in clinical practice. We supplemented the review with insights based on our clinical expertise. Patients with chronic back pain should be screened for IBP and other SpA features; suspicion for axSpA should trigger referral to a rheumatologist for further evaluation.

Keywords 
back pain Axial Spondyloarthritis primary care

Recognizing Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Guide for Primary Care

Author/s: 
Magrey, M.N., Danve, A.S., Ermann, J., Walsh, J.A.

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is an important cause of chronic low back pain and affects approximately 1% of the US population. The back pain associated with axSpA has a characteristic pattern referred to as inflammatory back pain (IBP). Features of IBP include insidious onset before age 45 years, association with morning stiffness, improvement with exercise but not rest, alternating buttock pain, and good response to treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In patients with IBP, it is essential to look for other features associated with spondyloarthritis (SpA), such as enthesitis, dactylitis, peripheral arthritis, extra-articular manifestations (eg, psoriasis, uveitis, or inflammatory bowel disease), human leukocyte antigen B27 positivity, and a family history of SpA. Axial SpA is underrecognized, and a delay of several years between symptom onset and diagnosis is common. However, with new and effective therapies available for the treatment of active axSpA, early recognition and diagnosis are of critical importance. For this narrative review, we conducted a literature search of English-language articles using PubMed. Individual searches were performed to identify potential articles of interest related to axSpA (search terms: ["axSpA" OR "axial SpA" OR "axial spondyloarthritis" OR "ankylosing spondylitis"]) in combination with terms related to IBP ("inflammatory back pain" OR "IBP" OR "chronic back pain" OR "CBP" OR "lower back pain" OR "LBP"), diagnosis (["diagn∗" OR "classification"] AND ["criteria" OR "recommend∗" OR "guidelines"]), and referral ("refer∗"). No date range was formally selected, as we were interested in providing an overview of the evolution of these concepts in clinical practice. We supplemented the review with insights based on our clinical expertise. Patients with chronic back pain should be screened for IBP and other SpA features; suspicion for axSpA should trigger referral to a rheumatologist for further evaluation.

Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Craniosacral therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author/s: 
Haller, H, Lauche, R, Sundberg, T, Dobos, G, Cramer, H

OBJECTIVES:

To systematically assess the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain.

METHODS:

PubMed, Central, Scopus, PsycInfo and Cinahl were searched up to August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain intensity and functional disability (primary outcomes) using Hedges' correction for small samples. Secondary outcomes included physical/mental quality of life, global improvement, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS:

Ten RCTs of 681 patients with neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included. CST showed greater post intervention effects on: pain intensity (SMD = -0.32, 95%CI = [- 0.61,-0.02]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.92,-0.24]) compared to treatment as usual; on pain intensity (SMD = -0.63, 95%CI = [- 0.90,-0.37]) and disability (SMD = -0.54, 95%CI = [- 0.81,-0.28]) compared to manual/non-manual sham; and on pain intensity (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.89,-0.16]) and disability (SMD = -0.58, 95%CI = [- 0.95,-0.21]) compared to active manual treatments. At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD = -0.59, 95%CI = [- 0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD = -0.53, 95%CI = [- 0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups.

DISCUSSION:

In patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain.

Keywords 
chronic pain Complementary Therapies Craniosacral therapy meta-analysis systematic review
Subscribe to Back Pain