Subacute Low Back Pain in Active Duty

Subacute Low Back Pain Clinical Trial

— LBP  

Official title:

Home-based Approaches for Subacute Low Back Pain in Active Duty: Randomized, Controlled Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT03502187
• Other study ID #: HU0001-17-1-TS05 (N17-B01)
• Secondary ID: 18-05885-DoD
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: April 17, 2018
• Est. completion date: May 28, 2020

Study information

• Verified date: February 2020
• Source: University of Tennessee
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The overall objective of this project is to compare three home-managed treatment regimens for subacute low back pain: Progressive Exercise Plan (PEP), NMES (neuromuscular electrical stimulation) core strength training and standard primary care management (PCM). Each of the two treatment arms will be supplemented by Primary Care Management. The specific aim of the study is to determine whether the two treatment regimes are significantly more efficacious than standard PCM alone in improving lower back muscle strength, daily physical activity, physical function, quality of life, and symptoms associated with subacute LBP.

Description:

The overall objective of this project is to compare three home-managed treatment regimens for subacute low back pain: Progressive Exercise Plan (PEP), NMES (neuromuscular electrical stimulation) core strength training and standard primary care management (PCM). The central hypothesis is that the NMES with PCM core strength training and PEP with PCM will show significantly greater improvements in muscle strength, pain, mobility/function, daily activity and quality of life (QOL) than PCM alone in military members with low back pain lasting three to eighteen weeks. The rationale for this study is that increasing torso muscle strength and decreasing pain through strength training exercises will significantly improve mobility, physical activity, QOL and reduce disability. Such outcomes could ultimately result in improved deployability, retention of military personnel and decreased economic costs in this population. The specific aims will be to determine whether the two treatment régimes are significantly more efficacious than standard PCM alone in improving lower back muscle strength, daily physical activity, physical function, quality of life, and symptoms associated with subacute LBP. After consent and baseline testing, active duty male and female subjects, ages 18 to <45, (n=135) with LBP will be randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Each of the two treatment arms will be supplemented by PCM and compared to a group receiving standard PCM alone. All groups will receive nine weeks of home therapy. Using longitudinal mixed regression models, differences in time trends for the outcome variables among controls and those in the treatment groups will be examined. In these regression analyses, the important primary measures will be expressed as a function of time, treatment group, and group-by-time interactions, while controlling for important covariates. Positive results could translate into accelerated rehabilitation, decreased symptoms and lower medical costs with better patient outcomes.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 133
• Est. completion date: May 28, 2020
• Est. primary completion date: May 28, 2020
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 45 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria: Diagnosed with low back pain, categorized as lumbago or unspecified backache;

• greater than 3 weeks and less than 18 weeks since the onset of the episode of LBP;

• active duty military service member at the time of diagnosis;

• age =18 and <45 years;

• ability to provide freely given informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

Those who might be at risk of adverse outcomes from the study interventions will be excluded. This includes individuals with

• recurrence of LBP that is less than 3 months from prior episode;

• a significant co-morbid medical condition (such as severe hypertension, neurological disorder or pacemaker/defibrillator) in which NMES strength training or unsupervised exercise is contraindicated and would pose a safety threat or impair ability to participate;

• previous back surgeries;

• inability or unwillingness to participate in an exercise or strengthening program;

• clinical evidence of a lumbar radiculopathy;

• inability to speak and/or read English;

• pregnancy;

• vision impairment, where participant is classified as legally blind;

• unwillingness to accept random assignment; or

• a score >=23 on Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Back Pain
• Low Back Pain
• Subacute Low Back Pain

Intervention

Behavioral:
• Progressive Exercise Plan
The goal of PEP is to reduce back pain, disability, and improve trunk flexibility, strength and endurance through controlled, gradual, progressive back exercises. PEP teaches muscle strengthening exercises and self-management strategies to promote back fitness. PEP sessions provide a standardized self-management framework for performing the exercises at home. PEP is performed every other day/week for about ~1 hour over a period of 9 weeks. PEP consists of 3 sequential phases with each phase lasting 3 weeks. Exercises become progressively more difficult and intense, focusing on back stretching and strengthening that progressively load and unload the lumbar spine by means of flexion/extension exercises. The PEP group will perform 31 exercise sessions for 60 minutes on alternating days.

Device:
• NeuromuscularElectricalStimulation(NMES)
The NMES treatment group will receive a portable battery-operated device, Recovery Back (Neurotech®, Minnetonka, MN) with a 2-garment site-specific system: back & abdomen. NMES muscle contractions will be elicited by an electrical impulse generated by the Recovery Back system. The device delivers a pre-set program of NMES using a symmetrical biphasic square pulse waveform. (Moore SR, Shurman J, 1997) The garments are light-weight, breathable fabric that wraps around the waist with precise placements for the reusable electrodes. The controller uses a rechargeable battery with charger supplied. The NMES protocol consists of 30-minutes of NMES stimulation alternating between the abdominal and lumbar site over 9-weeks (one day Back training, next day Abdominal training).

Behavioral:
• Primary Care Management (PCM)
All participants will receive standard primary care management for subacute LBP. Primary Care Management follows the clinical practice guidelines for low back pain.(Chou et al., 2007) Service members are to stay as active as possible and progressively increase their activity. Medications prescribed begin with paracetamol and NSAIDs as first-line drugs. Second-line drugs include antidepressants, benzodiazepines, tramadol, and opioids. All participants will receive an information sheet on LBP advising them to remain active and use self-care options such as heat application. To provide an attention control, the PCM only group will receive weekly communication from the study coordinator regarding pain and medication usage.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Blanchfield Army Community Hospital (BACH)	Fort Campbell North	Kentucky

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of Tennessee	Blanchfield Army Community Hospital

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (30)

Baek SO, Cho HK, Kim SY, Jones R, Cho YW, Ahn SH. Changes in deep lumbar stabilizing muscle thickness by transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2016 Jun 17. [Epub ahead of print] — View Citation

Chapman JR, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Bransford RJ, DeVine J, McGirt MJ, Lee MJ. Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 1;36(21 Suppl):S54-68. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef74d. Review. — View Citation

Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT Jr, Shekelle P, Owens DK; Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians; American College of Physicians; American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):478-91. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 5;148(3):247-8. — View Citation

Coghlan S, Crowe L, McCarthyPersson U, Minogue C, Caulfield B. Electrical muscle stimulation for deep stabilizing muscles in abdominal wall. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:2756-9. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2008.4649773. — View Citation

Coghlan S, Crowe L, McCarthypersson U, Minogue C, Caulfield B. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation training results in enhanced activation of spinal stabilizing muscles during spinal loading and improvements in pain ratings. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:7622-5. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091878. — View Citation

Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Jan;17(1):13-35. Review. — View Citation

Enright PL. The six-minute walk test. Respir Care. 2003 Aug;48(8):783-5. Review. — View Citation

Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980 Aug;66(8):271-3. — View Citation

Glaser JA, Baltz MA, Nietert PJ, Bensen CV. Electrical muscle stimulation as an adjunct to exercise therapy in the treatment of nonacute low back pain: a randomized trial. J Pain. 2001 Oct;2(5):295-300. — View Citation

Hansson TH, Bigos SJ, Wortley MK, Spengler DM. The load on the lumbar spine during isometric strength testing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Oct;9(7):720-4. — View Citation

Hayden JA, van Tulder MW, Malmivaara AV, Koes BW. Meta-analysis: exercise therapy for nonspecific low back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2005 May 3;142(9):765-75. — View Citation

Hurst NP, Ruta DA, Kind P. Comparison of the MOS short form-12 (SF12) health status questionnaire with the SF36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1998 Aug;37(8):862-9. — View Citation

Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, Ware JE Jr, Davies AR. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS240-52. — View Citation

Kendall KD, Emery CA, Wiley JP, Ferber R. The effect of the addition of hip strengthening exercises to a lumbopelvic exercise programme for the treatment of non-specific low back pain: A randomized controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2015 Nov;18(6):626-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.006. Epub 2014 Nov 13. — View Citation

Koes BW, van Tulder M, Lin CW, Macedo LG, McAuley J, Maher C. An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J. 2010 Dec;19(12):2075-94. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1502-y. Epub 2010 Jul 3. Review. — View Citation

Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ. 2006 Jun 17;332(7555):1430-4. Review. — View Citation

Lethem J, Slade PD, Troup JD, Bentley G. Outline of a Fear-Avoidance Model of exaggerated pain perception--I. Behav Res Ther. 1983;21(4):401-8. — View Citation

Marshall PW, Murphy BA. Evaluation of functional and neuromuscular changes after exercise rehabilitation for low back pain using a Swiss ball: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006 Sep;29(7):550-60. — View Citation

Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, Altchek DW, O'Brien SJ, Rodeo SA, Williams RJ, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Oct;83(10):1459-69. — View Citation

McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994 Jan;32(1):40-66. — View Citation

McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247-63. — View Citation

Moore SR, Shurman J. Combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for treatment of chronic back pain: a double-blind, repeated measures comparison. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jan;78(1):55-60. — View Citation

Myers JK, Weissman MM. Use of a self-report symptom scale to detect depression in a community sample. Am J Psychiatry. 1980 Sep;137(9):1081-4. — View Citation

Poiraudeau S, Rannou F, Baron G, Henanff LA, Coudeyre E, Rozenberg S, Huas D, Martineau C, Jolivet-Landreau I, Garcia-Macé J, Revel M, Ravaud P. Fear-avoidance beliefs about back pain in patients with subacute low back pain. Pain. 2006 Oct;124(3):305-311. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.04.019. Epub 2006 Jun 5. — View Citation

Porcari JP, Miller J, Cornwell K, Foster C, Gibson M, McLean K, Kernozek T. The effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation training on abdominal strength, endurance, and selected anthropometric measures. J Sports Sci Med. 2005 Mar 1;4(1):66-75. eCollection 2005 Mar 1. — View Citation

Radloff L. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1977;1:385-401.

Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MI. The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia. 1976 Nov;31(9):1191-8. — View Citation

Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Wardlaw D, Russell IT. Developing a valid and reliable measure of health outcome for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Sep 1;19(17):1887-96. — View Citation

Steenstra IA, Munhall C, Irvin E, Oranye N, Passmore S, Van Eerd D, Mahood Q, Hogg-Johnson S. Systematic Review of Prognostic Factors for Return to Work in Workers with Sub Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2017 Sep;27(3):369-381. doi: 10.1007/s10926-016-9666-x. Review. — View Citation

Ware JE, Jr.,, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. User's Manual for the SF-12v2® Health Survey with a Supplement Documenting SF-12® Health Survey. . Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.

* Note: There are 30 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Lower Back Strength-Extension	Torso extension muscle strength is measured with a modified version of the U of Michigan strength test system (Workability Systems, West Chester, Ohio) and a Chattanooga-Baseline® Hand Dynamometer - Digital LCD Gauge - ER™ 300 lb capacity (DJO Global, Chattanooga, Vista, CA USA). To measure trunk extension, the participant stands with their lower anterior abdomen against the padded board. The belt is placed around the posterior back and under the arms. Participants pull against the belt as forcefully as possible. Participants perform two maximal efforts maintaining each voluntary isometric exertion for 5 seconds, separated by 30-second rest; the highest value of the two trials will be accepted.	0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Primary	Lower Back Strength-Flexion	Torso flexion muscle strength is measured with a modified version of the U of Michigan strength test system (Workability Systems, West Chester, Ohio) and a Chattanooga-Baseline® Hand Dynamometer - Digital LCD Gauge - ER™ 300 lb capacity (DJO Global, Chattanooga, Vista, CA USA). For trunk flexion, the participant stands in the apparatus, buttocks against the padded board, the superior edge level with the iliac crest. A canvas belt is around the chest and under the arms horizontal to the force-measuring dynamometer on the apparatus frame. Participants pull against the belt as forcefully as possible. Participants perform two maximal efforts maintaining each voluntary isometric exertion for 5 seconds, separated by 30-second rest; the highest value of the two trials will be accepted.	0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Secondary	Current Pain Severity	The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of pain will be used to assess pain at rest and after activity. (Revill et al., 1976) Participants will complete this scale following the push-ups, sit-ups, 6-minute walk and the lumbar trunk muscle test. This VAS pain subscale is a 10-cm horizontal line index with descriptive anchors at each end. At the far left (0.0 cm) is "no pain" and at the far right (10 cm) is "worst possible pain". The participant is instructed to place a vertical line at some point between the anchors to describe their level of pain.	0, 3, 6, 9 Weeks
Secondary	Impact of Bodily Pain on Normal Work Measured by SF12v2	The Short Form Health Survey Version 2.0 (SF-12v2) Health Survey will be used to determine each participant's overall impact of bodily pain on normal work. The SF12v2 has a question that asks participants to assess the impact of pain on normal work during the previous 4 weeks using options ranging from Not at all to Extremely. Responses are translated to numerical scores ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate less impact of bodily pain.	0, 3, 6, 9 Weeks
Secondary	Physical Activity	Physical activity will be measured using the Fitbit Charge 2 (San Francisco, CA). The Charge 2 is a wrist-worn three-axis accelerometer that measures steps walked, distance traveled, energy expenditure and floors climbed. The unique feature of this device is a wireless function that automatically uploads data to designated mobile phone devices or computers. Physical Activity is reported as average Kcal expended during a seven day period.	0, 3, 6, 9 Weeks
Secondary	Mobility/Function Measured by the 2-minute Push-up Test	The 2-minute push-up test evaluates upper body endurance and strength as well as the stabilizing torso muscles of the abdomen and back. Starting in a prone position, the participant is positioned with their hands on the ground (shoulder width apart), toes in contact with the floor, spine parallel to the floor, elbows and hips in extension. The body moves as a single rigid unit and is lowered to the ground until elbows are at 90° angle. The body is then returned to the starting position by pushing the arms up to full extension. A push-up is counted if the elbows were brought to flexion of 90° or greater and then return to full extension, while keeping the body elevated on the toes. The number of push-ups performed in 2-minutes is recorded.	0, 3, 6, 9 Weeks
Secondary	Mobility/Function Measured by the 2-minute Sit-up Test	The 2-minute sit-up test measures trunk flexion and abdominal endurance. Starting in a supine position, the knee joints are flexed at a 90° angle, with fingers behind the head, soles of the feet and shoulder blades in contact with the floor. With the command to begin, the upper body is raised forward by flexing the abdominal muscles and then lowered. A sit-up is counted if the hands are behind the head, bringing the base of the spine to a vertical position and then returning the shoulder blades to the floor. The number of repetitions performed in 2 minutes is recorded.	0, 3, 6, 9 Weeks
Secondary	Mobility/Function Measured by the 6-minute Walk Test	The 6-Minute Walk Test (6-MWT) measures the distance a participant walks at a "fast" pace over a 6-minute period. Participants will "walk as quickly as you can" with the opportunity to stop and rest if required. This test measures functional capacity of walking. Healthy adults are expected to walk between 400 and 700 meters [1300-2300 feet] on the 6-minute walk test (Enright, 2003). Outcomes are reported in feet walked.	0, 3, 6, 9 Weeks
Secondary	Depressive Symptoms-Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale	The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale is a self-report questionnaire that contains 20 items. Participants were asked to rate how often over the past week they experienced symptoms associated with depression. Scores range from 0-60 with high scores denoting greater depressive symptoms. CES-D scores were recorded at baseline (0 weeks) and subsequent visits. If the baseline score was greater than 23 the participants were not randomized.	0, 3, 6, 9 Weeks