- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT04283409
Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? Predicting Response to Exercise for Patients With Low Back Pain
Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? Predicting Response to Exercise Treatments for Patients With Low Back Pain - a Validation Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Background:
Clinical practice guidelines consistently endorse exercise therapy for the treatment of low back pain (LBP). While exercise is more effective than no intervention, the effect size of exercise, like other treatments for LBP, is relatively small. While there are many forms of exercise therapies available (e.g. general exercise, pilates), there is no clear evidence of superiority of one exercise over another. A widely held belief is that the small effect for exercise is due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP and if individual patients could be better matched to the optimal types of exercise, then the effects of treatment would be greater.A recently published study conducted by the study investigators provided preliminary evidence supporting the hypothesis of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise. The study demonstrated that a simple 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to either of the most common exercise approaches for LBP. Participants who had low scores on the LSIQ had better outcomes with graded activity while those with higher scores had better outcomes with motor control exercise. Theoretically, motor control would work best on those that have poor coordination and control of the trunk muscles and graded activity would work best on those with unhelpful beliefs and attitudes towards back pain. Although the results of this study have the potential to transform exercise treatment for LBP, validation and confirmation off the results in a fully powered study using an independent sample is essential before recommending implementation in clinical practice. Validation and impact analysis are crucial steps in the investigation of effect modification models.
Research aims:
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether pre-identified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most prominent exercise therapies (graded activity and motor control) for non-specific LBP.
The secondary aims include a cost-effectiveness analysis of a potential stratified care model.
Exploratory aims include the evaluation of potential new effect modifiers that may strengthen the initial prediction model. This include measures of central pain mechanisms to differentiate nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain.
Methods:
Participants (414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and will be randomized (1:1) to receive either motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will receive 12 sessions of exercise therapy,delivered by a physiotherapist, over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be disability at 2 months measured using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months.
Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitization. The study will follow specific guidelines for the conduction of effect modification studies.
Expected outcomes:
The results of this study will provide the foundation for the implementation of the study results in large scale which would significantly improve the effects of exercise for LBP. Furthermore, it will provide cost-effectiveness information to guide clinical decision making. Implementation of this approach would be simple as both treatments are already widely used and the method to identify subgroups of responders to each approach is straight forward, quick and at no cost.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Ontario
-
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 1C7
- McMaster University
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- chronic non-specific LBP (>3 months) with or without leg pain
- back pain being the primary musculoskeletal complaint of the patient
- between 18 to 80 years of age,
- English speaking (to allow response to questionnaires and communication with physiotherapist),
- moderate or greater pain or disability measured using question 7 and 8 of the SF-36,34
- moderate or high risk classification on the STarT Back Tool indicating appropriateness of physiotherapy and thus an exercise program.
Exclusion Criteria:
- nerve root compromise (2 strength, reflex or sensation affected for the same nerve root)
- suspected or confirmed serious pathology (e.g. infection, fracture, cancer, inflammatory arthritis, cauda equina syndrome)
- pregnancy
- scheduled or on the wait list for surgery during trial period
- cognitive impairment that precludes participant from completing study questionnaires or comply with exercise recommendations (e.g. dementia, Alzheimers)
- severe neuromuscular condition (e.g. spinal cord injury) that precludes participant from engaging in activity exercise.
- clinical assessment indicating that the participant is not suitable for active exercises (by a family physician, or using the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire).
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Motor Control Exercise
The primary goal of motor control exercises is to retrain optimal control and coordination of the spine.
It uses principles of motor learning such as segmentation, simplification and task-specific practice to retrain control of trunk muscles activation, alignment and movement.
The first stage of the treatment involves assessment of the postures, movement patterns and muscle activation associated with symptoms and a retraining program designed to improve activity of muscles assessed to have poor control (usually the deep trunk muscles).
Participants are taught how to contract these muscles independently.
During this stage additional exercises for breathing control, posture of spine and movement are performed.
The second stage of the treatment involves the progression of the exercises towards functional activities, firstly using static then dynamic tasks.
Education is also included.
|
Exercise therapy using principles of motor control and motor learning and education
|
|
Experimental: Graded Activity
The primary goal of graded activity is to address individual modifiable contextual factors associated with the pain experience such as self-efficacy, pain-related fear, kinesiophobia and unhelpful beliefs/behaviors about back pain while at the same time addressing physical impairments such as endurance, muscle strength and balance.
A primary goal of the program is to increase activity tolerance by performing individualized and submaximal exercises in addition to ignoring illness behaviors and reinforcing well behaviors.
Activities in the program are progressed in a time-contingent manner from the baseline assessed ability to a target goal set jointly by patient and therapist.
Cognitive-behavioral principles are used to help patients overcome the natural anxiety associated with pain and activities.
|
Exercise therapy using principles of cognitive behavioral therapy and education
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Oswestry Disability Index
Time Frame: 2 months
|
disease specific disability questionnaire; total score from 0-100 (higher scores represent worse disability)
|
2 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient Specific Functional Scale
Time Frame: 0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
Rate 3 problematic activities; average of the 3 activities generate a total score from 0-10 (lower scores represent worse function)
|
0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
|
Pain Numeric Ranting Scale
Time Frame: 0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
Pain over the last week; total score from 0-10 (higher scores represent worse pain)
|
0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
|
EQ-5D-5L
Time Frame: 0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
Health related quality of life; index score form 0-100 (lower scores represent lower quality of life) in addition Quality- Adjusted Life Years QUALYS) will be calculated.
|
0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
|
IMPACT of low back pain - PROMIS-9
Time Frame: 0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
NIH recommended IMpACT: pain intensity, pain interference and functional status; scored from 8-50 (higher score represents more pain impact)
|
0, 2, 6 and 12 months
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire: Effect Modifier:
Time Frame: 0, 2 and 12 months
|
Measure self reported 'clinical instability'; total score 0-15 (higher scores represent more instability) (Participants will be dichotomized as having instability >=9 or no instability <9)
|
0, 2 and 12 months
|
|
Effect Modifier: OREBRO LBP screening questionnaire
Time Frame: 0, 2 and 12 months
|
Measures attitudes and behavior towards pain; total score 11-192 (higher scores represent worse attitudes and behavior) (Median scores will be used to dichotomize participants into high and low scores)
|
0, 2 and 12 months
|
|
Effect Modifier: Coping strategies questionnaire
Time Frame: 0, 2 and 12 months
|
Measures coping strategies; total score from 0-36 (higher scores represent worse coping) (median scores will be used to dichotomize participants into high or low scores)
|
0, 2 and 12 months
|
|
Effect Modifier: painDetect Questionnaire
Time Frame: 0, 2 and 12 months
|
This questionnaire total score >18 will classify participants into neuropathic or non neuropathic pain(dichotomous outcome)
|
0, 2 and 12 months
|
|
Effect Modifier: SMART clinical checklist
Time Frame: 0, 2 and 12 months
|
The sub-cores of the questionnaire as per SMART et al will be used to used to discriminate between nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain.
(Nominal scale)
|
0, 2 and 12 months
|
|
Effect Modifier: Pain Pressure Threshold Assessment
Time Frame: 0, 2 and 12 months
|
PPT will be assessed at the lumbar spine (point with most pain) and thumbnail (distal point) using an algometer.
Difference in PPT between local and distal sites will be included in the analysis.
(high scores will represent more nociplastic pain)
|
0, 2 and 12 months
|
|
Publicly funded health care costs
Time Frame: 1 year prior to intervention, 12 months follow-up
|
Health care utilization costs will be extracted from the Ontario Health Funder database and an IC/ES (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) algorithm will be used to calculate health care utilization dollars per participant.
|
1 year prior to intervention, 12 months follow-up
|
|
Patient direct health care costs
Time Frame: 12 months follow-up
|
Direct health care costs (e.g.
physiotherapy, travel) will be calculated following the completion of a health care utilization questionnaire.
Total utilization will be reported as dollars per participants
|
12 months follow-up
|
|
Societal health care costs
Time Frame: 12 months follow-up
|
Indirect health care costs (e.g.
work lost productivity) will be calculated following the completion of a health care utilization questionnaire.
Total utilization will be reported as dollars per participants
|
12 months follow-up
|
|
Effect Modifier: TAMPA scale of kinesiophobia
Time Frame: 0, 2 and 12 months
|
Measures fear of movement; total score from 0-52 (higher scores represent worse kinesiophobia) (median scores will be used to dichotomize participants into high or low scores)
|
0, 2 and 12 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Luciana G Macedo, PhD, McMaster University
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Macedo LG, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, Kamper SJ, McAuley JH, Stanton TR, Stafford R, Hodges PW. Predicting response to motor control exercises and graded activity for patients with low back pain: preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2014 Nov;94(11):1543-54. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20140014. Epub 2014 Jul 10.
- Macedo LG, Hodges PW, Bostick G, Hancock M, Laberge M, Hanna S, Spadoni G, Gross A, Schneider J. Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? (WELBack) trial predicting response to exercise treatments for patients with low back pain: a validation randomised controlled trial protocol. BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 20;11(1):e042792. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042792.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- HiREB#7986
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
IPD Sharing Time Frame
IPD Sharing Access Criteria
IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type
- STUDY_PROTOCOL
- SAP
- ICF
- ANALYTIC_CODE
- CSR
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Non-specific Low Back Pain
-
Lincoln University CollegeCairo University; Taif UniversityNot yet recruitingNon Specific Low Back Pain
-
Riphah International UniversityCompletedNon Specific Low Back PainPakistan
-
Laval UniversityMedTeq; Corset Saint-FrancisRecruitingNon-specific Low Back PainCanada
-
Bahçeşehir UniversityNot yet recruitingNon-specific Low Back PainTurkey (Türkiye)
-
Bahçeşehir UniversityNot yet recruitingChronic Non-specific Low Back PainTurkey (Türkiye)
-
Kirsehir Ahi Evran UniversitesiRecruitingEffects of Virtual Reality-Assisted Pain Neuroscience Education on Chronic Nonspecific Low Back PainChronic Non-Specific Low Back PainTurkey (Türkiye)
-
University of HailNot yet recruitingNon Specific Chronic Low Back PainSaudi Arabia
-
Maheen RaufRecruitingNon-specific Chronic Low Back PainPakistan
-
University Hospital, MontpellierNot yet recruitingNon-specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP)
-
Ehab Mohamed Kamel AhmedThe Scientific Research Deanship, University of Ha'ilNot yet recruitingNon-specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP)Saudi Arabia
Clinical Trials on Motor Control Exercises
-
Universidad Complutense de MadridCompleted
-
Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita...Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior.CompletedRelationship Between Clinical Tests and Clinical Outcomes After Motor Control Exercises InterventionChronic Low Back PainBrazil
-
University of Sao PauloCompletedShoulder Impingement SyndromeBrazil
-
University of BrasiliaMilitary Fire Department of the Federal DistrictWithdrawn
-
Riphah International UniversityCompletedNon Specific Chronic Low Back PainPakistan
-
Universidad Rey Juan CarlosCompleted
-
Universidad Autonoma de MadridCompleted
-
University of FaisalabadNot yet recruiting
-
Hacettepe UniversityNot yet recruiting
-
University of Castilla-La ManchaNot yet recruiting