Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

Background. Internet delivered interventions may provide a route to rapid support for behavioural self-management for low back pain (LBP) that could be widely applied within primary care. Although evidence is emerging that more complex technologies (mobile apps linked to digital wristbands) can have some impact on LBP-related disability, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of highly accessible, web-based support for self-management for LBP. Methods and results. We conducted a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial, testing ‘SupportBack’, an accessible internet intervention developed specifically for primary care. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the SupportBack interventions in reducing LBP-related physical disability in primary care patients. Participants were randomised to 1 of 3 arms: 1) Usual care + internet intervention + physiotherapy telephone support, 2) Usual care + internet intervention, 3) Usual care alone. Utilising a repeated measures design, the primary outcome for the trial was disability over 12 months using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: 826 were randomised, with follow-up rates: 6 weeks = 83%; 3 months = 72%; 6 months = 70%; 12 months = 79%. Analysis is ongoing, comparing each intervention arm versus usual care alone. The key results will be presented at the conference. Conclusion. We believe this to be the largest trial of it's kind internationally. The trial will extend knowledge regarding the effectiveness of highly accessible internet interventions to support self-management and activity in people with LBP consulting in primary care. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Source of funding: NIHR HTA Project number 16/111/78

Background. Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual, health care and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) is investigating whether stratified primary care for sciatica is more effective and cost-effective than usual, non-stratified primary care. Stratified care involves subgrouping patients to one of three groups based on a combination of prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one of these groups are ‘fast-tracked’ with an MRI scan to spinal specialist opinion. Our aim was to understand the perspectives of clinicians on the acceptability of this ‘fast-track’ pathway. Methods. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists and spinal surgeons (n=20 in total). Interviews were fully transcribed, and data were analysed using the constant comparison method. Results. Across all groups, clinicians identified potential added value in ‘fast-tracking’ some sciatica patients in terms of patient reassurance based on MRI scan findings. Whilst spinal physiotherapists felt that most ‘fast track’ patients were appropriate, some spinal physiotherapists and GPs had concerns that patients with symptom durations of less than 6 weeks might be inappropriately fast-tracked since their symptoms may still resolve without the need for invasive treatments. Spinal surgeons felt it was acceptable for patients with short symptom durations to be ‘fast-tracked’, but to provide early reassurance rather than direct treatment. Conclusion. Whilst clinicians saw added value in a group of sciatica patients being ‘fast-tracked’ to specialist opinion, there was some reservation about moving away from the usual stepped care, ‘wait and see’ approach for patients with short symptom duration. Conflicts of interest statement. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Funding support is also received from an NIHR Research Professorship for Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015), who is an NIHR Senior Investigator, and a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award for Kika Konstantinou. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. The study was approved by the NRES Committee West Midlands – Solihull, 17/03/2015, ref: 15/WM/0078. Trial registration: ISRCTN75449581

Background and purpose. The prevalence of back pain has remained relatively constant in the population in spite of previous interventions. Persons with sub-acute back pain are assumed to benefit from extended multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdiciplinary and multisectorial, intersectorial or trans-sectorial interventions as an alternative to traditional mono-professional interventions. The purpose of this health technology assessment (HTA) was to document the possible effect of such interventions in patients suffering from back pain of 4-12 weeks duration. Methods and results. A systematic literature review is the overall basis for this HTA and the analysis of the interventions in relation to technology, patients, organization, and economics. HTA reports, systematic reviews, and recent primary studies were included. Further, primary data from Danish institutions (public and private) with experience in working with this technology were collected. There is moderate evidence that early multidiciplnary, interdisciplinary and transdiciplinary interventions are more effective than monodiciplinary interventions or no interventions in primary care. The effects are mainly seen in relation to reduced sick leave at or beyond 12-months follow-up and not in relation to reduced pain or improved function. The interventions appear to be cost-effective. Danish back centers mainly use sequential and/or parallel collaborative models. Conclusions. Extended multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdiciplinary and multisectorial, intersectorial or trans-sectorial interventions delivered to patients with back pain of 4-12 weeks duration reduce sick-leave and appear to be cost-effective. The optimal content of such interventions cannot be determined but elements of cognitive behavioral therapy combined with graded exercise is used most frequently

Funding. This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). NEF is a Senior NIHR Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). KK was supported by a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lectureship award. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the Health Technology Assessment programme or the Department of Health. Background and Purpose. Stratified care (SC) has previously been found to be a cost-effective approach for primary care LBP patients. The SCOPiC trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a modified SC model combining prognostic and clinical characteristics to allocate sciatica patients into one of three groups (with matched care pathways) versus non-stratified, usual care (UC). Methods. Cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12-months. Resource use and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) data were obtained from postal questionnaires, mean costs and QALYs were calculated for each trial arm along with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The base case analysis was by intention-to-treat, and performed from NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective. Sensitivity analyses included healthcare provider and societal perspectives, as well as analyses for each of the three patient groups. Results. 476 patients were randomised (238 per arm). Mean NHS/PSS costs (SD) recorded were £663.58 for SC and £617.37 for UC. Mean QALYs (SD) were 0.659 (0.173) for SC and 0.671 (0.168) for UC; the adjusted mean difference in QALYs was −0.011 (−0.035, 0.013). In this base-case analysis, the chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY was only 19%. Similarly, low probabilities of effectiveness were observed in all sensitivity analyses. The chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 ranged from 18% to 52% for each of the three patient groups. Conclusions. Overall, the SC model that we tested for sciatica in primary care was not a cost-effective option compared to usual, non-stratified care. No sources of funding. No conflicts of interest

Background and Purpose. Healthcare for sciatica is usually ‘stepped’ with initial advice and analgesia, then physiotherapy, then more invasive interventions if symptoms continue. The SCOPiC trial tested a stratified care algorithm combining prognostic and clinical characteristics to allocate patients into one of three groups, with matched care pathways, and compared the effectiveness of stratified care (SC) with non-stratified, usual care (UC). Methods. Pragmatic two-parallel arm RCT with 476 adults recruited from 42 GP practices and randomised (1:1) to either SC or UC (238 per arm). In SC, participants in group 1 were offered up to 2 advice/treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, group 2 were offered up to 6 physiotherapy sessions, and group 3 was ‘fast-tracked’ to MRI and spinal specialist opinion. Primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (6-point ordinal scale) collected via text messages. Secondary outcomes (4 and 12 months) included leg and back pain intensity, physical function, psychological status, time-off-work, satisfaction with care. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Results. Primary outcome data were obtained from 89.3% (88.3% SC, 90.3% UC). Survival analysis showed a small but not statistically significant difference in time to resolution of symptoms (SC reached resolution 2 weeks earlier than UC; HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.89, 1.46)). There were no significant between-arm differences in secondary outcomes. Conclusion. The SC model, tested in this trial was not more effective than UC. On average, patients in both arms made similar good improvements over time, on most outcomes. No conflicts of interest. Funding: This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). NEF is a Senior NIHR Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). KK was supported by a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lectureship award. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the Health Technology Assessment programme or the Department of Health

Background. Recruitment to time and target in clinical trials is a key challenge requiring careful estimation of numbers of potential participants. The SCOPiC trial ((HTA 12/201/09) (ISRCTN75449581)) is investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica in primary care. Here, we describe the approaches followed to achieve recruitment of our required sample size (n=470), the challenges encountered and required adaptations. Methods. We used recruitment data from the SCOPiC trial and its internal pilot, to show the differences between estimated and actual numbers of patients from consultation to participation in the trial. Patients were consented to the trial if they had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (with at least 70% confidence) and met the trial eligibility criteria. Results. Initial recruitment estimates suggested we needed a source population of 146,000 adults registered at approximately 30 GP practices, and a monthly trial recruitment target of 22 patients per month over 22 months. The internal pilot trial phase resulted in revisions of these estimates to 256,000 and 42 GP practices. To date, 1,623 patients have been screened for eligibility and 450 randomised. The main reason for ineligibility is low confidence in the diagnosis of sciatica. Conclusion. Our experience highlights the challenge of recruitment to clinical trials of sciatica, particularly in terms of case definition, and the need for careful planning and an internal pilot phase prior to a main trial. We believe our experience will be helpful to others conducting trials with sciatica patients. No conflicts of interest. Funding. NEF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. KK is supported through a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award. The SCOPiC trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

Purpose and background. Over two-thirds of pregnant women experience low back pain (LBP) that interferes with everyday activities, work and sleep. Acupuncture appears a safe, promising intervention but there are no high quality trial data, regarding its clinical or cost-effectiveness in comparison to standard care. Methods. EASE Back was a feasibility and pilot RCT designed to inform a full trial evaluating the addition of acupuncture to standard care for pregnancy-related LBP. In preparation for the pilot trial, phase 1 of EASE Back consisted of semi-structured interviews exploring the views of pregnant women, midwives and physiotherapists about pregnancy-related LBP, use of acupuncture, and participation in clinical trials. Transcript data were anonymised and analysed using thematic analysis. Three members of the team independently coded a sample of transcripts to develop the coding framework. Results. 17 women, 15 midwives and 21 physiotherapists were interviewed (total n=53). Findings highlighted the impact of LBP in pregnancy, the paucity of effective treatment options and the challenges of recruiting pregnant women with LBP into research. Women and midwives expressed few concerns over the use and safety of acupuncture; physiotherapists were more cautious and had concerns about safety. Conclusions. Acupuncture for pregnancy- related LBP appears to be acceptable to women and midwives. Future research needs to consider strategies to support recruitment and retention, and should consider including interviews with eligible women who decline to take part in order to understand their reasons, as well as with women receiving treatment so as to understand their experiences of taking part. This abstract has not been published in whole or substantial part, nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. This project presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research's Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Reference Number 10/69/05) and an NIHR Research Professorship for N.E. Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA or the Department of Health

Aims

Scoliosis is a lateral curvature of the spine with associated rotation, often causing distress due to appearance. For some curves, there is good evidence to support the use of a spinal brace, worn for 20 to 24 hours a day to minimize the curve, making it as straight as possible during growth, preventing progression. Compliance can be poor due to appearance and comfort. A night-time brace, worn for eight to 12 hours, can achieve higher levels of curve correction while patients are supine, and could be preferable for patients, but evidence of efficacy is limited. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of ‘full-time bracing’ versus ‘night-time bracing’ in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).