Purpose: Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) causes an enormous burden to patients and tremendous costs for health care systems worldwide. Frequently, treatments are not oriented to existing guidelines. In the future, digital elements may be promising tools to support guidelineoriented treatment in a broader range of patients. The cluster-randomized controlled "Rise-uP" trial aims to support a General Practitioner (GP)-centered back pain treatment (Registration No: DRKS00015048) and includes the following digital elements: 1) electronic case report form (eCRF), 2) a treatment algorithm for guideline-based clinical decision making of GPs, 3) teleconsultation between GPs and pain specialists for patients at risk for development of chronic back pain, and 4) a multidisciplinary mobile back pain app for all patients (Kaia App). Methods: In the Rise-uP trial, 111 GPs throughout Bavaria (southern Germany) were randomized either to the Rise-uP intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG). Rise-uP patients were treated according to the guideline-oriented Rise-uP treatment algorithm. Standard of care was applied to the CG patients with consideration given to the "National guideline for the treatment of non-specific back pain". Pain rating on the numeric rating scale was the primary outcome measure. Psychological measures (anxiety, depression, stress), functional ability, as well as physical and mental wellbeing, served as secondary outcomes. All values were assessed at the beginning of the treatment and at 3-month follow-ups. Results: In total, 1245 patients (IG: 933; CG: 312) with NLBP were included in the study. The Rise-uP group showed a significantly stronger pain reduction compared to the control group after 3 months (IG: M=−33.3% vs CG: M=−14.3%). The Rise-uP group was also superior in secondary outcomes. Furthermore, high-risk patients who received a teleconsultation showed a larger decrease in pain intensity (−43.5%) than CG patients (−14.3%). ANCOVA analysis showed that the impact of teleconsultation was mediated by an increased training activity in the Kaia App. Conclusion: Our results show the superiority of the innovative digital treatment algorithm realized in Rise-uP, even though the CG also received relevant active treatment by their GPs. This provides clear evidence that digital treatment may be a promising tool to improve the quality of treatment of non-specific back pain. In 2021, analyses of routine data from statutory health insurances will enable us to investigate the cost-effectiveness of digital treatment.

BackgroundConsumer surveys provide information on effectiveness and side effects of medical interventions in routine clinical care. A report of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) consumers has not been carried out in Europe.MethodsThe study was carried out from November 2010 to April 2011. Participants diagnosed with FMS rated the effectiveness and side effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological FMS interventions on a 0 to 10 scale, with 10 being most efficacious (harmful). The questionnaire was distributed by the German League for people with Arthritis and Rheumatism and the German Fibromyalgia Association to their members and to all consecutive FMS patients of nine clinical centers of different levels of care.Results1661 questionnaires (95% women, mean age 54 years, mean duration since FMS diagnosis 6.8 years) were analysed. The most frequently used therapies were self-management strategies, prescription pain medication and aerobic exercise. The highest average effectiveness was attributed to whole body and local warmth therapies, thermal bathes, FMS education and resting. The highest average side effects were attributed to strong opioids, local cold therapy, gamma-amino-butyric acid analogues (pregabalin and gabapentin), tramadol and opioid transdermal systems.ConclusionThe German fibromyalgia consumer reports highlight the importance of non-pharmcological therapies in the long-term management of FMS, and challenges the strong recommendations for drug therapies given by FMS-guidelines.

KEDOQ-Schmerz was developed by the German Pain Society (formerly DGSS) as a basic tool for documentation and quality management of pain therapy. It is planned to use KEDOQ-Schmerz as the data basis for nationwide, cross-sectional and independent scientific research in health services in Germany. With comparatively little effort, each participating institution (practices, pain clinics) will be able to provide quality control of their own diagnostic procedures and therapeutic effects by using benchmarking. In future KEDOQ-Schmerz will also be used as a method for external quality management in pain therapy in Germany.

Every physician should be able to treat pain regardless of the specialty, but patients with a risk of chronification or chronic pain should receive care from specialized physicians and non-medical professionals. Specialized pain treatment is an additional qualification in Germany, which may be achieved in different specialties by defined structure criteria and experience. The German Society for the Study of Pain and the Professional Association of the German Society of Anesthetists conducted a survey on specialized outpatient pain treatment settings in Germany, encompassing personal and technical equipment, procedures and interdisciplinary multi-professional cooperation. The survey showed a clear increase in the number of pain treatment settings compared to previous surveys, but with a huge span from small single practice or outpatient services at hospitals to large specialized hospitals. However, the quality criteria suggested by the pain treatment societies were not always met. Treatment options for patients with a risk of chronification and chronic pain show regional variations and are insufficiently developed.

The ICD classification does not provide the opportunity to adequately identify pain patients. Therefore we developed an alternative method for the identification and classification of pain patients which is based on prescription and diagnoses data from the year 2006 of one nationwide sickness fund (DAK) and which is led by two main assumptions: 1. Beneficiaries without prescription of an analgetic drug but with a diagnosis pattern that is characteristic of patients who are treated with opioids are also likely to be pain patients. 2. Each combination of diagnosis groups can be traced back to one primary diagnosis out of a diagnosis group according to the patient classification system CCS (Clinical Classifications Software). The selection of this diagnosis group (CCS) allows for the allocation of the beneficiary to only one pain type. As a result we identified 65 combinations of CCS diagnosis groups--aggregated to nine "CCS pain types"--to which 77.1% of all patients with at least two opioid prescriptions can be allocated: 26.3% to pain due to arthrosis, 18.0% to pain due to intervertebral disc illnesses, 13.1% to other specific back pain, 6.7% to neuropathic pain, 4.5% to unspecific back pain, 4.2% to headache, 2.4% to pain after traumatic fractures, 1.3% to pain of multimorbid, high-maintenance patients, and 0.6% to cancer pain. Based on our method beneficiaries who have a high probability of suffering from moderate to strong pain can be identified and included in further claims data analyses of health care delivery and utilization pattern of pain-related disorders in Germany.