孟德尔随机化确定的慢性腰痛因果危险因素:横断面队列分析。

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.029
Patricia Zheng, Aaron Scheffler, Susan Ewing, Trisha F Hue, Sara Jones Berkeley, Saam Morshed, Wolf Mehling, Abel Torres-Espin, Anoop Galivanche, Jeffrey Lotz, Thomas Peterson, Conor O'Neill
{"title":"孟德尔随机化确定的慢性腰痛因果危险因素:横断面队列分析。","authors":"Patricia Zheng, Aaron Scheffler, Susan Ewing, Trisha F Hue, Sara Jones Berkeley, Saam Morshed, Wolf Mehling, Abel Torres-Espin, Anoop Galivanche, Jeffrey Lotz, Thomas Peterson, Conor O'Neill","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>There are a number of risk factors- from biological, psychological, and social domains- for nonspecific chronic low back pain (cLBP). Many cLBP treatments target risk factors on the assumption that the targeted factor is not just associated with cLBP but is also a cause (i.e., a causal risk factor). In most cases this is a strong assumption, primarily due to the possibility of confounding variables. False assumptions about the causal relationships between risk factors and cLBP likely contribute to the generally marginal results from cLBP treatments.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objectives of this study were to a) using rigorous confounding control compare associations between modifiable causal risk factors identified by Mendelian randomization (MR) studies with associations in a cLBP population and b) estimate the association of these risk factors with cLBP outcomes.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>Cross sectional analysis of a longitudinal, online, observational study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>1,376 participants in BACKHOME, a longitudinal observational e-Cohort of U.S. adults with cLBP that is part of the NIH Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Pain, Enjoyment of Life, and General Activity (PEG) Scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five risk factors were selected based on evidence from MR randomization studies: sleep disturbance, depression, BMI, alcohol use, and smoking status. Confounders were identified using the ESC-DAG approach, a rigorous method for building directed acyclic graphs based on causal criteria. Strong evidence for confounding was found for age, female sex, education, relationship status, financial strain, anxiety, fear avoidance and catastrophizing. These variables were used to determine the adjustment sets for the primary analysis. Potential confounders with weaker evidence were used for a sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants had the following characteristics: age 54.9±14.4 years, 67.4% female, 60% never smokers, 29.9% overweight, 39.5% obese, PROMIS sleep disturbance T-score 54.8±8.0, PROMIS depression T-score 52.6±10.1, Fear-avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire 11.6±5.9, Patient Catastrophizing Scale 4.5±2.6, PEG 4.4±2.2. In the adjusted models, alcohol use, sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity were associated with PEG, after adjusting for confounding variables identified via a DAG constructed using a rigorous protocol. The adjusted effect estimates- the expected change in the PEG outcome for every standard deviation increase or decrease in the exposure (or category shift for categorical exposures) were the largest for sleep disturbance and obesity. Each SD increase in the PROMIS sleep disturbance T-score resulted in a mean 0.77 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.88) point increase in baseline PEG score. Compared to participants with normal BMI, adjusted mean PEG score was slightly higher by 0.37 points (95% CI: 0.09, 0.65) for overweight participants, about 0.8 to 0.9 points higher for those in obesity classes I and II, and 1.39 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.80) points higher for the most obese participants. Each SD increase in the PROMIS depression T-score was associated with a mean 0.28 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.40) point increase in baseline PEG score, while each SD decrease in number of alcoholic drinks per week resulted in a mean 0.12 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.23) increase in baseline PEG score in the adjusted model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Several modifiable causal risk factors for cLBP - alcohol use, sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity- are associated with PEG, after adjusting for confounding variables identified via a DAG constructed using a rigorous protocol. Convergence of our findings for sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity with the results from MR studies, which have different designs and biases, strengthens the evidence for causal relationships between these risk factors and cLBP. The estimated effect of change in a risk factor on change in PEG were the largest for sleep disturbance and obesity. Future analyses will evaluate these relationships with longitudinal data.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chronic low back pain causal risk factors identified by Mendelian randomization: a cross-sectional cohort analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Patricia Zheng, Aaron Scheffler, Susan Ewing, Trisha F Hue, Sara Jones Berkeley, Saam Morshed, Wolf Mehling, Abel Torres-Espin, Anoop Galivanche, Jeffrey Lotz, Thomas Peterson, Conor O'Neill\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>There are a number of risk factors- from biological, psychological, and social domains- for nonspecific chronic low back pain (cLBP). Many cLBP treatments target risk factors on the assumption that the targeted factor is not just associated with cLBP but is also a cause (i.e., a causal risk factor). In most cases this is a strong assumption, primarily due to the possibility of confounding variables. False assumptions about the causal relationships between risk factors and cLBP likely contribute to the generally marginal results from cLBP treatments.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objectives of this study were to a) using rigorous confounding control compare associations between modifiable causal risk factors identified by Mendelian randomization (MR) studies with associations in a cLBP population and b) estimate the association of these risk factors with cLBP outcomes.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>Cross sectional analysis of a longitudinal, online, observational study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>1,376 participants in BACKHOME, a longitudinal observational e-Cohort of U.S. adults with cLBP that is part of the NIH Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Pain, Enjoyment of Life, and General Activity (PEG) Scale.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five risk factors were selected based on evidence from MR randomization studies: sleep disturbance, depression, BMI, alcohol use, and smoking status. Confounders were identified using the ESC-DAG approach, a rigorous method for building directed acyclic graphs based on causal criteria. Strong evidence for confounding was found for age, female sex, education, relationship status, financial strain, anxiety, fear avoidance and catastrophizing. These variables were used to determine the adjustment sets for the primary analysis. Potential confounders with weaker evidence were used for a sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants had the following characteristics: age 54.9±14.4 years, 67.4% female, 60% never smokers, 29.9% overweight, 39.5% obese, PROMIS sleep disturbance T-score 54.8±8.0, PROMIS depression T-score 52.6±10.1, Fear-avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire 11.6±5.9, Patient Catastrophizing Scale 4.5±2.6, PEG 4.4±2.2. In the adjusted models, alcohol use, sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity were associated with PEG, after adjusting for confounding variables identified via a DAG constructed using a rigorous protocol. The adjusted effect estimates- the expected change in the PEG outcome for every standard deviation increase or decrease in the exposure (or category shift for categorical exposures) were the largest for sleep disturbance and obesity. Each SD increase in the PROMIS sleep disturbance T-score resulted in a mean 0.77 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.88) point increase in baseline PEG score. Compared to participants with normal BMI, adjusted mean PEG score was slightly higher by 0.37 points (95% CI: 0.09, 0.65) for overweight participants, about 0.8 to 0.9 points higher for those in obesity classes I and II, and 1.39 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.80) points higher for the most obese participants. Each SD increase in the PROMIS depression T-score was associated with a mean 0.28 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.40) point increase in baseline PEG score, while each SD decrease in number of alcoholic drinks per week resulted in a mean 0.12 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.23) increase in baseline PEG score in the adjusted model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Several modifiable causal risk factors for cLBP - alcohol use, sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity- are associated with PEG, after adjusting for confounding variables identified via a DAG constructed using a rigorous protocol. Convergence of our findings for sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity with the results from MR studies, which have different designs and biases, strengthens the evidence for causal relationships between these risk factors and cLBP. The estimated effect of change in a risk factor on change in PEG were the largest for sleep disturbance and obesity. Future analyses will evaluate these relationships with longitudinal data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:非特异性慢性腰痛(cLBP)有许多危险因素——来自生物学、心理和社会领域。许多cLBP治疗的目标是危险因素,假设目标因素不仅与cLBP相关,而且也是一个原因(即因果风险因素)。在大多数情况下,这是一个强有力的假设,主要是由于混杂变量的可能性。关于危险因素与cLBP之间因果关系的错误假设可能导致cLBP治疗的总体边际结果。目的:本研究的目的是:a)使用严格的混杂对照比较孟德尔随机化(MR)研究确定的可改变的因果危险因素与cLBP人群关联之间的关联;b)估计这些危险因素与cLBP结果的关联。研究设计/设置:纵向、在线、观察性研究的横断面分析。患者样本:BACKHOME的1,376名参与者,BACKHOME是美国国立卫生研究院背痛联盟(BACPAC)研究项目的一部分,是美国cLBP成人的纵向观察电子队列。结果测量:疼痛、生活享受和一般活动(PEG)量表。方法:根据MR随机化研究的证据选择5个危险因素:睡眠障碍、抑郁、BMI、饮酒和吸烟状况。使用ESC-DAG方法确定混杂因素,这是一种基于因果标准构建有向无环图的严格方法。在年龄、女性性别、教育程度、关系状况、经济压力、焦虑、恐惧回避和灾难化等因素中发现了强有力的混杂证据。这些变量用于确定初步分析的调整集。使用证据较弱的潜在混杂因素进行敏感性分析。结果:参与者具有以下特征:年龄54.9±14.4岁,67.4%为女性,60%为从不吸烟,29.9%为超重,39.5%为肥胖,PROMIS睡眠障碍t -评分54.8±8.0,PROMIS抑郁t -评分52.6±10.1,恐惧回避信念问卷11.6±5.9,患者灾难化量表4.5±2.6,PEG 4.4±2.2。在调整后的模型中,酒精使用、睡眠障碍、抑郁和肥胖与PEG相关,这是通过使用严格的方案构建的DAG来调整混杂变量后得出的。调整后的效应估计-暴露增加或减少每个标准差的PEG结果的预期变化(或分类暴露的类别转移)对于睡眠障碍和肥胖是最大的。PROMIS睡眠障碍t评分每增加一个标准差,导致基线PEG评分平均增加0.77点(95% CI: 0.66, 0.88)。与BMI正常的参与者相比,超重的参与者调整后的平均PEG得分略高0.37分(95% CI: 0.09, 0.65), I和II类肥胖的参与者高0.8至0.9分,最肥胖的参与者高1.39分(95% CI: 0.98, 1.80)。PROMIS抑郁t评分每增加一个标准差,基线PEG评分平均增加0.28 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.40)点,而每周饮酒次数每减少一个标准差,调整模型中基线PEG评分平均增加0.12 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.23)点。结论:cLBP的几个可改变的因果风险因素——酒精使用、睡眠障碍、抑郁和肥胖——在调整了使用严格协议构建的DAG确定的混杂变量后,与PEG相关。我们对睡眠障碍、抑郁和肥胖的研究结果与MR研究的结果一致,这些研究有不同的设计和偏差,加强了这些风险因素与cLBP之间因果关系的证据。据估计,风险因素的变化对PEG变化的影响在睡眠障碍和肥胖中最大。未来的分析将用纵向数据来评估这些关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Chronic low back pain causal risk factors identified by Mendelian randomization: a cross-sectional cohort analysis.

Background context: There are a number of risk factors- from biological, psychological, and social domains- for nonspecific chronic low back pain (cLBP). Many cLBP treatments target risk factors on the assumption that the targeted factor is not just associated with cLBP but is also a cause (i.e., a causal risk factor). In most cases this is a strong assumption, primarily due to the possibility of confounding variables. False assumptions about the causal relationships between risk factors and cLBP likely contribute to the generally marginal results from cLBP treatments.

Purpose: The objectives of this study were to a) using rigorous confounding control compare associations between modifiable causal risk factors identified by Mendelian randomization (MR) studies with associations in a cLBP population and b) estimate the association of these risk factors with cLBP outcomes.

Study design/setting: Cross sectional analysis of a longitudinal, online, observational study.

Patient sample: 1,376 participants in BACKHOME, a longitudinal observational e-Cohort of U.S. adults with cLBP that is part of the NIH Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program.

Outcome measures: Pain, Enjoyment of Life, and General Activity (PEG) Scale.

Methods: Five risk factors were selected based on evidence from MR randomization studies: sleep disturbance, depression, BMI, alcohol use, and smoking status. Confounders were identified using the ESC-DAG approach, a rigorous method for building directed acyclic graphs based on causal criteria. Strong evidence for confounding was found for age, female sex, education, relationship status, financial strain, anxiety, fear avoidance and catastrophizing. These variables were used to determine the adjustment sets for the primary analysis. Potential confounders with weaker evidence were used for a sensitivity analysis.

Results: Participants had the following characteristics: age 54.9±14.4 years, 67.4% female, 60% never smokers, 29.9% overweight, 39.5% obese, PROMIS sleep disturbance T-score 54.8±8.0, PROMIS depression T-score 52.6±10.1, Fear-avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire 11.6±5.9, Patient Catastrophizing Scale 4.5±2.6, PEG 4.4±2.2. In the adjusted models, alcohol use, sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity were associated with PEG, after adjusting for confounding variables identified via a DAG constructed using a rigorous protocol. The adjusted effect estimates- the expected change in the PEG outcome for every standard deviation increase or decrease in the exposure (or category shift for categorical exposures) were the largest for sleep disturbance and obesity. Each SD increase in the PROMIS sleep disturbance T-score resulted in a mean 0.77 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.88) point increase in baseline PEG score. Compared to participants with normal BMI, adjusted mean PEG score was slightly higher by 0.37 points (95% CI: 0.09, 0.65) for overweight participants, about 0.8 to 0.9 points higher for those in obesity classes I and II, and 1.39 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.80) points higher for the most obese participants. Each SD increase in the PROMIS depression T-score was associated with a mean 0.28 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.40) point increase in baseline PEG score, while each SD decrease in number of alcoholic drinks per week resulted in a mean 0.12 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.23) increase in baseline PEG score in the adjusted model.

Conclusions: Several modifiable causal risk factors for cLBP - alcohol use, sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity- are associated with PEG, after adjusting for confounding variables identified via a DAG constructed using a rigorous protocol. Convergence of our findings for sleep disturbance, depression, and obesity with the results from MR studies, which have different designs and biases, strengthens the evidence for causal relationships between these risk factors and cLBP. The estimated effect of change in a risk factor on change in PEG were the largest for sleep disturbance and obesity. Future analyses will evaluate these relationships with longitudinal data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Outcomes following Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery in Patients Living with Dementia. Letter to the editor concerning "What are the risk factors for a second osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture?" by Sang Hoon Hwang, et al. (Spine J. 2023; 23(11):1586-1592. Preoperative determinants of postoperative expectation fulfillment following elective lumbar spine surgery: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcome Research Network (CSORN). Meetings Calendar Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1