Skip to main content
Download PDF

Persistent lumbar radicular and low back pain; impact of genetic variability versus emotional distress

BMC Research Notes volume 12, Article number: 547 (2019) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Earlier studies documenting the effect of candidate genes on recovery have seldom taken into consideration the impact of emotional distress. Thus, we aimed to assess the modifying effect of emotional distress on genetic variability as a predictor for pain recovery in lumbar radicular (LRP) and low back pain (LBP).

Results

The study population comprised 201 patients and mean age was 41.7 years. The significant association between MMP9 rs17576 (B = 0.71, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.24, p = 0.009) and pain recovery remained statistically significant after adjusting for pain intensity at baseline, age, gender, smoking, body mass index, pain localization and emotional distress (B = 0.68, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.18, p = 0.008). In contrast, the association between OPRM1 (B = − 0.85, 95% CI − 1.66 to − 0.05, p = 0.038) and pain recovery was abolished in the multivariate analysis (B = − 0.72, 95% CI − 1.46 to 0.02, p = 0.058). Hence, MMP9 rs17576 and emotional distress independently seem to predict persistent back pain. The predictive effect of OPRM1 rs179971 with regard to the same outcome is probably dependent on other factors including emotional processing.

Trial registration The Regional Committee for Medical Research and Ethics reference number 2014/1754

Introduction

Persistent low back pain (LBP) has a point prevalence of 30% and creates a substantial personal and financial public burden globally [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Lumbar radicular pain (LRP), also referred to as sciatica, accounts for 5–10% of these LBP conditions. Although most back disorders are benign, many patients have a slow recovery [7,8,9]. In patients with pain, symptoms often tend to be associated with each other, and back pain may be only one of several possible symptoms of general frailty [10]. Psychological factors are of major importance for poor recovery and transition into chronic pain [11, 12]. Actually, many patients focus too much on their bodily symptoms such as dizziness, fatigue or insomnia. Such symptoms in absence of specific diseases in combination with bad mood are often termed emotional distress [11, 12]. Longitudinal studies suggest that major depression increases the risk of developing future chronic pain [13, 14], and a recent study showed that psychological factors such as emotional exhaustion, mental distress, having little surplus, feeling depressed may propagate the spread of pain [15].

Earlier data suggest that the heritability of back pain range from 30 to 45% [16]. Genetic variability, which is important for degenerative changes, inflammation or pain perception may play a role in both LBP and LRP conditions [17,18,19,20,21]. Genetic variants in genes encoding proteins such as vitamin D receptor (VDR), collagens (COL) and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) may affect degeneration of the intervertebral discs [18, 22]. In addition, the relationship between pain and MMP9, which is also involved in immunomodulation [23], neuromodulation [24], and activation of the epiregulin—PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway [25], may affect pain sensitivity. Moreover, previous studies indicate that genetic polymorphisms related to inflammation in genes encoding interleukin 1 (IL-1α), interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RN) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) may promote persistent LRP [26,27,28,29,30].

Some of the same genetic polymorphisms may also be associated with supra-spinal neuronal activity including stress-induced depression [31]. Moreover, genetic variability related to opioid, dopaminergic, adrenergic and serotonergic signaling affect perceptual modulation and nociceptive processing [32,33,34]. For example, genetic variability related to the enzyme catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) affects cortical pain processing and the risk of long-lasting pain conditions [35,36,37]. In addition, several earlier studies have demonstrated a link between genetic variability in the gene encoding opioid receptor mu 1 (OPRM1) and pain recovery in LRP patients [38,39,40]. Finally, the OPRM1 variant may be associated with attenuated hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis responses to stress [41]. The OPRM1 variant is also associated with personality traits [42] and subjective health complaints [39].

Taken together, these observations and similar data from other studies suggest that genetic factors linked to pain recovery, may be associated with peripheral inflammation—but also neuronal activity in brain regions associated with emotions. In addition, recent data from our group have documented a robust association between the MMP9 rs17576 as well as OPRM1 rs1799971 variants and pain recovery [40]. Hence, the aim of the present study was to examine the modifying effect of emotional distress on the association between genetic variability and pain recovery.

Main text

Study design and study population

The dataset comprises two ongoing prospective cohorts, which are merged after inclusion but before 5-year follow-up. The methods are previous thoroughly described in our publication in PAIN; “Genetic predictors of recovery in low back and lumbar radicular pain” [40]. This study comprises a subsample of patients from this cohort. This subsample emerges from the Oslo University Hospital (OUH) Ullevaal due to assessment of emotional distress only in this hospital. In total, 275 patients with lumbar radicular pain (LRP) or low back pain (LBP) were recruited between 2007 and 2009. The inclusion criteria in both cohorts was age between 18 and 60 years, and exclusion criteria were specific spinal pathology, generalized musculoskeletal pain, inflammatory rheumatic diseases, diabetic polyneuropathy or serious diseases.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics (reference number 2014/1754) and the Norwegian Social Science Data Service approved the study protocol and all participants gave their written informed consent at baseline and at 5-year follow-up.

Outcome measures

Emotional distress was assessed using a short version of Hopkins Symptoms Check List (HSCL-10), 4-point scale, where 1 = no complains, 2 = some complaints, 3 = moderate complaints and 4 = many complaints. The scores summarize and divide on the number of answered questions, with a mean score > 1.85 being compatible with emotional distress symptoms present [43].

Pain intensity was recorded using the visual analogue scale (VAS) with anchor values from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) at rest during the last week at baseline and at 5-year follow-up. A cut off ≥ 3.5 is defined as moderate pain [44].

Genotyping

In patients with LRP, genomic DNA was collected at baseline and extracted from whole blood cells using a FlexiGene DNA isolation kit (Qiagen), whereas in patients with LBP genomic DNA was collected at 5-year follow up and extracted from saliva using an Oragene DNA sample collection kit (DNA Genotech Inc., California, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. SNP genotyping was carried out using predesigned TaqMan SNP genotyping assays (Applied Biosystems). Genotypes were determined using the SDS 2.2 software (Applied Biosystems). Phase v.2.1.1 was used to define the COMT haplotypes. Approximately 10% of the samples were re-genotyped and the concordance rate was 100%.

Genetic variants and statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, t-test and Chi-square test were applied to describe the patients at baseline and 5-year follow-up and evaluate differences between LBP and LRP. Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to estimate the correlation between the eight genetic variants (VDR, COL11, MMP1, MMP9, IL-1α, IL-1RN, OPRM1 and COMT) and pain (VAS) at 5-year follow-up. Further on, we adjusted for emotional distress (HSCL-10) at baseline in the analysis to evaluate the impact of the psychosocial factor. Univariate linear regression analysis also performed to estimate the correlation between emotional distress and pain (VAS) at 5-year follow-up. Significant genetic variants p level < 0.05 were included in multivariable linear regression models where we adjusted for pain intensity at baseline, age, gender, smoking status (yes or no), body mass index, pain localization (LRP or LBP) and emotional distress. All models were checked for collinearity (no collinearity revealed). All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS (version 22) statistical package. A p-value < 0.05 was defined as being statistically significant.

Results

The study population comprised 201 patients, including 92 (46%) females and 109 males (54%) with ages of 18 to 59 (mean 41.7 ± 9.6). An active smoking habit was reported in 34% of the patients. At baseline, patients in both cohorts reported moderate pain intensity (mean VAS > 3.5) with significantly higher pain in LBP compared to LRP (p = 0.012). Regarding emotional distress, the LBP patients reported significantly more complaints (mean HSCL-10 > 1.85) than the LRP patients (mean HSCL-10 < 1.85) (p = 0.001). At 5-year follow up, the LBP patients reported significantly more pain (mean VAS > 3.5) than the LRP patients (mean VAS < 3.5) (p < 0.001). Improvement of emotional distress occurred in both the LBP (mean HSCL-10 < 1.85) and the LRP groups (mean HSCl-10 < 1.85), but a significant difference in emotional distress was seen (p = 0.035). Detailed characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of study population
Full size table

In univariate linear regression analysis, emotional distress showed a highly significant association with pain intensity at 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.094). Regarding the genetic variants, the univariate linear regression analysis showed that the associations between MMP9 rs17576 as well as OPRM1 rs1799971 and pain at 5 years remained statistically significant also in this subsample of patients (p = 0.009 and R2 = 0.034, p = 0.038 and R2 = 0.022). In the multivariable analysis adjusting for potential confounding effects of baseline pain, pain location (LRP or LBP), age, gender, smoking (yes or no), BMI and emotional distress, only MMP9 rs17576, not OPRM1 rs1799971, remained significant (p = 0.008) (Table 2a, b). In addition, pain location (LRP or LBP) showed a significant association with pain at 5 years in the multivariate model (p = 0.027).

Table 2 Multivariable linear regression with pain intensity at rest 5 years as dependent variable
Full size table

Discussion

Recent data from our group have demonstrated that both MMP9 rs17576 and OPRM1 rs1799971 may affect 5-year recovery in patients with LRP and LBP [40]. In the present study, we have extended these findings and shown that MMP9 rs17576 remains a significant predictor also when controlling for emotional distress. Thus, the MMP9 rs17576 did not affect pain recovery through emotional distress. In contrast, our data suggested that the OPRM1 rs179971—pain relationship may be more complex—and be dependent on emotional processes. This result may be related to OPRM1 having a role in a common supra-spinal neural network processing affective component of pain. Earlier data have also demonstrated that brain regions particular related to the somatosensory component of pain processing may be moderated by genetic variations in the gene encoding OPRM1 [45].

The MMP9 genotype explained 2.2% of the variation of pain at 5 years. Emotional distress on the other hand explained 9.4% of the variation of pain at 5 years. These findings support the previous observation that psychological distress is a major predictor for persistent back pain [46]. The LBP patients reported significantly more emotional complaints than the LRP patients both at baseline and 5-year follow-up. However, the data suggested that poorer pain recovery in LBP cannot be explained by the emotional factor alone. Psychological factors at baseline are shown to correlate with persistent LBP [47]. However, earlier data suggest that emotional distress may not be a strong predictor for persistence of low back disability in persons having their first episode of LBP [48]. Nevertheless, to prevent persistent back disability, emotional distress should definitely be considered and treated [48].

In contrast to earlier studies with shorter follow-up [49], the LRP patients showed significantly better pain recovery than the LBP patients, even when controlling for emotional distress. This result suggests that the pain mechanism may change over time. Another explanation could be that LRP patients and LBP patients referred to specialized healthcare are different from the start [50]. Complex disorders such as LRP and LBP are multifactorial pain conditions [51,52,53] and whether or not application of results obtained from genetic studies really are ready for clinical use is controversial [54]. However, persistent back pain also includes a biological aetiology [55]. Still, synthesis of clinical and biological research should be important for a more rational management of persistent back pain in the future [56].

In conclusion, the present study showed that MMP9 rs17576 and emotional distress independently predict persistent back pain. OPRM1 rs179971 predicts the same outcome, but for this genetic variant, the effect may be dependent on emotional processing.

Limitations

Being based on a mix of LRP and LBP patients, the present study has its limitations. We would, however, argue that the subsample of patients included in the present study is representative for the cohort. Still, the mix of LBP and LRP may reduce statistical power. Also, although, the short version of Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL-10) is a valid instrument [57], it does not distinguish between anxiety, depression, somatization or other psychological symptoms. Hence, HSCL-10 may not specify the type of the mental problem in our patients. Finally, the use of the candidate approach will not discover all genetic factors influencing pain.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the data handling rules of health region south east, Norway, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

COMT:

catechol-O-methyltransferase

COL:

collagen

HSCL-10:

Hopkins Symptoms Check List

IL 1 α:

interleukin 1 alfa

LBP:

low back pain

LRP:

lumbar radicular pain

MMP:

matrix metalloproteinase

OPRM1:

opioid receptor mu 1

SNP:

single nucleotide polymorphism

VAS:

visual analogue scale

VDR:

vitamin D receptor

References

  1. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354(9178):581–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Younes M, Bejia I, Aguir Z, Letaief M, Hassen-Zrour S, Touzi M, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of disk-related sciatica in an urban population in Tunisia. Joint Bone Spine. 2006;73(5):538–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, Vos T, et al. Measuring the global burden of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):155–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S, Cohen SP, Hirsch JA, American Society of Interventional Pain P. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2009;12(4):E35–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falco FJ, Benyamin RM, Hirsch JA. Epidemiology of low back pain in adults. Neuromodulation. 2014;17(Suppl 2):3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoy DG, Smith E, Cross M, Sanchez-Riera L, Blyth FM, Buchbinder R, et al. Reflecting on the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions: lessons learnt from the global burden of disease 2010 study and the next steps forward. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(1):4–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hagen EM, Eriksen HR, Ursin H. Does early intervention with a light mobilization program reduce long-term sick leave for low back pain? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(15):1973–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Waddell G. Volvo award in clinical sciences. A new clinical model for the treatment of low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(7):632–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mehling WE, Gopisetty V, Acree M, Pressman A, Carey T, Goldberg H, et al. Acute low back pain and primary care: how to define recovery and chronification? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(26):2316–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Leboeuf-Yde C. Back pain—individual and genetic factors. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14(1):129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP. A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(5):E109–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Beyer C, Damron K, Barnhill RC. Evaluation of psychological status in chronic low back pain: comparison with general population. Pain Physician. 2002;5(2):149–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Larson SL, Clark MR, Eaton WW. Depressive disorder as a long-term antecedent risk factor for incident back pain: a 13-year follow-up study from the Baltimore Epidemiological Catchment Area sample. Psychol Med. 2004;34(2):211–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Currie SR, Wang J. More data on major depression as an antecedent risk factor for first onset of chronic back pain. Psychol Med. 2005;35(9):1275–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Christensen JO, Johansen S, Knardahl S. Psychological predictors of change in the number of musculoskeletal pain sites among Norwegian employees: a prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):140.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tegeder I, Lotsch J. Current evidence for a modulation of low back pain by human genetic variants. J Cell Mol Med. 2009;13(8B):1605–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Bjorland S, Moen A, Schistad E, Gjerstad J, Roe C. Genes associated with persistent lumbar radicular pain; a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Eskola PJ, Lemmela S, Kjaer P, Solovieva S, Mannikko M, Tommerup N, et al. Genetic association studies in lumbar disc degeneration: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e49995.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Battie MC, Videman T, Levalahti E, Gill K, Kaprio J. Heritability of low back pain and the role of disc degeneration. Pain. 2007;131(3):272–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kalichman L, Hunter DJ. The genetics of intervertebral disc degeneration. Familial predisposition and heritability estimation. Joint Bone Spine. 2008;75(4):383–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Omair A, Lie BA, Reikeras O, Brox JI. An association study of interleukin 18 receptor genes (IL18R1 and IL18RAP) in lumbar disc degeneration. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:164–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Song YQ, Sham P, Cheung KMC, Chan D. (iv) Genetics of disc degeneration. Curr Orthop. 2008;22(4):259–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang S, Le Quang T, Chida J, Cisse Y, Yano M, Kido H. Mechanisms of matrix metalloproteinase-9 upregulation and tissue destruction in various organs in influenza A virus infection. J Med Invest. 2010;57(1–2):26–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lakhan SE, Avramut M. Matrix metalloproteinases in neuropathic pain and migraine: friends, enemies, and therapeutic targets. Pain Res Treat. 2012;2012:952906.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Martin LJ, Smith SB, Khoutorsky A, Magnussen CA, Samoshkin A, Sorge RE, et al. Epiregulin and EGFR interactions are involved in pain processing. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(9):3353–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Karppinen J, Daavittila I, Noponen N, Haapea M, Taimela S, Vanharanta H, et al. Is the interleukin-6 haplotype a prognostic factor for sciatica? Eur J Pain. 2008;12(8):1018–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schistad EI, Jacobsen LM, Roe C, Gjerstad J. The interleukin-1alpha gene C>T polymorphism rs1800587 is associated with increased pain intensity and decreased pressure pain thresholds in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Clin J Pain. 2014;30(10):869–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Moen A, Schistad EI, Rygh LJ, Roe C, Gjerstad J. Role of IL1A rs1800587, IL1B rs1143627 and IL1RN rs2234677 genotype regarding development of chronic lumbar radicular pain; a prospective one-year study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e107301 (Electronic Resource).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Noponen-Hietala N, Virtanen I, Karttunen R, Schwenke S, Jakkula E, Li H, et al. Genetic variations in IL6 associate with intervertebral disc disease characterized by sciatica. Pain. 2005;114(1–2):186–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dominguez CA, Kalliomaki M, Gunnarsson U, Moen A, Sandblom G, Kockum I, et al. The DQB1*03:02 HLA haplotype is associated with increased risk of chronic pain after inguinal hernia surgery and lumbar disc herniation. Pain. 2013;154(3):427–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tartter M, Hammen C, Bower JE, Brennan PA, Cole S. Effects of chronic interpersonal stress exposure on depressive symptoms are moderated by genetic variation at IL6 and IL1beta in youth. Brain Behav Immun. 2015;46:104–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Zubieta JK, Smith YR, Bueller JA, Xu Y, Kilbourn MR, Jewett DM, et al. Regional mu opioid receptor regulation of sensory and affective dimensions of pain. Science. 2001;293(5528):311–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zubieta JK, Heitzeg MM, Smith YR, Bueller JA, Xu K, Xu Y, et al. COMT val158met genotype affects mu-opioid neurotransmitter responses to a pain stressor. Science. 2003;299(5610):1240–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zubieta JK, Bueller JA, Jackson LR, Scott DJ, Xu Y, Koeppe RA, et al. Placebo effects mediated by endogenous opioid activity on mu-opioid receptors. J Neurosci. 2005;25(34):7754–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Diatchenko L, Fillingim RB, Smith SB, Maixner W. The phenotypic and genetic signatures of common musculoskeletal pain conditions. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013;9(6):340–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Diatchenko L, Slade GD, Nackley AG, Bhalang K, Sigurdsson A, Belfer I, et al. Genetic basis for individual variations in pain perception and the development of a chronic pain condition. Hum Mol Genet. 2005;14(1):135–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Nackley AG, Shabalina SA, Tchivileva IE, Satterfield K, Korchynskyi O, Makarov SS, et al. Human catechol-O-methyltransferase haplotypes modulate protein expression by altering mRNA secondary structure. Science. 2006;314(5807):1930–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Olsen MB, Jacobsen LM, Schistad EI, Pedersen LM, Rygh LJ, Roe C, et al. Pain intensity the first year after lumbar disc herniation is associated with the a118g polymorphism in the opioid receptor Mu 1 gene: evidence of a sex and genotype interaction. J Neurosci. 2012;32(29):9831–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Hasvik E, Iordanova Schistad E, Grovle L, Julsrud Haugen A, Roe C, Gjerstad J. Subjective health complaints in patients with lumbar radicular pain and disc herniation are associated with a sex—OPRM1 A118G polymorphism interaction: a prospective 1-year observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15(1):161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Bjorland S, Roe C, Moen A, Schistad E, Mahmood A, Gjerstad J. Genetic predictors of recovery in low back and lumbar radicular pain. Pain. 2017;158:1456–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schwandt ML, Lindell SG, Higley JD, Suomi SJ, Heilig M, Barr CS. OPRM1 gene variation influences hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function in response to a variety of stressors in rhesus macaques. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2011;36(9):1303–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Troisi A, Frazzetto G, Carola V, Di Lorenzo G, Coviello M, D’Amato FR, et al. Social hedonic capacity is associated with the A118G polymorphism of the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) in adult healthy volunteers and psychiatric patients. Soc Neurosci. 2011;6(1):88–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Strand BH, Dalgard OS, Tambs K, Rognerud M. Measuring the mental health status of the Norwegian population: a comparison of the instruments SCL-25, SCL-10, SCL-5 and MHI-5 (SF-36). Nord J Psychiatry. 2003;57(2):113–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Balk GA, Stewart RE. Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the visual analogue scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain. 2014;155(12):2545–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bonenberger M, Plener PL, Groschwitz RC, Gron G, Abler B. Polymorphism in the micro-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) modulates neural processing of physical pain, social rejection and error processing. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233(9):2517–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Croft PR, Papageorgiou AC, Ferry S, Thomas E, Jayson MI, Silman AJ. Psychologic distress and low back pain. Evidence from a prospective study in the general population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(24):2731–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Melloh M, Elfering A, Egli Presland C, Roder C, Hendrick P, Darlow B, et al. Predicting the transition from acute to persistent low back pain. Occup Med (Lond). 2011;61(2):127–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Brage S, Sandanger I, Nygard JF. Emotional distress as a predictor for low back disability: a prospective 12-year population-based study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(2):269–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Konstantinou K, Dunn KM. Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(22):2464–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Long DM, BenDebba M, Torgerson WS, Boyd RJ, Dawson EG, Hardy RW, et al. Persistent back pain and sciatica in the United States: patient characteristics. J Spinal Disord. 1996;9(1):40–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Manek NJ, MacGregor AJ. Epidemiology of back disorders: prevalence, risk factors, and prognosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2005;17(2):134–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Miranda H, Viikari-Juntura E, Martikainen R, Takala EP, Riihimaki H. Individual factors, occupational loading, and physical exercise as predictors of sciatic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(10):1102–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rubin DI. Epidemiology and risk factors for spine pain. Neurol Clin. 2007;25(2):353–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jakobsdottir J, Gorin MB, Conley YP, Ferrell RE, Weeks DE. Interpretation of genetic association studies: markers with replicated highly significant odds ratios may be poor classifiers. PLoS Genet. 2009;5(2):e1000337.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bush WS, Haines J. Overview of linkage analysis in complex traits. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2010;64:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Laslett M, Hay E, Koes B. Discussion paper: what happened to the ‘bio’ in the bio-psycho-social model of low back pain? Eur Spine J. 2011;20(12):2105–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Haavet OR, Sirpal MK, Haugen W, Christensen KS. Diagnosis of depressed young people in primary health care–a validation of HSCL-10. Fam Pract. 2011;28(2):233–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Kjersti Myhre for collecting data from LBP patients’ baseline. We also thank Danijela Miletic, Helene C. H. Olsen and Kathrine Hansen for their help regarding data collection and Aurora Moen and Aqsa Mahmood for performing the genotyping. We would also like to thank all patients for participating in the project.

Funding

Siri Bjorland was supported by the University of Oslo (Principal Research Fellowship ID:412597). The funding body is not involved in any part of the scientific process. Other authors have not received financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Postboks 1078 Blindern, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    Siri Bjorland & Cecilie Røe

  2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, Postboks 4956 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway

    Siri Bjorland, Elina Schistad & Cecilie Røe

  3. National Institute of Occupational Health, Gydas vei 8, 0363, Oslo, Norway

    Johannes Gjerstad

  4. Department of Molecular Bioscience, University of Oslo, Postboks 1066 Blindern, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    Johannes Gjerstad

  5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Postboks 1078 Blindern, 0316, Oslo, Norway

    David M. Swanson

Authors
  1. Siri Bjorland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Gjerstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elina Schistad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David M. Swanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cecilie Røe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors, and all those who are qualified to be authors are listed in the author byline. SB, CR and JG were involved in design of the study. SB and ES participated in interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript. DMS assisted the statistical analysis in the manuscript. SB, CR and JG wrote the paper. All authors stand by the integrity of the entire work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siri Bjorland.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics approved the study protocol (The Regional Committee for Medical Research and Ethics reference number 2014/1754) and all the participants gave their written informed consent to participate at baseline and 5-year follow-up.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjorland, S., Gjerstad, J., Schistad, E. et al. Persistent lumbar radicular and low back pain; impact of genetic variability versus emotional distress. BMC Res Notes 12, 547 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4592-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4592-6

Keywords

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

Contact us