The burden of neck pain in Brazil: estimates from the global burden of disease study 2019

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed neck pain estimates in Brazil and its states between 2000 and 2019, in view of the country’s lacking epidemiological data. METHODS: An analysis was performed of the GBD 2019 estimates by location, sex, and age, per 100,000 population, with uncertainty intervals (95% UI). Brazilian estimates were compared to global, Mexican, English, and American rates. RESULTS: Global, Brazilian, and Mexican prevalence numbers were statistically homogeneous and stable in the period. Throughout the period analyzed in the study, Brazilian neck pain prevalence (2241.9; 95%UI 1770.5–2870.6) did not show statistical differences when compared to global (2696.5; 95%UI 2177.0–3375.2) or Mexican (1595.9; 95%UI 1258.9–2058.8) estimates. Estimates observed in the USA (5123.29; 95%UI 4268.35–6170.35) and England (4612.5; 95%UI 3668.8–5830.3) were significantly higher. In 2019, when compared to the USA and England, age-standardized prevalences were lower globally, in Brazil, and in Mexico. Prevalences in Brazilian states were similar, being that Roraima (1915.9; 95%UI 1506.5–2443.1) and the Federal District (1932.05; 95%UI 1515.1–2462.7) presented the lowest and highest values respectively. The exception was the state of São Paulo (3326.5; 95%UI 2609.6–4275.5). There was no statistical difference by sex, but the prevalence tended to increase with aging. In 2019, the Brazilian prevalence was 2478.6 (95% UI 1791.0–3503.8), 5017.2 (95%UI 3257.26–7483.8), and 4293.4 (95% UI 2898,8–6343.9), for those aged 15 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70+ years. There was no statistical difference among the YLDs in all locations and times. CONCLUSIONS: Brazil is going through a fast-paced process of populational aging; a higher prevalence of neck pain in middle-aged individuals and the elderly highlights the need for lifelong prevention initiatives. The higher rates observed among higher-income populations and the homogeneity of the Brazilian estimates suggest a lack of robust epidemiological data in lower-income countries.