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.