Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain

Senescence of endplate osteoclasts induces sensory innervation and spinal pain

Spinal pain affects individuals of all ages and is the most common musculoskeletal problem globally. Its clinical management remains a challenge as the underlying mechanisms leading to it are still unclear. Here, we report that significantly increased numbers of senescent osteoclasts (SnOCs) are observed in mouse models of spinal hypersensitivity, like lumbar spine instability (LSI) or aging, compared to controls. The larger population of SnOCs is associated with induced sensory nerve innervation, as well as the growth of H-type vessels, in the porous endplate. We show that deletion of senescent cells by administration of the senolytic drug Navitoclax (ABT263) results in significantly less spinal hypersensitivity, spinal degeneration, porosity of the endplate, sensory nerve innervation and H-type vessel growth in the endplate. We also show that there is significantly increased SnOC-mediated secretion of Netrin-1 and NGF, two well-established sensory nerve growth factors, compared to non-senescent OCs. These findings suggest that pharmacological elimination of SnOCs may be a potent therapy to treat spinal pain.

Senescence of endplate osteoclasts induces sensory innervation and spinal pain

Spinal pain affects individuals of all ages and is the most common musculoskeletal problem globally. Its clinical management remains a challenge as the underlying mechanisms leading to it are still unclear. Here, we report that significantly increased numbers of senescent osteoclasts (SnOCs) are observed in mouse models of spinal hypersensitivity, like lumbar spine instability (LSI) or aging, compared to controls. The larger population of SnOCs is associated with induced sensory nerve innervation, as well as the growth of H-type vessels, in the porous endplate. We show that deletion of senescent cells by administration of the senolytic drug Navitoclax (ABT263) results in significantly less spinal hypersensitivity, spinal degeneration, porosity of the endplate, sensory nerve innervation, and H-type vessel growth in the endplate. We also show that there is significantly increased SnOC-mediated secretion of Netrin-1 and NGF, two well-established sensory nerve growth factors, compared to non-senescent OCs. These findings suggest that pharmacological elimination of SnOCs may be a potent therapy to treat spinal pain.

Change in pain expectations but no open-label placebo analgesia: An experimental study using the heat pain paradigm

BACKGROUND

Open-label placebos (OLP) prescribed without deception and with a convincing rationale have been shown to evoke powerful treatment effects. Patients' treatment expectations seem to influence the magnitude of the effect.

OBJECTIVE

We examined if two different OLP rationales increased pain tolerance and reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness in a standardized heat pain experiment.

METHODS

Participants (N = 71) who self-reported reoccurring pain for at least the last 3 months were randomly assigned to one of three groups. We compared a personal-emotional and a scientific-matter-of-fact rationale with a control group (CG) that received the same placebo without any rationale. The rationale suggested a desensitizing effect on pain perception and improved pain coping of the placebo, whereas in the CG it was introduced as an ointment for measurement. The primary outcomes were pre-post changes in pain tolerance, expected and experienced pain intensity and unpleasantness.

RESULTS

Participants showed a decrease in expected pain intensity, but not expected pain unpleasantness for both rationales. There were no differences in pain tolerance and experienced pain intensity and unpleasantness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that evoking positive treatment expectations is not sufficient to elicit an OLP response. Possibly, the magnitude of expectations change in this study was not powerful enough to evoke an OLP effect. Additionally, it is possible that OLP effects in pain are unrelated to positive treatment expectations. The failure of OLP in our study is in contrast to a number of previous studies examining the effects of OLP in experimental and clinical pain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study provides evidence that positive treatment expectations are not sufficient to evoke an open-label placebo effect in a standardized heat pain experiment. We showed that two different rationales improved participants treatment expectations, but failed to evoke a placebo effect in comparison to a control group that received the same placebo, labelled as an ointment to improve measurement quality.

What a pain in the … back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient's condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.

A magnetic resonance conditional robot for lumbar spinal injection: Development and preliminary validation

PURPOSE

This work presents the design and preliminary validation of a Magnetic Resonance (MR) conditional robot for lumbar injection for the treatment of lower back pain.

METHODS

This is a 4-degree-of-freedom (DOF) robot that is 200 × 230 × 130 mm3 in volume and has a mass of 0.8 kg. Its lightweight and compact features allow it to be directly affixed to patient's back, establishing a rigid connection, thus reducing positional errors caused by patient movements during treatment.

RESULTS

To validate the positioning accuracy of the needle by the robot, an electromagnetic (EM) tracking system and a needle with an EM sensor embedded in the tip were used for the free space evaluation with position accuracy of 0.88 ± 0.46 mm and phantom mock insertions using the Loop-X CBCT scanner with target position accuracy of 3.62 ± 0.92 mm.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary experiments demonstrated that the proposed robot showed improvements and benefits in its rotation range, flexible needle adjustment, and sensor protection compared with previous and existing systems, offering broader clinical applications.

The Biology of Placebo and Nocebo Effects on Experimental and Chronic Pain: State of the Art

(1) Background: In recent years, placebo and nocebo effects have been extensively documented in different medical conditions, including pain. The scientific literature has provided strong evidence of how the psychosocial context accompanying the treatment administration can influence the therapeutic outcome positively (placebo effects) or negatively (nocebo effects). (2) Methods: This state-of-the-art paper aims to provide an updated overview of placebo and nocebo effects on pain. (3) Results: The most common study designs, the psychological mechanisms, and neurobiological/genetic determinants of these phenomena are discussed, focusing on the differences between positive and negative context effects on pain in experimental settings on healthy volunteers and in clinical settings on chronic pain patients. Finally, the last section describes the implications for clinical and research practice to maximize the medical and scientific routine and correctly interpret the results of research studies on placebo and nocebo effects. (4) Conclusions: While studies on healthy participants seem consistent and provide a clear picture of how the brain reacts to the context, there are no unique results of the occurrence and magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in chronic pain patients, mainly due to the heterogeneity of pain. This opens up the need for future studies on the topic.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Critical Appraisal of Current Acute LBP Management and the Role of a Multimodal Analgesia: A Narrative Review

Acute low back pain (LBP) stands as a leading cause of activity limitation and work absenteeism, and its associated healthcare expenditures are expected to become substantial when acute LBP develops into a chronic and even refractory condition. Therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent progression to chronic pain, for which the management is particularly challenging and the most effective pharmacological therapy is still controversial. Current guideline treatment recommendations vary and are mostly driven by expertise with opinion differing across different interventions. Thus, it is difficult to formulate evidence-based guidance when the relatively few randomized clinical trials have explored the diagnosis and management of LBP while employing different selection criteria, statistical analyses, and outcome measurements. This narrative review aims to provide a critical appraisal of current acute LBP management by discussing the unmet needs and areas of improvement from bench-to-bedside, and proposes multimodal analgesia as the way forward to attain an effective and prolonged pain relief and functional recovery in patients with acute LBP.

[The use of a fixed combination of diclofenac and orphenadrine in the treatment of acute pain syndrome in patients with discogenic lumbosacral radiculopathy and lumboischialgia]

Acute pain syndromes caused by discogenic lumbosacral radiculopathy and lumboischialgia are not uncommon in clinical practice and characterized by a high risk of becoming chronic. The pathogenetic aspects, features of the clinical picture, existing approaches to conservative treatment of these conditions are analyzed in this paper. Data on the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of diclofenac and orphenadrine (Neodolpasse) use in the treatment of vertebrogenic pain syndromes based on the NEODOLEX study results are presented, and the authors' own clinical observations are given. Possible reasons for the high efficacy of Neodolpasse in patients with discogenic radiculopathies and nonspecific back and neck pain are discussed.

Assessment and nonsurgical management of low back pain: a narrative review

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition that affects people of all ages and income levels worldwide. The etiology of LBP may be mechanical, neuropathic, systemic, referred visceral, or secondary to other causes. Despite numerous studies, the diagnosis and management of LBP remain challenging due to the complex biomechanics of the spine and confounding factors, such as trivial degenerative imaging findings irrelevant to symptoms and psychological and emotional factors. However, it is imperative to identify the crucial signs ("red flags") indicating a serious underlying condition. While many recent guidelines emphasize non-pharmacologic management approaches, such as education, reassurance, and physical and psychological care, as the first option, LBP patients in many countries, including South Korea, are prescribed medications. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation combined with prudent use of medications is required in patients unresponsive to first-line therapy. The development of practical guidelines apposite for South Korea is needed with multidisciplinary discussion.

DANTE Study: The First Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo and Active-Controlled, Parallel Arm Group Study Evaluating the Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of Dexketoprofen TrometAmol aNd Tramadol Hydrochloride Oral FixEd Dose Combination on Moderate to Severe Acute Pain in Patients with Acute Low Back Pain-Rationale and Design

INTRODUCTION

Despite a wide range of treatment approaches and the availability of treatment recommendations or guidelines, no consensus on the most effective pharmacological therapy of low back pain (LBP) has been reached yet. Therefore, additional clinical evidence, particularly if built upon a rigorous clinical trial design, an evidence-based medication choice, and broader inclusion criteria better acknowledging the heterogeneity and intrinsic variability of LBP is needed. The DANTE study has been designed to comprehensively assess the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of dexketoprofen/tramadol (DKP/TRAM) 75/25 mg in a large cohort of patients with moderate to severe acute LBP.

METHODS

The DANTE study is a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, placebo, and active controlled study. The DANTE study encompasses a single-dose phase (day 1, t0-t8h) and a multiple-dose phase (from t8h to 8 h after intake of last dose at day 5). The DANTE study population includes patients naïve to LBP or patients with previous history of LBP experiencing a new episode of moderate to severe intensity with or without radiculopathy. The clinical phase of the DANTE study started in September 2020 and the anticipated completion date is April 2022.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The primary endpoint is the time to first achieve a numeric rating scale-pain intensity (NRS-PI) score of < 4 or a pain intensity reduction ≥ 30% from drug intake up to 8 h after the first dose (t8h). Secondary objectives aim are: (1) to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg versus TRAM 100 mg after the first dose; (2) to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg versus TRAM 100 mg after the multiple doses (from t8h until day 5, multiple dose); and (3) to assess the safety and tolerability of the TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg fixed combination after single and multiple doses.

DANTE STUDY REGISTRATION

EudraCT number: 2019-003656-37.

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Bayesian Network Analysis

Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem, but the efficacy of pharmacological therapies remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate and quantitatively rank various pharmacological therapies for patients with low back pain. Two meta-analyses were performed: an initial pair-wise meta-analysis, followed by network meta-analysis using a random-effects Bayesian model. We included randomized controlled trials comparing placebos, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, skeletal muscular relaxants, pregabalin (or gabapentin), and some drug combinations. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain intensity and physical function. Eighty-eight eligible trials with 21,377 patients were included. Here, we show that only skeletal muscle relaxants significantly decreased the pain intensity of acute (including subacute) low back pain. Several kinds of drugs significantly decreased the pain of chronic low back pain, but only opioids and cyclo-oxygenase 2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effectively reduced pain and improved function. Pregabalin (or gabapentin) seemed to be an effective treatment to relieve pain, but it should be used with caution for low back pain.

Mendelian Randomization Study on the Putative Causal Effects of Omega-3 Fatty Acids on Low Back Pain

Previous observational studies have suggested an important role of omega-3 in low back pain. In the present study, we used a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to identify the putative causal link between omega-3 and low back pain. A broadly used genome-wide association study (GWAS) (n = 8,866 individuals from European ancestry) was used to select plasma omega-3 genetic instrumental variables (IVs). A previously reported GWAS (4,863 cases and 74,589 controls from European ancestry) for low back pain were used to assess the effect of plasma omega-3 levels on low back pain. MR-egger_intercept, MR-PRESSO, MR_egger, and inverse variance weighted (IVW) in Cochran's Q-test were used to determine the pleiotropy and heterogeneity, respectively. MR-egger, weighted median, IVW, and weighted mode were used to perform MR analysis. Finally, the effect of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) was used to test the SNP bias. We did not find a significant pleiotropy or heterogeneity of all six selected plasma omega-3 genetic IVs in low back pain GWAS. Expectedly, we found that as plasma omega-3 levels genetically increased, the risk of low back pain had a decreased trend using MR-egger (Beta = −0.593, p = 0.228; OR = 0.553) and weighted mode (Beta = −0.251, p = 0.281; OR = 0.778). This reduced trend was further proven by weighted median (Beta = −0.436, p = 0.025; OR = 0.646) and IVW (Beta = −0.366, p = 0.049; OR = 0.694). Our analysis suggested a putative causal link between genetically increased plasma omega-3 levels and the reduced risk of low back pain in European ancestries. Thus, the supplementation of omega-3 may be important for the prevention and treatment of low back pain.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout

BACKGROUND

Gout is an inflammatory arthritis resulting from the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in and around joints. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (including cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs)) for acute gout.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for studies to 28 August 2020. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain, inflammation, function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events, and total adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this update 28 trials (3406 participants), including 5 new trials. One trial (30 participants) compared NSAIDs to placebo, 6 (1244 participants) compared non-selective NSAIDs to selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs), 5 (712 participants) compared NSAIDs to glucocorticoids, 13 compared one NSAID to another NSAID (633 participants), and single trials compared NSAIDs to rilonacept (225 participants), acupuncture (163 participants), and colchicine (399 participants). Most trials were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases. We report numerical data for the primary comparison NSAIDs versus placebo and brief results for the two comparisons - NSAIDs versus COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs versus glucocorticoids. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) from 1 trial (30 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to placebo. More participants (11/15) may have a 50% reduction in pain at 24 hours with NSAIDs than with placebo (4/15) (risk ratio (RR) 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 6.7), with absolute improvement of 47% (3.5% more to 152.5% more). NSAIDs may have little to no effect on inflammation (swelling) after four days (13/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 12/15 participants taking placebo; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), with absolute improvement of 6.4% (16.8% fewer to 39.2% more). There may be little to no difference in function (4-point scale; 1 = complete resolution) at 24 hours (4/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 1/15 participants taking placebo; RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 31.7), with absolute improvement of 20% (3.3% fewer to 204.9% more). NSAIDs may result in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (0 events in both groups) or in total adverse events; two adverse events (nausea and polyuria) were reported in the placebo group (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 3.8), with absolute difference of 10.7% more (13.2% fewer to 38% more). Treatment success and health-related quality of life were not measured. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 6 trials (1244 participants) shows non-selective NSAIDs compared to selective COX-2 inhibitors (COXIBs). Non-selective NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.14 higher), swelling (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.22 higher), treatment success (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 lower to 0.2 higher), or quality of life (MD -0.2, 95% CI -6.7 to 6.3) compared to COXIBs. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests no difference in function (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25) between groups. Non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.1) and total adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) based on 5 trials (712 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids. NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 3.0), inflammation (MD 0.3, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.6), function (MD -0.2, 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8), or treatment success (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). There was no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events with NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids (RR 2.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 14.2). There was a decrease in total adverse events with glucocorticoids compared to NSAIDs (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from 1 placebo-controlled trial suggests that NSAIDs may improve pain at 24 hours and may have little to no effect on function, inflammation, or adverse events for treatment of acute gout. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that COXIBs and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial with regards to improvement in pain, function, inflammation, and treatment success, although non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs probably are equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, improvement in function, and treatment success. Withdrawals due to adverse events were also similar between groups, but NSAIDs probably result in more total adverse events. Low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in inflammation between groups. Only low-certainty evidence was available for the comparisons NSAID versus rilonacept and NSAID versus acupuncture from single trials, or one NSAID versus another NSAID, which also included many NSAIDs that are no longer in clinical use. Although these data were insufficient to support firm conclusions, they do not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, findings for other inflammatory arthritis, and expert consensus, all of which support the use of NSAIDs for acute gout.

Low Back Pain: A Comprehensive Review on the Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and the Role of Other Contributing Factors

BACKGROUND: In recent years, low back pain (LBP) is a growing major health issue around the world and mostly addressed in primary healthcare settings. This may be due to changing work environment including the nature of long sitting work hours, especially in the booming information and technology (IT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry. LBP is normally considered as a combination of various types of pain and its related conditions, which eventually lead to disabilities. AIM: In this article, the aim is to discuss the current and future perspectives of LBP mainly on diagnosis and therapeutic front of LBP. METHODS: A search was performed using electronic databases, which include PubMed Central and Google Scholar, using the related key words “back pain and low back pain.” All related peer reviewed published articles were included regardless of the language, region, or the publication date. RESULTS: Although the management of LBP both in terms of diagnosis as well as in the therapeutic options has witnessed considerable progress but challenges are still exist not only within countries but also in the regions and continents among various medical professionals. However, in the past few years, a huge array of coordinated but randomized multi-center clinical studies were performed and various detailed insight investigations have been done, and substantial clinical guidelines have become available. Hence, a new view on evidence-based management approach for LBP has significantly improved recently and discussed here. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence and literature, this comprehensive review discusses the present and future perspectives of LBP mainly on diagnosis and therapeutic front for LBP. In addition, current intervention and prevention plans have failed to lessen the considerable burden of LBP and hence several areas which require more details, which deserves additional discussion to augment us through an understanding of this very important topic on improvements of multi tasked outcomes to benefit the affected patients.

Expert review and recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain in Qatar

BACKGROUND

Pain management is an evolving area of expertise in Qatar. Gaps in knowledge, inadequate training for physicians and nurses, and the absence of policies/guidelines are the main barriers to effective pain management in Qatar. In addition, the use of certain pain medication, especially opioids, is highly regulated, limiting their availability in outpatient pain management. These factors are responsible for the undertreatment of pain in Qatar. This study aimed to standardize evidence-based local recommendations for pharmacological treatment of pain in Qatar.

METHODS

An expert panel of physicians from different disciplines, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of the three pain types (i.e., acute, chronic, and neuropathic), was convened for two face-to-face meetings in Doha, Qatar, on November 29, 2019, and on February 22, 2020, with subsequent virtual meetings. A literature search was performed on Medline and Google Scholar databases from inception till December 2019, and all relevant articles were selected. Based on these articles and repeated feedback from the authors, the final pain treatment protocols were developed.

RESULTS

Recommendations for the treatment of acute pain, based on pain severity, followed three approaches: acetaminophen/paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and moderate pain and referral to a pain specialist for severe pain. Acetaminophen/paracetamol or NSAIDs is recommended for chronic pain, and the use of opioids was strongly discouraged because of its long-term side effects. For neuropathic pain, tricyclic antidepressants or gabapentin or pregabalin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors were recommended first-line agents. Non-responders must be referred to neurologists or a pain specialist.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel provides recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain based on international guidelines adapted to local practice and treatment availability in Qatar. More importantly, the panel has recommended taking extreme caution in the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic pain and to refer the patient to a pain specialist clinician as required.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for trigger finger

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.

Comparative efficacy of traditional non-selective NSAIDs and selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative efficacy of traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data published as of 4 April 2020.

METHODS

We performed meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional non-selective NSAIDs versus cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and RCTs of various cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with acute gout. The main outcome measures were mean change in pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and 5-point Likert scale score on days 2-8.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials involving five drugs were evaluated. For pain Likert scale, etoricoxib was comparable to indomethacin (standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.09, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.08) but better than diclofenac 50 mg three times a day (SMD: -0.53, 95% CI: -0.98 to 0.09). Regarding pain VAS score, etoricoxib was comparable to diclofenac 75 mg two times per day (SMD: -1.63, 95% CI: -4.60 to 1.34) and diclofenac 75 mg four times a day (SMD: -1.82, 95% CI: -5.18 to 1.53), while celecoxib was comparable to diclofenac 100 mg four times a day (SMD: -2.41, 95% CI: -5.91 to 1.09). Etoricoxib showed similar patients' global assessment of response (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.07) and swollen joint count (SMD: -0.25, 95% CI: -0.74 to 0.24), but better investigator's global assessment of response (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.11) compared with indomethacin. Etoricoxib showed more favourable pain VAS score than celecoxib (SMD: -2.36, 95% CI: -3.36 to 1.37), but was comparable to meloxicam (SMD: -4.02, 95% CI: -10.28 to 2.24). Etoricoxib showed more favourable pain Likert scale than meloxicam (SMD: -0.56, 95% CI: -1.10 to 0.02). Etoricoxib 120 mg four times a day was more likely to achieve clinical improvement than celecoxib 200 mg two times per day (OR: 4.84, 95% CI: 2.19 to 10.72).

CONCLUSION

Although cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-selective NSAIDs may be equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (especially etoricoxib) may confer a greater benefit.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.

Effect of Combined Diclofenac and B Vitamins (Thiamine, Pyridoxine, and Cyanocobalamin) for Low Back Pain Management: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cumulative evidence suggests an analgesic effect of thiamine, pyridoxine, and cyanocobalamin (TPC) in monotherapy, and also when combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), particularly diclofenac, in a synergistic manner. The aim of this review was to determine the effects of diclofenac combined with TPC compared with diclofenac monotherapy for low back pain (LBP) management.

METHODS

We searched for randomized clinical trials on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases of records of clinical trials, among other sources. We evaluated the risk of bias regarding randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. A random-effects meta-analysis to examine patients with acute LBP (N = 1,108 adults) was performed, along with a subsequent sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Five studies in patients with LBP were included in the qualitative synthesis. Four of these studies in acute LBP were included in the first meta-analysis. A sensitivity test based on risk of bias (three moderate- to high-quality studies) found that the combination therapy of diclofenac plus TPC was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of treatment (around 50%) compared with diclofenac monotherapy (odds ratio = 2.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.59 to 3.13, P < 0.00001). We found no differences in the safety profile and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that combination therapy of diclofenac with TPC might have an analgesic superiority compared with diclofenac monotherapy in acute LBP. However, there is not enough evidence to recommend this therapy in other types of pain due to the scarcity of high-quality studies.

Meta-Analysis of Integrated Therapeutic Methods in Noninvasive Lower Back Pain Therapy (LBP): The Role of Interdisciplinary Functional Diagnostics

Introduction. Lower back pain (LBP) is almost a problem of civilizations. Quite often, it is a consequence of many years of disturbed distribution of tension within the human body caused by local conditions (injuries, hernias, stenoses, spondylolisthesis, cancer, etc.), global factors (postural defects, structural integration disorders, lifestyle, type of activity, etc.), or systemic diseases (connective tissue, inflammation, tumours, abdominal aneurysm, and kidney diseases, including urolithiasis, endometriosis, and prostatitis). Therefore, LBP rehabilitation requires the use of integrated therapeutic methods, combining the competences of interdisciplinary teams, both in the process of diagnosis and treatment. Aim of the Study. Given the above, the authors of the article conducted meta-analysis of the literature in terms of integrated therapeutic methods, indicating the techniques focused on a holistic approach to the patient. The aim of the article is to provide the reader with comprehensive knowledge about treating LBP using noninterventional methods. Material and Methods. An extensive search for the materials was conducted online using PubMed, the Cochrane database, and Embase. The most common noninterventional methods have been described, as well as the most relevantly updated and previously referenced treatment of LBP. The authors also proposed noninvasive (measurable) diagnostic procedures for the functional assessment of the musculoskeletal system, including initial, systematic, and cross-sectional control. All figures and images have been prepared by the authors and are their property.

Results

This review article goes beyond combining a detailed description of each procedure with full references, as well as a comprehensive discussion of this very complex and troublesome problem.

Conclusions

Lower back pain is a serious health problem, and this review article will help educate physicians and physiotherapists dealing with LBP in the options of evidence-based treatment. Ultimately, the article introduces and postulates the need to systematize therapeutic procedures in LBP therapy, with a long-term perspective.

Personalised treatments for acute whiplash injuries: A pilot study of nested N-of-1 trials in a multiple baseline single-case experimental design

BACKGROUND

Whiplash associated disorder (WAD), a common and disabling condition, incurs huge burden and costs to Australia. Yet, current treatments for whiplash are not very effective; improved outcomes are urgently needed. Clinical guidelines recommend simple analgesia (paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) but there have been no trials of guideline-recommended drugs. This study will investigate the effectiveness of evidence-based advice (EBA), paracetamol, naproxen, and both paracetamol and naproxen, in reducing daily neck pain and preventing chronic neck pain after whiplash injury.

METHODS

This study is a pilot series of multi-cycle, double-blinded, randomised N-of-1 trials, nested in a multiple baseline design. The design will comprise three baselines of 5, 8 or 11 days duration. Post enrolment, participants will be randomly assigned to one of the baselines. Fifteen participants with acute (<2 weeks) Grade II WAD, experiencing at least moderate pain (NRS: ≥ 5/10), and at risk of poor recovery will be recruited from hospitals in Queensland, Australia, and through local physiotherapists. Patients will receive EBA plus a randomised sequence of three cycles of ten day treatment triplets (paracetamol designated as a C phase, naproxen, designated as a D phase, and both paracetamol and naproxen, designated as an E phase).

DISCUSSION

We will test the effects of different treatments on the primary outcome of average neck pain intensity collected daily and at 4 and 7 months post-injury. Secondary outcomes, including disability, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, pain catastrophizing, and feasibility of study procedures, will also be evaluated. The results of this study will inform a larger trial aiming to strengthen the evidence on EBA and simple analgesics for WAD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Primary Registry: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12618001291279.

DATE OF REGISTRATION

31/07/2018.

PRIMARY TRIAL SPONSOR

The University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia.

FUNDING

The University of Queensland.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen ameliorate muscular mechanical hyperalgesia developed after lengthening contractions via cyclooxygenase-2 independent mechanisms in rats

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen are cyclooxygenase inhibitors commonly used as symptomatic medicines for myofascial pain syndrome. Using the selective inhibitors celecoxib and zaltoprofen, cyclooxygenase-2 has been shown to be involved in the initiation, but not the maintenance, of muscular mechanical hyperalgesia induced by lengthening contractions, which serves as a useful model for the study of myofascial pain syndrome. The effect of other cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, such as acetylsalicylic acid, ibuprofen, loxoprofen sodium, and acetaminophen, on muscular mechanical hyperalgesia during maintenance has not been studied. Here, we examined the analgesic effects of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen on the model. Consistent with previous studies, mechanical withdrawal threshold of the muscle was significantly decreased and reached its lowest level 24 h after lengthening contractions. Celecoxib had no effect on muscular mechanical hyperalgesia, when orally administered 24 h after lengthening contractions. In contrast, acetylsalicylic acid, ibuprofen, loxoprofen sodium, and acetaminophen increased the withdrawal threshold, which had decreased by lengthening contractions, in a dose-dependent manner. These results demonstrate the analgesic actions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen in the maintenance process of lengthening contraction-induced muscular mechanical hyperalgesia, which may occur through cyclooxygenase-2 independent mechanisms.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and sub-acute mechanical non-specific low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Acute LBP usually has a good prognosis, with rapid improvement within the first 6 weeks. However, the majority of patients develop chronic LBP and suffer from recurrences. For clinical management, a plethora of treatments is currently available but evidence of the most effective options is lacking. The objective of this study will be to identify the most effective interventions to relieve pain and reduce disability in acute and sub-acute non-specific LBP.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) from inception onwards. The eligible population will be individuals with non-specific LBP older than 18 years, both males and females, who experience pain less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute). Eligible interventions and comparators will include all conservative rehabilitation or pharmacological treatments provided by any health professional; the only eligible study design will be a randomized controlled trial. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and back-specific functional status. Secondary outcomes will be any adverse events. Studies published in languages other than English will also potentially be included. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts retrieved from a literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. General characteristics, potential effect modifiers, and outcome data will be extracted from the included studies, and the risk of bias will be appraised. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussions. After describing the results of the review, if appropriate, a random effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be conducted in a frequentist setting, assuming equal heterogeneity across all treatment comparisons and accounting for correlations induced by multi-arm studies using a multivariate normal model.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review will address the uncertainties in the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments, and their relative efficacy, for acute and subacute LBP. These findings will be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018102527.

Effect of a New Synergistic Combination of Low Doses of Acetylsalicylic Acid, Caffeine, Acetaminophen, and Chlorpheniramine in Acute Low Back Pain

The present paper continues a more complex research related to the increased synergism in terms of both anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect obtained by the addition of chlorpheniramine (CLF) to the common acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), acetaminophen (PAR), and caffeine (CAF) combination. This synergistic effect was previously highlighted both in vitro in rat models and in vivo in the treatment of migraine. The aim of the research was to further evaluate the analgesic effect of a synergistic low-dose ASA-PAR-CAF-CLF combination in the treatment of low back pain, in a parallel, multiple-dose, double-blind, active controlled clinical trial. A number of 89 patients with low back pain of at least moderate intensity were randomly assigned to receive Algopirin^® (ALG), a combinational product containing 125 mg ASA, 75 mg PAR, 15 mg CAF, and 2 mg CLF, or PAR 500 mg, a drug recognized by American Pain Society as "safe and effective" in the treatment of low back pain. One tablet of the assigned product was administered three times a day for seven consecutive days. The patients evaluated their pain level using a Visual Analog Scale prior to administration, and at 1, 2, 4, and 6 h after the morning dose. Time course of effect was similar in structure and size for both treatments. Pain relief appeared rapidly and steadily increased over 4 h after drug administration. Differential pain curves of ALG and PAR were very similar and comparable with the previously determined ALG analgesia pattern in migraine. Differences between the daily mean pain scores were not statistically significant for the two treatments. Similar results were obtained for the Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID) for 0-4 h and 0-6 h intervals as well as for the time course of the proportion of patients with at least 30% and at least 50% pain relief. In conclusion, in spite of very small doses of active components, ALG proved equally effective to the standard low back pain treatment and therefore a viable therapeutic alternative, mainly for patients with gastrointestinal and hepatic sensitivity. Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier EudraCT No.: 2015-002314-74.

Repurposing of FDA-Approved NSAIDs for DPP-4 Inhibition as an Alternative for Diabetes Mellitus Treatment: Computational and in Vitro Study

A drug repurposing strategy could be a potential approach to overcoming the economic costs for diabetes mellitus (DM) treatment incurred by most countries. DM has emerged as a global epidemic, and an increase in the outbreak has led developing countries like Mexico, India, and China to recommend a prevention method as an alternative proposed by their respective healthcare sectors. Incretin-based therapy has been successful in treating diabetes mellitus, and inhibitors like sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, and alogliptin belong to this category. As of now, drug repurposing strategies have not been used to identify existing therapeutics that can become dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Hence, this work presents the use of bioinformatics tools like the Activity Atlas model, flexible molecular docking simulations, and three-dimensional reference interaction site model (3D-RISM) calculations to assist in repurposing Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs into specific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications such as DPP-4 inhibitors. Initially, the Activity Atlas model was constructed based on the top scoring DPP-4 inhibitors, and then the model was used to understand features of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as a function of electrostatic, hydrophobic, and active shape features of DPP-4 inhibition. The FlexX algorithm was used to infer protein-ligand interacting residues, and binding energy, to predict potential draggability towards the DPP-4 mechanism of action. 3D-RISM calculations on piroxicam-bound DPP-4 were used to understand the stability of water molecules at the active site. Finally, piroxicam was chosen as the repurposing drug to become a new DPP-4 inhibitor and validated experimentally using fluorescence spectroscopy assay. These findings are novel and provide new insights into the role of piroxicam as a new lead to inhibit DPP-4 and, taking into consideration the biological half-life of piroxicam, it can be proposed as a possible therapeutic strategy for treating diabetes mellitus.

Low Back Pain, a Comprehensive Review: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low back pain encompasses three distinct sources: axial lumbosacral, radicular, and referred pain. Annually, the prevalence of low back pain in the general US adult population is 10-30%, and the lifetime prevalence of US adults is as high as 65-80%.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient history, physical exam, and diagnostic testing are important components to accurate diagnosis and identification of patient pathophysiology. Etiologies of low back pain include myofascial pain, facet joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and failed back surgery. In chronic back pain patients, a multidisciplinary, logical approach to treatment is most effective and can include multimodal medical, psychological, physical, and interventional approaches. Low back pain is a difficult condition to effectively treat and continues to affect millions of Americans every year. In the current investigation, we present a comprehensive review of low back pain and discuss associated pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Current concepts and recent advances in understanding and managing lumbar spine stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a degenerative process that is extremely frequent in today’s aging population. It can result in impingement on the nerves of the cauda equina or on the thecal sac itself, and lead to debilitating symptoms such as severe leg pain, or restriction in the perimeter of ambulation, both resulting in dependency in daily activities. The impact of the disease is global and includes financial repercussions because of its involvement in the active work force group. Risk factors for the disease include some comorbidities such as obesity or smoking, daily habits such as an active lifestyle, but also genetic factors that are not completely elucidated yet. The diagnosis of lumbar stenosis can be difficult, and involves a combination of radiological and clinical findings. Treatment ranges from conservative measures with physical therapy and core strengthening, to steroid injections in the facet joints or epidural space, to a more radical solution with surgical decompression. The evidence available in the literature regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of lumbar spine stenosis can be confusing, as no level I recommendations can be provided yet based on current data. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive and updated summary to the reader addressing the multiple aspects of this disease.

Effectiveness of lumbar orthoses in low back pain: Review of the literature and our results

Back pain and diseases of the spine are today a health disorder of outstanding epidemiological, medical, and health economic importance. The cost of care for patients with lumbosciatic complaints are steadily increasing. Accordingly, the guidelines and treatments are constantly renewed. One concept is the orthotic care. In the following we want to give an overview of the literature and the effectiveness of lumbar orthoses in low back pain supplemented by our own data. A prospective randomized study with 230 patients, divided into three groups, each with two subgroups. Three Orthoses by the TIGGES-Zours GmbH were prescribed; a demountable two-step lumbar orthosis, three-step bridging orthosis and a four-step flexion orthosis modular system. Each were compared to the nonmodular equivalent. All six groups showed improvement in pain intensity and functional capacity at 6 and 12 weeks. The modular groups were found to have improvement in the frequency of use. The subjective effectiveness and sensitivity for the modular and non-modular groups was assessed as being good. In the literature, there are no clear guidelines for an orthotic supply. The studies do not seem to be meaningful and universal due to the difficult ascertainability of pain. There is a need for further research here. Nevertheless, the authors of this review are of the opinion that the implementation of trunk orthoses is void of side effects and beneficial to patients. The modular systems seem to have an advantage as well as higher patient satisfaction.

Patients' perceived needs for medical services for non-specific low back pain: A systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

An improved understanding of patients' perceived needs for medical services for low back pain (LBP) will enable healthcare providers to better align service provision with patient expectations, thus improving patient and health care system outcomes. Thus, we aimed to identify the existing literature regarding patients' perceived needs for medical services for LBP.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed of publications identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990-2016). Descriptive data regarding each study, its design and methodology were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Aggregates of patients' perceived needs for medical services for LBP were categorised.

RESULTS

50 studies (35 qualitative, 14 quantitative and 1 mixed-methods study) from 1829 were relevant. Four areas of perceived need emerged: (1) Patients with LBP sought healthcare from medical practitioners to obtain a diagnosis, receive management options, sickness certification and legitimation for their LBP. However, there was dissatisfaction with the cursory and superficial approach of care. (2) Patients had concerns about pharmacotherapy, with few studies reporting on patients' preferences for medications. (3) Of the few studies which examined the patients' perceived need of invasive therapies, these found that patients avoided injections and surgeries (4) Patients desired spinal imaging for diagnostic purposes and legitimation of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Across many different patient populations with data obtained from a variety of study designs, common themes emerged which highlighted areas of patient dissatisfaction with the medical management of LBP, in particular, the superficial approach to care perceived by patients and concerns regarding pharmacotherapy. Patients perceive unmet needs from medical services, including the need to obtain a diagnosis, the desire for pain control and the preference for spinal imaging. These issues need to be considered in developing approaches for the management of LBP in order to improve patient outcomes.

Patients' perceived needs for allied health, and complementary and alternative medicines for low back pain: A systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Allied health and complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are therapeutic therapies commonly accessed by consumers to manage low back pain (LBP). We aimed to identify the literature regarding patients' perceived needs for physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy and CAM for the management of LBP.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990-2016) was conducted to identify studies examining patients' perceived needs for allied health and CAM for LBP. Data regarding study design and methodology were extracted. Areas of patients' perceived need for allied health and CAM were aggregated.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies from 2202 were included: 25 qualitative, 18 quantitative and 1 mixed-methods study. Three areas of need emerged: (i) physiotherapy was viewed as important, particularly when individually tailored. However, patients had concerns about adherence, adverse outcomes and correct exercise technique. (ii) Chiropractic therapy was perceived to be effective and needed by some patients, but others were concerned about adverse outcomes. (iii) An inconsistent need for CAM was identified with some patients perceiving a need, while others questioning the legitimacy and short-term duration of these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings regarding patients' perceived needs for allied health and CAM for LBP may assist in informing development of more patient-centred guidelines and service models for LBP. Understanding patients' concerns regarding active-based physiotherapy, which is recommended in most guidelines, and issues surrounding chiropractic and CAM, which are generally not, may help inform management that better aligns patient's perceived needs with effective treatments, to improve outcomes for both patients and the health-care system.

Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress

Functional somatic syndromes (FSS), like irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia and other symptoms reflecting bodily distress, are common in practically all areas of medicine worldwide. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to these symptoms and syndromes vary substantially across and within medical specialties from biomedicine to psychiatry. Patients may become frustrated with the lack of effective treatment, doctors may experience these disorders as difficult to treat, and this type of health problem forms an important component of the global burden of disease. This review intends to develop a unifying perspective on the understanding and management of FSS and bodily distress. Firstly, we present the clinical problem and review current concepts for classification. Secondly, we propose an integrated etiological model which encompasses a wide range of biopsychosocial vulnerability and triggering factors and considers consecutive aggravating and maintaining factors. Thirdly, we systematically scrutinize the current evidence base in terms of an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 and give recommendations for treatment for all levels of care, concentrating on developments over the last 10 years. We conclude that activating, patient-involving, and centrally acting therapies appear to be more effective than passive ones that primarily act on peripheral physiology, and we recommend stepped care approaches that translate a truly biopsychosocial approach into actual management of the patient.

Etiology, Evaluation, and Treatment of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

The study aimed to review the etiology of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and to propose a treatment algorithm based on a systematic review of the current literature and individual experience. FBSS is a term that groups the conditions with recurring low back pain after spine surgery with or without a radicular component. Since the information on FBSS incidence is limited, data needs to be retrieved from old studies. It is generally accepted that its incidence ranges between 10% and 40% after lumbar laminectomy with or without fusion. Although the etiology of FBSS is not completely understood, it is possibly multifactorial, and the causative factors may be categorized into preoperative, operative, and postoperative factors. The evaluation of patients with FBSS symptoms should ideally initiate with reviewing the patients’ clinical history (observing “red flags”), followed by a detailed clinical examination and imaging (whole-body X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography). FBSS is a complex and difficult pathology, and its accurate diagnosis is of utmost importance. Its management should be multidisciplinary, and special attention should be provided to cases of recurrent disc herniation and postoperative spinal imbalance.

Chronic low back pain: a mini-review on pharmacological management and pathophysiological insights from clinical and pre-clinical data

Globally, low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common health problems affecting humans. The lifetime prevalence of non-specific LBP is approximately 84%, with the chronic prevalence at about 23%. Chronic LBP in humans is defined as LBP that persists for more than 12 weeks without a significant pain improvement. Although there are numerous evidence-based guidelines on the management of acute LBP, this is not the case for chronic LBP, which is regarded as particularly difficult to treat. Research aimed at discovering new drug treatments for alleviation of chronic mechanical LBP is lacking due to the paucity of knowledge on the pathobiology of this condition, despite its high morbidity in the affected adult population. For a debilitating condition such as chronic LBP, it is necessary to assess the sustained effects of pharmacotherapy of various agents spanning months to years. Although many rodent models of mechanical LBP have been developed to mimic the human condition, some of the major shortcomings of many of these models are (1) the presence of a concurrent neuropathic component that develops secondary to posterior intervertebral disc puncture, (2) severe model phenotype, and/or (3) use of behavioural endpoints that have yet to be validated for pain. Hence, there is a great, unmet need for research aimed at discovering new biological targets in rodent models of chronic mechanical LBP for use in drug discovery programs as a means to potentially produce new highly effective and well-tolerated analgesic agents to improve relief of chronic LBP. On a cautionary note, it must be borne in mind that because humans and rats display orthograde and pronograde postures, respectively, the different mechanical forces on their spines add to the difficulty in translation of promising rodent data to humans.

First-in-human randomized clinical trials of the safety and efficacy of tanezumab for treatment of chronic knee osteoarthritis pain or acute bunionectomy pain

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

The neurotrophin nerve growth factor has a demonstrated role in pain transduction and pathophysiology.

Objectives:

Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 studies were conducted to evaluate safety, tolerability, and analgesic efficacy of single doses of tanezumab, a humanized anti–nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in chronic or acute pain.

Methods:

In the first study (CL001), patients with moderate to severe pain from osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee received a single intravenous infusion of tanezumab (3–1000 μg/kg) or placebo in a dose-escalation (part 1; N = 42) or parallel-arm (part 2; N = 79) study design. The second study (CL002) was a placebo-controlled dose-escalation (tanezumab 10–1000 μg/kg; N = 50) study in patients undergoing bunionectomy surgery.

Results:

Adverse event rates were generally similar across treatments. Most adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity and no patients discontinued as a result of adverse events. Adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation were more common with higher doses of tanezumab (≥100 μg/kg) than with placebo. These were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tanezumab provided up to 12 weeks of effective analgesia for OA knee pain, with statistically significant improvements at doses ≥100 μg/kg (P < 0.05). By contrast, no trend for analgesic activity was found when tanezumab was administered 8 to 16 hours before bunionectomy.

Conclusions:

The demonstration of a favorable safety profile and clinical efficacy in OA pain supports clinical development of tanezumab as a potential treatment for chronic pain conditions.

Side effects can enhance treatment response through expectancy effects: an experimental analgesic randomized controlled trial

In randomized controlled trials, medication side effects may lead to beliefs that one is receiving the active intervention and enhance active treatment responses, thereby increasing drug-placebo differences. We tested these hypotheses with an experimental double-blind randomized controlled trial of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with and without the addition of atropine to induce side effects. One hundred healthy volunteers were told they would be randomized to either combined analgesics that might produce dry mouth or inert placebos. In reality, they were randomized double blind, double-dummy to 1 of the 4 conditions: (1) 100 mg diclofenac + 1.2 mg atropine, (2) placebo + 1.2 mg atropine, (3) 100 mg diclofenac + placebo, or (4) placebo + placebo, and tested with heat-induced pain. Groups did not differ significantly in demographics, temperature producing moderate pain, state anxiety, or depression. Analgesia was observed in all groups; there was a significant interaction between diclofenac and atropine, without main effects. Diclofenac alone was not better than double-placebo. The addition of atropine increased pain relief more than 3-fold among participants given diclofenac (d = 0.77), but did not enhance the response to placebo (d = 0.09). A chain of mediation analysis demonstrated that the addition of atropine increased dry mouth symptoms, which increased beliefs that one had received the active medication, which, in turn, increased analgesia. In addition to this indirect effect of atropine on analgesia (via dry mouth and beliefs), analyses suggest that among those who received diclofenac, atropine directly increased analgesia. This possible synergistic effect between diclofenac and atropine might warrant future research.

Non-Specific Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

For many years, low back pain has been both the leading cause of days lost from work and the leading indication for medical rehabilitation. The goal of the German Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) on nonspecific low back pain is to improve the treatment of patients with this condition.

METHODS

The current update of the NDMG on non-specific low back pain is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search of the literature for systematic reviews. Its recommendations for diagnosis and treatment were developed by a collaborative effort of 29 scientific medical societies and organizations and approved in a formal consensus process.

RESULTS

If the history and physical examination do not arouse any suspicion of a dangerous underlying cause, no further diagnostic evaluation is indicated for the time being. Passive, reactive measures should be taken only in combination with activating measures, or not at all. When drugs are used for symptomatic treatment, patients should be treated with the most suitable drug in the lowest possible dose and for as short a time as possible.

CONCLUSION

A physician should be in charge of the overall care process. The patient should be kept well informed over the entire course of his or her illness and should be encouraged to adopt a healthful lifestyle, including regular physical exercise.

Should exercises be painful in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic musculoskeletal disorders are a prevalent and costly global health issue. A new form of exercise therapy focused on loading and resistance programmes that temporarily aggravates a patient's pain has been proposed. The object of this review was to compare the effect of exercises where pain is allowed/encouraged compared with non-painful exercises on pain, function or disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain within randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

Two authors independently selected studies and appraised risk of bias. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 9081 potentially eligible studies. Nine papers (from seven trials) with 385 participants met the inclusion criteria. There was short- term significant difference in pain, with moderate quality evidence for a small effect size of -0.27 (-0.54 to -0.05) in favour of painful exercises. For pain in the medium and long term, and function and disability in the short, medium and long term, there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Protocols using painful exercises offer a small but significant benefit over pain-free exercises in the short term, with moderate quality of evidence. In the medium and long term there is no clear superiority of one treatment over another. Pain during therapeutic exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain need not be a barrier to successful outcomes. Further research is warranted to fully evaluate the effectiveness of loading and resistance programmes into pain for chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42016038882.

[Conservative treatment of nonspecific, chronic low back pain : Evidence of the efficacy - a systematic literature review]

OBJECTIVES

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP): Which conservative therapy shows an evident effectiveness - A review of the current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our results are based on literature reviews of current randomised control studies, reviews and meta-analysis drawn from the Cochrane Library and Medline-Database between the years 2004 until 2015. German and English Studies were included. We focused on different conservative Treatments of NSCLBP, which are listed at, the NVL-Guidelines. Based on the given evidence we evaluated their effectiveness.

RESULTS

As part of the review we identified 4657 Publications, 85 were included in this study. Therapeutic options such as bed rest, TENS, Massage, Spine Supports, Back Schools and Antidepressants showed no evident effectiveness. Injections, NSAR analgesic therapy, Thermotherapy and Opioid analgesic therapy indicated a short-time effectiveness. A long term success (> 6 weeks) however, can not be shown. Only the Movement therapy can, in the summation of the included studies, postulate an evident (Evidence Level I) long-term effect treating NSCLBP. Only a few therapy options indicate a significant evident effectiveness for treating NSCLBP conservatively. At short notice methods such as injection therapy, thermo-therapy and analgesic therapies with NSAR and/or opioids help coping the acute phase. In the long term only movement therapy seems to provide an evident effectiveness. In the case of therapy-refractory NSCLBP a multimodal therapy should be considered.

Effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment for non-specific lower back pain: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Many patients experience acute lower back pain that becomes chronic pain. The proportion of patients using complementary and alternative medicine to treat lower back is increasing. Even though several moxibustion clinical trials for lower back pain have been conducted, the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion intervention is controversial. The purpose of this study protocol for a systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment for non-specific lower back pain patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct an electronic search of several databases from their inception to May 2017, including Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Wanfang Database, Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Korean Medical Database, Korean Studies Information Service System, National Discovery for Science Leaders, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System, the Korea Institute of Science and Technology, and KoreaMed. Randomised controlled trials investigating any type of moxibustion treatment will be included. The primary outcome will be pain intensity and functional status/disability due to lower back pain. The secondary outcome will be a global measurement of recovery or improvement, work-related outcomes, radiographic improvement of structure, quality of life, and adverse events (presence or absence). Risk ratio or mean differences with a 95% confidence interval will be used to show the effect of moxibustion therapy when it is possible to conduct a meta-analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at an international academic conference for dissemination. Our results will provide current evidence of the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment in non-specific lower back pain patients, and thus will be beneficial to patients, practitioners, and policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016047468 in PROSPERO 2016.

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Sciatica: An Updated Cochrane Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on pain reduction, overall improvement, and reported adverse effects in people with sciatica.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

NSAIDs are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for sciatica.

METHODS

We updated a 2008 Cochrane Review through June 2015. Randomized controlled trials that compared NSAIDs with placebo, with other NSAIDs, or with other medication were included. Outcomes included pain using mean difference (MD, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]). For global improvement and adverse effects risk ratios (RR, 95% CI) were used. We assessed level of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Ten trials were included (N = 1651). Nine out of 10 trials were assessed at high risk of bias. For pain reduction (visual analog scale, 0 to 100) NSAIDs were no more effective than placebo (MD -4.56, 95% CI -11.11 to 1.99, quality of evidence: very low). For global improvement NSAIDs were more effective than placebo (RR 1.14 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.27], low quality of evidence). One trial reported the effect of NSAIDs on disability with very low-quality evidence that NSAIDs are no more effective than placebo. There was low-quality evidence that the risk for adverse effects is higher for NSAID than placebo (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.93).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show very low-quality evidence that the efficacy of NSAIDs for pain reduction is comparable with that of placebo, low-quality evidence that NSAIDs is better than placebo for global improvement and low-quality evidence for higher risk of adverse effects using NSAIDs compared with placebo. The findings must be interpreted with caution, due to small study samples, inconsistent results, and a high risk of bias in the included trials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Non-specific low back pain

Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Management guidelines endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both. Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical cause, treatment focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Management consists of education and reassurance, analgesic medicines, non-pharmacological therapies, and timely review. The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients require little if any formal medical care. Two treatment strategies are currently used, a stepped approach beginning with more simple care that is progressed if the patient does not respond, and the use of simple risk prediction methods to individualise the amount and type of care provided. The overuse of imaging, opioids, and surgery remains a widespread problem.

Spinal Compression Fracture Management: A Review of Current Treatment Strategies and Possible Future Avenues

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVE

Despite the numerous treatment options for vertebral compression fractures, a consensus opinion for the management of patients with these factures has not been established. This review is meant to provide an up-to-date overview of the most common treatment strategies for compression fractures and to suggest possible routes for the development of clearer treatment guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive database search of PubMed was performed. All results from the past 30 years were obtained and evaluated based on title and abstract. The full length of relevant studies was analyzed for level of evidence, and the strongest studies were used in this review.

RESULTS

The major treatment strategies for patients with compression fractures are conservative pain management and vertebral augmentation. Despite potential adverse effects, medical management, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, calcitonin, teriparatide, and bisphosphonates, remains the first-line therapy for patients. Evidence suggests that vertebral augmentation, especially some of the newer procedures, have the potential to dramatically reduce pain and improve quality of life. At this time, balloon-assisted kyphoplasty is the procedure with the most evidence of support.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current literature, it is evident that there is a lack of standard of care for patients with vertebral compression fractures, which is either due to lack of evidence that a procedure is successful or due to serious adverse effects encountered with prolonged treatment. For a consensus to be reached, prospective clinical trials need to be formulated with potential new biomarkers to assess efficacy of treatment strategies.

Efficacy of paracetamol, diclofenac and advice for acute low back pain in general practice: design of a randomized controlled trial (PACE Plus)

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is common and associated with a considerable burden to patients and society. There is uncertainty regarding the relative benefit of paracetamol and diclofenac and regarding the additional effect of pain medication compared with advice only in patients with acute low back pain. This trial will assess the effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks. Furthermore, this trial will assess the additional effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo compared with advice only for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks.

METHODS

The PACE Plus trial is a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care, with a follow-up of 12 weeks. Patients with acute low back pain aged 18-60 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients are randomized into four groups: 1) Advice only (usual care conforming with the clinical guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners); 2) Advice and paracetamol; 3) Advice and diclofenac; 4) Advice and placebo. The primary outcome is low back pain intensity measured with a numerical rating scale (0-10). Secondary outcomes include compliance to treatment, disability, perceived recovery, costs, adverse reactions, satisfaction, sleep quality, co-interventions and adequacy of blinding. Between group differences for low back pain intensity will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. An economic evaluation will be performed using a cost-effectiveness analysis with low back pain intensity and a cost-utility analysis with quality of life. Explorative analyses will be performed to assess effect modification by predefined variables. Ethical approval has been granted. Trial results will be released to an appropriate peer-viewed journal.

DISCUSSION

This paper presents the design of the PACE Plus trial: a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care that will assess the effectiveness of advice only, paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089 , registered September 14th, 2016.

PROTOCOL

Version 4, June 2016.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation according to absorption differences in three formulations of ibuprofen

OBJECTIVE

Prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) synthesis is modulated by COX2. Changes in PGE₂ could be used to quantify the COX2 inhibition after ibuprofen administration. This study investigated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships for COX2 inhibition according to three formulations of ibuprofen in healthy male subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized, open-label, single-dose, three-treatment, six-sequence crossover study was performed in 36 healthy South Korean male volunteers. Enrolled subjects received the following three 200 mg ibuprofen formulations: ibuprofen arginine, solubilized ibuprofen capsule, and standard ibuprofen. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic blood samples were collected for 16 hours following treatment. For pharmacodynamic evaluations, lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced PGE₂ inhibition at each time point compared to predose was measured. Noncompartmental analysis was used for pharmacokinetic assessment, and time-weighted average inhibition (WAI) of PGE₂ was applied to the pharmacodynamic evaluation.

RESULTS

After a single oral dose of the ibuprofen formulations, the median times to maximum concentration were 0.42, 0.5, and 1.25 hours in ibuprofen arginine, solubilized ibuprofen capsule, and ibuprofen, respectively. The maximum observed plasma concentration was lower in ibuprofen, and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve was comparable among the three formulations. A significant difference was observed between fast-acting formulations and standard ibuprofen tablets for both maximum concentration and time taken to reach it. Individual formulations had an effect on PGE₂ WAI during the 8 hours following treatment, resulting in significantly lower WAI in standard ibuprofen: ibuprofen arginine 18.4%, solubilized ibuprofen capsule 18.4%, and standard ibuprofen 11.6%.

CONCLUSION

Rapid absorption and higher peak concentration were observed in ibuprofen arginine and the solubilized ibuprofen capsule. Additionally, fast-acting formulations had more predominant inhibitory activity on the COX2 enzyme.

A randomized placebo-controlled pilot study of the efficacy and safety of D-cycloserine in people with chronic back pain

BACKGROUND

Few effective pharmacological treatment options exist for chronic back pain, the leading cause of disability in the US, and all are associated with significant adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of D-cycloserine, a partial agonist to the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 41 participants with chronic back pain who met all inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized pilot trial of D-cycloserine. Treatment was administered orally for six weeks at escalating daily doses of 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg, each for two weeks. The primary outcome measure was back pain intensity using the Numeric Rating Scale (0-10). Secondary measures were back pain-related questionnaires: McGill Pain Questionnaire short form, painDETECT, PANAS, and BDI. The pre-specified analysis was a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

A treatment difference was observed between groups treated with D-cycloserine and placebo at six weeks of 1.05 ± 3.1 units on the Numeric Rating Scale, with an effect size of 0.4 and p = 0.14. This trend of better chronic back pain relief with D-cycloserine was also observed in the secondary measures. No safety issues were seen.

CONCLUSION

The difference in mean pain between the D-cycloserine and placebo groups did not reach statistical significance. However, a clinically meaningful effect size in the magnitude of pain relief was observed with a consistent pattern across multiple outcome measures with good safety, supporting further research into the effectiveness of D-cycloserine for chronic back pain.