Antidepressants for non-specific low back pain

Non-opioid psychiatric medications for chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The escalating number of deaths related to opioid usage has intensified the pursuit of non-opioid alternatives for managing chronic pain. It's often observed that psychiatric comorbidities coexist in patients suffering from chronic pain. There are a variety of psychotropic medications that have demonstrated effectiveness in treating both psychiatric symptoms and pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in managing specific types of chronic pain, including fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, and chronic low back pain.

Methods

A comprehensive search of five major databases was conducted through February 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met our inclusion criteria, focusing on outpatients Over 18 years of age with chronic pain. The study assessed the effectiveness of duloxetine, mirogabalin, pregabalin, gabapentin, and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), including serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), across various chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, and chronic low back pain. The primary outcome measures included pain reduction, improvement in function, and quality of life. Of the 29 RCTs in the systematic review, 20 studies qualified for the meta-analysis. The analysis was stratified by pain type and treatment duration (short-term ≤14 weeks vs. long-term >14 weeks), using Hedge's g standardized mean differences and a random-effects model, along with sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

Results

The overall short-term intervention effect across all studies was significant (SMD -1.45, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.75, p < 0.001), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). For fibromyalgia, both duloxetine and mirogabalin demonstrated substantial efficacy with SMDs of -2.42 (95% CI -3.67 to -1.18, p < 0.0001) and -2.10 (95% CI -3.28 to -0.92, p = 0.0005), respectively. Conversely, treatments for neuropathic pain and chronic low back pain, including those with amitriptyline and desipramine, did not show significant benefits. The effectiveness of gabapentin could not be conclusively determined due to limited representation in the data. Additionally, no consistent long-term benefits were observed for any of the medications.

Conclusions

While the results of this study underscore the importance of exploring non-opioid alternatives for chronic pain management, particularly in light of the opioid crisis, it is crucial to interpret the findings carefully. Our analysis suggests that certain psychiatric medications, such Duloxetine and mirogabalin demonstrated significant short-term efficacy in fibromyalgia patients. However, their effectiveness in treating neuropathic pain and chronic low back pain was not statistically significant. Additionally, the effectiveness of gabapentin and other medications, such as pregabalin for neuropathic pain, could not be conclusively determined due to limited data and high study heterogeneity. No consistent long-term benefits were observed for any of the drugs studied, raising questions about their sustained efficacy in chronic pain management. These findings highlight the need for further research to understand better the role of psychiatric medications in managing specific chronic pain conditions without prematurely concluding that they are ineffective or unsuitable for these purposes.

Efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This study reassesses the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP).Materials & methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO and Cochrane CENTRAL, published through August 2024. Studies compared antidepressants with placebo or active comparators. The primary outcomes were pain relief and quality of life. Protocol registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42023307516.Results: Nine RCTs involving 1758 patients were analyzed. The antidepressants examined included duloxetine, escitalopram, bupropion, amitriptyline, imipramine and desipramine. Duloxetine 60 mg significantly reduced pain (MD = -0.57; 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.36) and improved quality of life compared with placebo, with side effects that were generally tolerable. Notably, higher doses of duloxetine (120 mg) were associated with an increase in adverse events. However, other antidepressants like amitriptyline and escitalopram demonstrated only modest or inconsistent effects.Conclusion: Duloxetine at 60 mg provides consistent pain relief and improves the quality of life in NCLBP, but higher doses increase adverse events. Escitalopram might offer modest benefits but should be considered a third-line treatment. Other antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, bupropion, imipramine and desipramine, have limited evidence supporting their efficacy and are associated with adverse effects.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for pain in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

In many countries, pain is the most common indication for use of antidepressants in older adults. We reviewed the evidence from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of antidepressants, compared to all alternatives for pain in older adults (aged ≥65 years).

METHODS

Trials published from inception to 1 February 2024, were retrieved from 13 databases. Two independent reviewers extracted data on study and participant characteristics, primary efficacy (pain scores, converted to 0-100 scale) and harms. Estimates for efficacy were pooled using a random effects model and reported as difference in means and 95% CI. Quality of included trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (n = 1369 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently studied antidepressants were duloxetine and amitriptyline (6/15 studies each). Pain related to knee osteoarthritis was the most studied (6/15 studies). For knee osteoarthritis, antidepressants did not provide a statistically significant effect for the immediate term (0-2 weeks), (-5.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -11.5 to 0.3), but duloxetine provided a statistically significant, albeit a very small effect in the intermediate term, (≥6 weeks and <12 months), (-9.1, 95% CI: -11.8 to -6.4). Almost half (7/15) of the studies reported increased withdrawal of participants in the antidepressant treatment group vs. the comparator group due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

For most chronic painful conditions, the benefits and harms of antidepressant medicines are unclear. This evidence is predominantly from trials with sample sizes of <100, have disclosed industry ties and classified as having unclear or high risk of bias.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Antidepressants in Patients With Comorbid Depression and Medical Diseases: An Umbrella Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Every third to sixth patient with medical diseases receives antidepressants, but regulatory trials typically exclude comorbid medical diseases. Meta-analyses of antidepressants have shown small to medium effect sizes, but generalizability to clinical settings is unclear, where medical comorbidity is highly prevalent.

Objective

To perform an umbrella systematic review of the meta-analytic evidence and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of antidepressant use in populations with medical diseases and comorbid depression.

Data Sources

PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception until March 31, 2023, for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for treatment or prevention of comorbid depression in any medical disease.

Study Selection

Meta-analyses of placebo- or active-controlled RCTs studying antidepressants for depression in individuals with medical diseases.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction and quality assessment using A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2 and AMSTAR-Content) were performed by pairs of independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. When several meta-analyses studied the same medical disease, the largest meta-analysis was included. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled data on the primary outcome (efficacy), key secondary outcomes (acceptability and tolerability), and additional secondary outcomes (response and remission).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Antidepressant efficacy presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and tolerability (discontinuation for adverse effects) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation) presented as risk ratios (RRs).

Results

Of 6587 references, 176 systematic reviews were identified in 43 medical diseases. Altogether, 52 meta-analyses in 27 medical diseases were included in the evidence synthesis (mean [SD] AMSTAR-2 quality score, 9.3 [3.1], with a maximum possible of 16; mean [SD] AMSTAR-Content score, 2.4 [1.9], with a maximum possible of 9). Across medical diseases (23 meta-analyses), antidepressants improved depression vs placebo (SMD, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.54]; I2 = 76.5%), with the largest SMDs for myocardial infarction (SMD, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.82-1.93]), functional chest pain (SMD, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.08-1.67]), and coronary artery disease (SMD, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32-1.33]) and the smallest for low back pain (SMD, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.17-0.39]) and traumatic brain injury (SMD, 0.08 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.45]). Antidepressants showed worse acceptability (24 meta-analyses; RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02-1.32]) and tolerability (18 meta-analyses; RR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.13-1.64]) compared with placebo. Antidepressants led to higher rates of response (8 meta-analyses; RR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-1.94]) and remission (6 meta-analyses; RR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.25-1.61]) than placebo. Antidepressants more likely prevented depression than placebo (7 meta-analyses; RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.53]).

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this umbrella systematic review of meta-analyses found that antidepressants are effective and safe in treating and preventing depression in patients with comorbid medical disease. However, few large, high-quality RCTs exist in most medical diseases.

[Chronic Back Pain]

Chronic back pain is one of the most common diseases in Germany. In many cases, no morphological change is found, so that the genesis remains unspecific in over 90% of patients. This article is intended to provide an overview of drug therapy as well as non-drug measures and summarizes the corresponding guideline recommendations.

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain.  Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.

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.

MANIFESTATIONS AND TREATMENT OF LOWER BACK PAIN SYNDROME IN WARTIME

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To improve treatment of patients with lower back pain through identification of pathogenetic factors in its formation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The early results of treatment of 84 patients with lower back pain (main group) were analysed. Patients of the main group were divided into two subgroups: one group involved patients with mental disorders, the other - patients not suffering from such disorders (the Spielberger-Hanin Anxiety Test used). The patients of the main group with mental disorders (49 patients) were administered with epidural steroid injections and antidepressants. The patients with no mental disorders (35 patients) were administered with epidural steroid injections only. The control group involved 36 patients with lower back pain who did not undergo any psychological testing and were administered with epidural steroid injections only. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire were used to assess pain syndrome. The assessment was carried out twice: in the pre-operative period and in three months after the treatment.

RESULTS

Results: A significant difference in the early treatment results between the main and control groups was established according to both the Visual Analog Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index in favour of the main group patients, who were differentiated by pathogenetic factors of the pain syndrome formation.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Lower back pain syndrome necessitates clarification of its components in order to develop pathogenically based treatment.

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.

An Updated Overview of Low Back Pain Management

We aimed to determine the recommendation level for the treatment of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). A systematic review (SR) of the literature was performed and all English-language articles that discuss acute and chronic LBP, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched. Of the 873 searched literature reports, 259 articles, including 131 clinical trials, 115 SRs, nine meta-analyses, and four clinical guidelines were analyzed. In these articles, high-quality randomized controlled trials, SRs, and used well-written clinical guidelines were reviewed. The results indicated multiple acute and chronic LBP treatment methods in the literature, and these reports when reviewed included general behavior, pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, specific exercise, active rehabilitation and educational interventions, manual therapy, physical modalities, and invasive procedures. The Trial conclusions and SRs were classified into four categories of A, B, C, and D. If there were not enough high-quality articles, it was designated as "I" (insufficient). This review and summary of guidelines may be beneficial for physicians to better understand and make recommendations in primary care.

Emotional disorders and their therapy in chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most common chronic pain syndrome that causes deterioration of the quality of life and disability. Anxiety and depressive disorders are significantly more common in patients with CLBP. The negative impact of CLBP on cognitive abilities and sleep was revealed. Treatment of patients with CLBP should be started with non-pharmacological methods, including an educational program, kinesiotherapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy. Antidepressants are prescribed for CLBP to reduce the severity of associated anxiety and depressive disorders, improve sleep and relieve pain. The efficacy and safety of sertraline (Serenatа) in CLBP, its additional neurochemical mechanisms of action due to its effect on dopamine reuptake, interaction with sigma receptors, low incidence of side effects, and high adherence of patients to therapy are discussed. 

Antidepressants for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000.  Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.

Prescribing Patterns of Pain Medications in Unspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Retrospective Analysis

Acute low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. Since there is evidence of excessive prescriptions of analgesics, i.e., opioids, the aim of this study was to describe the use of pain medications in patients with LBP in the Swiss primary care setting. A retrospective, observational study was performed using medical prescriptions of 180 general practitioners (GP) during years 2009–2020. Patterns of pain medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and opioids) as well as co-medications were analyzed in patients with a LBP diagnosis. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed GP and patient characteristics associated with the prescription of pain medication. Patients included were 10,331 (mean age 51.7 years, 51.2% female); 6449 (62.4%) received at least one pain medication and of these 86% receive NSAIDs and 22% opioids. GP characteristics (i.e., self-employment status) and patient characteristics (male gender and number of consultations) were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any pain medication in multivariable analysis. 3719 patients (36%) received co-medications. Proton-pump-inhibitors and muscle relaxants were the most commonly used co-medications. In conclusion, two-thirds of LBP patients were treated with pain medications. Prescribing patterns were conservative, with little use of strong opioids and co-medications.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches to chronic lumbar back pain

Low back pain is a common and important cause of disability. Chronic pain increases disability and cost. In this review, we discuss pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches for chronic low back pain in the light of current data and guidelines.

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressants for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0-100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33  points (95% CI - 6.15 to - 2.50) on a 0-100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Ultrasound-guided periradicular oxygen-ozone injections as a treatment option for low back pain associated with sciatica

BACKGROUND

The social impact and economic burden of low back pain are well known among the medical community. A novel therapeutic approach is represented by oxygen-ozone therapy, whose anti-inflammatory effects could be especially useful in patients with herniated discs. The most common administration is through a palpation-guided injection technique, although the use of ultrasound guidance could allow a more precise delivery of the therapeutic substance close to the nerve root.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To describe the clinical outcomes following US-guided periradicular injection of oxygen-ozone as a treatment option for low back pain associated to sciatica in patients affected by symptomatic L5-S1 disc herniation.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided periradicular injection of oxygen-ozone in L5-S1 herniation is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment, able to improve both low back and radiating pain.

Association of Therapies With Reduced Pain and Improved Quality of Life in Patients With Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition that results in a significant burden to individuals and society.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of therapies for reducing pain and improving quality of life (QOL) in people with fibromyalgia.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were performed in the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, AMED, PsycInfo, and PEDro databases without language or date restrictions on December 11, 2018, and updated on July 15, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

All published randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials that investigated therapies for individuals with fibromyalgia were screened for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the 0 to 10 PEDro scale. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pain intensity measured by the visual analog scale, numerical rating scales, and other valid instruments and QOL measured by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 224 trials including 29 962 participants were included. High-quality evidence was found in favor of cognitive behavioral therapy (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.9; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.3) for pain in the short term and was found in favor of central nervous system depressants (WMD, -1.2 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8]) and antidepressants (WMD, -0.5 [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.4]) for pain in the medium term. There was also high-quality evidence in favor of antidepressants (WMD, -6.8 [95% CI, -8.5 to -5.2]) for QOL in the short term and in favor of central nervous system depressants (WMD, -8.7 [95% CI, -11.3 to -6.0]) and antidepressants (WMD, -3.5 [95% CI, -4.5 to -2.5]) in the medium term. However, these associations were small and did not exceed the minimum clinically important change (2 points on an 11-point scale for pain and 14 points on a 101-point scale for QOL). Evidence for long-term outcomes of interventions was lacking.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that most of the currently available therapies for the management of fibromyalgia are not supported by high-quality evidence. Some therapies may reduce pain and improve QOL in the short to medium term, although the effect size of the associations might not be clinically important to patients.

Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain.

METHODS

We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology.

DISCUSSION

This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

The 22nd Anniversary of the Cochrane Back and Neck Group

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review and literature review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide an update on The Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) activities.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Low back pain (LBP) affects 80% of people at some time in their lives. CBN Group has been housed in Toronto at the Institute for Work & Health since 1996 and has published 85 reviews and 32 protocols in the Cochrane Library.

METHODS

Narrative review of CBN publications, impact factor, usage data, and social media impact.

RESULTS

In the past 3 years, CBN conducted priority setting with organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines for LBP. CBN editors and associate editors published key methodological articles in the field of back and neck pain research. The methodological quality of CBN reviews has been assessed by external groups in a variety of areas, which found that CBN reviews had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. CBN reviews have been included in 35 clinical practice guidelines for back and neck conditions. The 2018 journal impact factor of CBN is 11.154, which is higher than the 2018 impact factor for CDSR (7.755). CBN reviews ranked 4th among 53 Cochrane review groups in terms of Cochrane Library usage data. The most accessed CBN review was "Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low-back pain" which had 9689 full-text downloads. CBN is active on Twitter with 3958 followers.

CONCLUSION

CBN has published highly utilized systematic reviews and made important methodological contributions to the field of spine research over the past 22 years within Cochrane.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Yellow flag on prognostic factors for non-specific chronic low back pain patients subjected to mini-invasive treatment: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Research was conducted to study the efficacy of analgesic infiltration treatment in a well-selected population of patients with non-specific drug-resistant chronic low back pain. It studied the pain on a numeric rating scale and the physical and mental condition of patients using a short-form health survey-36, before and six months after invasive pain treatment.

DESIGN

This is a prospective observational single center cohort study.

SETTING

The study took place in the Multimodal Pain Therapy Unit of the IRCCS Institute of Neurological Sciences in Bologna, Italy.

SUBJECTS

Four hundred and thirteen out of a total 538 patients admitted to the unit with non-specific drug-resistant chronic low back pain were enrolled in the study.

METHOD

Patients were enrolled with written consent between April 2017 and November 2018. The study assessed NRS, BDI and SF-36 scores before and six months after mini-invasive treatment.

RESULTS

There is an inverse correlation between Mental Component Scale (MCS) and Physical component scale as measured by SF-36. Older patients in a worse physical condition but with a more positive outlook on their quality of life were more likely to improve after invasive treatment (p < 0.001). The BDI scale is more effective in the diagnosis of depression than MCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognostic value of MCS given to the patient before mini-invasive treatment could lead physicians to adopt a multimodal approach that includes consideration of the psychological features of pain and possibly antidepressant therapy.

No benefit from amitriptyline for chronic low back pain?

DTB commentaries provide an overview of, and commentary on, a clinical trial, systematic review or observational study.

A methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of antidepressants effect on low back pain using updated AMSTAR

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are prescribed widely to manage low back pain. There are a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses which have investigated the efficacy of the treatments, while the methodological quality of them has not been assessed yet. This study aims to evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the effect of antidepressants on low back pain.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases up to November 2018. The 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Antidepressants treatment effects on low back pain published in English language were included. There was no limitation on the type of Antidepressants drugs, clinical setting, and study population, while non-systematical reviews and qualitative and narrative reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were evaluated; the studies were reported between 1992 and 2017. Obtained results from AMSTAR2 showed that 11 (44%), 9 (36%) and 5 (20%) of the included studies had high, moderate and low qualities, respectively. 13(52%) of studies assessed risk of bias and 2(20%) of meta analyses considered publication bias. Also, 16 (64%) of the included reviews provided a satisfactory explanation for any heterogeneity observed in the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the trend of publishing high quality papers in ADs effect on LBP increased recently, performing more high-quality SRs and MAs in this field with precise subgroups of the type of pains, the class of drugs and their dosages may give clear and more reliable evidence to help clinicians and policymakers.

The Role of Descending Pain Modulation in Chronic Primary Pain: Potential Application of Drugs Targeting Serotonergic System

Chronic primary pain (CPP) is a group of diseases with long-term pain and functional disorders but without structural or specific tissue pathologies. CPP is becoming a serious health problem in clinical practice due to the unknown cause of intractable pain and high cost of health care yet has not been satisfactorily addressed. During the past decades, a significant role for the descending pain modulation and alterations due to specific diseases of CPP has been emphasized. It has been widely established that central sensitization and alterations in neuroplasticity induced by the enhancement of descending pain facilitation and/or the impairment of descending pain inhibition can explain many chronic pain states including CPP. The descending serotonergic neurons in the raphe nuclei target receptors along the descending pain circuits and exert either pro- or antinociceptive effects in different pain conditions. In this review, we summarize the possible underlying descending pain regulation mechanisms in CPP and the role of serotonin, thus providing evidence for potential application of analgesic medications based on the serotonergic system in CPP patients.

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.

Resilient to Pain: A Model of How Yoga May Decrease Interference Among People Experiencing Chronic Pain

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is the leading cause of disability globally, yet for the majority of people who experience chronic pain, it does not seriously disable them or interfere with their life. People who experience severe pain yet low disability display a resilient course of pain. Yoga has been shown to decrease disability among people with pain, but it is not known how. Because even the most basic yoga practices possess many of the components thought to be important in fostering resilience, yoga is a promising means of improving resilience and clinical outcomes for people with chronic pain. A validated conceptual model of how the experience of chronic pain is affected by yoga is needed to guide a future research agenda and identify potential targets for chronic pain intervention. Ultimately, an explanatory model could guide the optimization of yoga and other non-pharmacological therapies for the treatment of chronic pain. I present a testable model.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Amitriptyline for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Antidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out.

INTERVENTION

Low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.

Association of Serum Serotonin and Pain in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain before and after Spinal Surgery

Introduction

In this study we are aiming to evaluate the changes of serum serotonin and its association with pain in patients suffering from chronic low back pain before and after lumbar discectomy surgery.

Patients and Methods

A prospective study was performed on the patients referring to the outpatient clinic in Besat hospital, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran, during 2016. A 2 mL fasting blood sample was collected from each patient at preoperative day 1 and postoperative day 14 and they were measured for level of serum serotonin. Besides, all patients were asked for severity of their low back pain in preoperative day 1 and postoperative day 14 and scored their pain from zero to ten using a Numerical Rating Scale.

Results

Forty patients with the mean age of 47 ± 13 yrs/old (range 25–77) including 15 (37.5%) males were enrolled into the study. The overall mean score of preoperative pain was significantly decreased from 7.4 ± 2.18 (range 4–10) to the postoperative pain score 3.87 ± 2.92 (range 0–10) (P < .001). The overall levels of pre- and postoperative serum serotonin were 3.37 ± 1.27 (range 1.1–6.4) and 3.58 ± 1.32 (range .94–7.1) ng/mL, respectively, with no significant difference (P = .09). The levels of pre- and postoperative serum serotonin were significantly higher in males and patients older than 50 yrs/old compared to the females and patients younger than 50 yrs/old, respectively (P = .03 and .005, respectively). A significant inverse correlation between the postoperative levels of pain and serum serotonin was observed (r = -.36 and P = .02).

Conclusion

A negative medium strength linear relationship may exist between the postoperative serum serotonin and low back pain.

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.

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.

Effect of single-dose imipramine on chronic low-back and experimental pain. A randomized controlled trial

Antidepressants are frequently prescribed as co-analgesics in chronic pain. While their efficacy is well documented for neuropathic pain, the evidence is less clear in musculoskeletal pain conditions. The present study therefore evaluated the effect of the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine on chronic low-back pain in a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled design. To explore the mechanisms of action and the influence of drug metabolism, multimodal quantitative sensory tests (QST) and genotyping for cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) were additionally performed. A single oral dose of imipramine 75 mg was compared to active placebo (tolterodine 1 mg) in 50 patients (32 females) with chronic non-specific low-back pain. Intensity of low-back pain was assessed on a 0–10 numeric rating scale at baseline and every 30 minutes after drug intake. Multimodal QST were performed at baseline and in hourly intervals for 2 hours. Pharmacogenetic influences of cytochrome P450 were addressed by CYP2D6 genotyping. No significant analgesic effect was detected neither on low-back pain nor on any of the sensory tests in the overall analyses. However, evidence for an interaction of the imipramine effect and CYP2D6 genotype was found for electrical and for pressure pain detection thresholds. Intermediate but not extensive metabolizers had a 1.20 times greater electrical pain threshold (95%-CI 1.10 to 1.31) and a 1.10 times greater pressure pain threshold (95%-CI 1.01 to 1.21) 60 minutes after imipramine than after placebo (p<0.001 and p = 0.034, respectively). The present study failed to demonstrate an immediate analgesic effect of imipramine on low-back pain. Anti-nociceptive effects as assessed by quantitative sensory tests may depend on CYP2D6 genotype, indicating that metabolizer status should be accounted for when future studies with tricyclic antidepressants are undertaken.

Failure to define low back pain as a disease or an episode renders research on causality unsuitable: results of a systematic review

Background

Causative factors may be different for the very first onset of symptoms of the ‘disease’ of low back pain (LBP) than for ensuing episodes that occur after a pain-free period. This differentiation hinges on a life-time absence of low back pain at first onset and short-term absence for further episodes. In this systematic review, we explored whether researchers make these distinctions when investigating the causality of LBP.

Methods

A literature search of PUBMED, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases was performed from January 2010 until September 2016 using the search terms ‘low back pain’ or ‘back pain’ and ‘risk factor’ or ‘caus*’ or ‘predict*’ or ‘onset’ or ‘first-time’ or ‘inception’ or ‘incidence’. Two reviewers extracted information on study design, types of episodes of back pain to distinguish the disease of LBP and recurring episodes, and also to determine the definitions of disease- or pain-free periods.

Results

Thirty-three articles purporting to study causes of LBP were included. Upon scrutiny, 31 of the 33 articles were unclear as to what type of causality they were studying, that of the ‘disease’ or the episode, or a mere association with LBP. Only 9 studies used a prospective study design. Five studies appeared to investigate the onset of the disease of LBP, however, only one study truly captured the first incidence of LBP, which was the result of sports injury. Six appeared to study episodes but only one clearly related to the concept of episodes. Therefore, among those 11 studies, nine included both first-time LBP and episodes of LBP. Consequently, 22 studies related to the prevalence of LBP, as they probably included a mixture of first-time, recurring and ongoing episodes without distinction.

Conclusion

Recent literature concerning the causality of LBP does not differentiate between the ‘disease’ of LBP and its recurring episodes mainly due to a lack of a clear definition of absence of LBP at baseline. Therefore, current research is not capable of providing a valid answer on this topic.

Opioid Analgesic Use in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: An Analysis of the Prospective Study of Outcomes in an Ankylosing Spondylitis Cohort

OBJECTIVE

Opioid analgesics may be prescribed to ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients with pain that is unresponsive to antirheumatic treatment. Our study assessed factors associated with opioid usage in AS.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 706 patients with AS meeting modified New York criteria followed at least 2 years underwent comprehensive clinical evaluation of disease activity and functional impairment. These were assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI). Radiographic severity was assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index and modified Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Scoring System. Medications taken concurrently with opioids, as well as C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), were determined at each study visit, performed every 6 months. Analyses were carried out at baseline, and longitudinal multivariable models were developed to identify factors independently associated with chronic and intermittent opioid usage over time.

RESULTS

Factors significantly associated with opioid usage, especially chronic opioid use, included longer disease duration, smoking, lack of exercise, higher disease activity (BASDAI) and functional impairment (BASFI), depression, radiographic severity, and cardiovascular disease. Patients taking opioids were more likely to be using anxiolytic, hypnotic, antidepressant, and muscle relaxant medications. Multivariable analysis underscored the association with smoking, older age, antitumor necrosis factor agent use, and psychoactive drugs, as well as with subjective but not objective determinants of disease activity.

CONCLUSION

Opioid usage was more likely to be associated with subjective measures (depression, BASDAI, BASFI) than objective measures (CRP, ESR), suggesting that pain in AS may derive from sources other than spinal inflammation alone.

[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.

The Challenges of Treating Sciatica Pain in Older Adults

Sciatica is a debilitating condition affecting approximately 25 % of the population. Typically, the patient will complain of lower limb pain that is more severe than pain in the lower back, usually accompanied by numbness and motor weakness. Most international guidelines recommend pharmacological management for the pain relief of sciatica, including paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioid analgesics, anticonvulsants, and corticosteroids, among others. However, the evidence for most of these pharmacological options is scarce, and the majority of clinical trials exclude older patients. There is overall very limited information on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these medicines in older patients with sciatica. This review presents a critical appraisal of the existing evidence for the pharmacological treatment of sciatica, with a special focus on the older adult. The age-related changes in the health of older patients, as well as their impact on the response to pharmacological treatment, including polypharmacy, drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions, is also discussed.

An Updated Overview of Low Back Pain Management in Primary Care

Currently, guidelines for lower back pain (LBP) treatment are needed. We reviewed the current guidelines and high-quality articles to confirm the LBP guidelines for the Korean Society of Spine Surgery. We searched available databases for high-quality articles in English on LBP published from 2000 to the present year. Literature searches using these guidelines included studies from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. We analyzed a total of 132 randomized clinical trials, 116 systematic reviews, 9 meta-analyses, and 4 clinical guideline reviews. We adopted the SIGN checklist for the assessment of article quality. Data were subsequently abstracted by a reviewer and verified. Many treatment options exist for LBP, with a variety of recommendation grades. We assessed the recommendation grade for general behavior, pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, and specific exercises. This information should be helpful to physicians in the treatment of LBP patients.

Targeting practitioners: A review of guidelines, training, and policy in pain management

This paper reviews the current literature on clinical guidelines, practitioner training, and government/payer policies that have come forth in response to the national rise in prescription opioid overdoses. A review of clinical opioid prescribing guidelines highlights the need for more research on safe and effective treatment options for chronic pain, improved guidance for the best management of post-operative pain, and evaluation of the implementation and impact of guideline recommendations on patient risk and outcomes. Although there is increasing attention to training in pain management in medical schools and medical residency programs, educational opportunities remain highly variable, and the need for additional clinician training in the recognition and treatment of pain as well as opioid use disorder has been recognized. Mandated use of private, federal and state educational and clinical initiatives such as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) and Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) generally increase utilization of these initiatives, but more research is needed to determine the impact of these initiatives on provider behaviors, treatment access, and patient outcomes. Finally, there is an acute need for more research on safe and effective treatments for chronic pain as well as an increased multi-level focus on improving training and access to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder as well as non-pharmacologic and non-interventional chronic pain treatments, so that these guideline-recommended interventions can become mainstream, accessible, first-line interventions for chronic pain and/or opioid use disorders.

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.

Is low-dose amitriptyline effective in the management of chronic low back pain? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Low back pain is a major clinical and public health problem, with limited evidence-based treatments. Low-dose antidepressants are commonly used to treat pain in chronic low back pain. However, their efficacy is unproven. The aim of this pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial is to determine whether low-dose amitriptyline (an antidepressant) is more effective than placebo in reducing pain in individuals with chronic low back pain.

Methods/design

One hundred and fifty individuals with chronic low back pain will be recruited through hospital and private medical and allied health clinics, advertising in local media and posting of flyers in community locations. They will be randomly allocated to receive either low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg) or an active placebo (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg) for 6 months. The primary outcome measure of pain intensity will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months using validated questionnaires. Secondary measures of self-reported low back disability, work absence and hindrance in the performance of paid/unpaid work will also be examined. Intention-to-treat analyses will be performed.

Discussion

This pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of low-dose antidepressants compared with placebo in reducing pain, disability, work absenteeism and hindrance in work performance in individuals with chronic low back pain. This trial has major public health and clinical importance as it has the potential to provide an effective approach to the management of chronic low back pain.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612000131853; registered on 30 January 2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1637-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Spinal Manipulation Vs Sham Manipulation for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically evaluate randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation (SM) vs sham manipulation in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 2015 to identify all relevant trials. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched. All data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 4 were found to be eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Participants in the SM group had improved symptoms compared with participants receiving sham treatment (standardized mean difference = - 0.36; 95% confidence interval, - 0.59 to - 0.12). The majority of studies were of low risk of bias; however, several of the studies were small, the practitioner could not be blinded, and some studies did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and had a high level of dropouts.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence that SM has specific treatment effects and is more effective at reducing nonspecific low back pain when compared with an effective sham intervention. However, given the small number of studies included in this analysis, we should be cautious of making strong inferences based on these results.

Somatic Awareness and Tender Points in a Community Sample

Somatic awareness (SA) refers to heightened sensitivity to a variety of physical sensations and symptoms. Few attempts have been made to dissociate the relationship of SA and affective symptoms with pain outcomes. We used a validated measure of mood and anxiety symptoms that includes questions related to SA to predict the number of tender points found on physical examination in a large cross-sectional community sample (the Midlife in the United States [MIDUS] Biomarker study). General distress, positive affect, and SA, which were all significantly associated with tender point number in bivariate analyses, were used as predictors of the number of tender points in a multivariate negative binomial regression model. In this model a greater number of tender points was associated with higher levels of SA (P = .02) but not general distress (P = .13) or positive affect (P = .50). Follow-up mediation analyses indicated that the relationship between general distress and tender points was partially mediated by levels of SA. Our primary finding was that SA is strongly related to the number of tender points in a community sample. Mechanisms linking SA to the spatial distribution of pain sensitivity should be investigated further.

PERSPECTIVE

This article presents an analysis of 3 overlapping psychological constructs and their relationship to widespread pain sensitivity on palpation. The findings suggest that SA is most strongly related to the spatial distribution of pain sensitivity and that further assessing it may improve our understanding of the relationship between psychological factors and pain.

Evaluation of a multicomponent programme for the management of musculoskeletal pain and depression in primary care: a cluster-randomised clinical trial (the DROP study)

BACKGROUND

Chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression are very common in primary care patients. Furthermore, they often appear as comorbid conditions, resulting in additive effect on adverse health outcomes. On the basis of previous studies, we hypothesise that depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain may benefit from an integrated management programme at primary care level. We expect positive effects on both physical and psychological distress of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a new programme for an integrated approach to chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression leads to better outcomes than usual care.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomised controlled trial involving two arms: a) control arm (usual care); and b) intervention arm, where patients participate in a programme for an integrated approach to the pain-depression dyad.

SETTINGS

Primary care centres in the province of Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain, Participants: We will recruit 330 patients aged 18-80 with moderate or severe musculoskeletal pain (Brief Pain Inventory, average pain subscale ≥5) for at least 3 months, and with criteria for major depression (DSM-IV).

INTERVENTION

A multicomponent programme according to the chronic care model. The main components are care management, optimised antidepressant treatment, and a psychoeducational group action. Blind measurements: The patients will be monitored through blind telephone interviews held at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months.

OUTCOMES

Severity of pain and depressive symptoms, pain and depression treatment response rates, and depression remission rates.

ANALYSIS

The outcomes will be analysed on an intent-to-treat basis and the analysis units will be the individual patients. This analysis will consider the effect of the study design on any potential lack of independence between observations made within the same cluster.

ETHICS

The protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Jordi Gol Primary Care Research Institute (IDIAP), Barcelona, (P14/142).

DISCUSSION

This project strengthens and improves treatment approaches for a major comorbidity in primary care. The design of the intervention takes into account its applicability under typical primary care conditions, so that if the programme is found to be effective it will be feasible to apply it in a generalised manner.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02605278 ; Registered 28 September, 2015.

Depressive symptoms are associated with poor outcome for lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The symptoms of pain and depression often present concomitantly, but little is known as to how the different subtypes of depression affect surgical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome after lumbar spine surgery between non-depressed patients and patients with different subtypes of depressive symptoms: non-melancholic (NmDS) and melancholic depression (MDS).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional postal survey. A self-made questionnaire, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Oswestery Low Back Disability Questionnaire (ODI) were sent to patients who had undergone lumbar spine surgery in the Oulu University Hospital between June, 2005 and May, 2008. BDI≥10 were further classified into NmDS or MDS.

RESULTS

A total of 537 patients (66%) completed the survey. Of these, 361 (67%) underwent disc surgery, 85 (16%) stabilizing surgery and 91 (17%) decompression. Participants were divided into three groups: BDI<10 N=324 (60%), NmDS N=153 (29%) and MDS N=60 (11%). The mean ODI (SD) in the BDI<10 group was 16 (15), in the NmDS group 36 (15), and in the MDS group 41 (18) (p<0.001). The ODI profiles were different between the groups (p<0.001). Pain was more frequent in depressive patients (88% of MDS, 81% in NmDS and 40% in BDI<10 patients experienced pain, p<0.001). The intensity of pain and pain-related disability was lowest among the patients in the BDI<10 group and highest among the MDS patients. Regular pain medication was used by 87% of patients in the MDS group, 93% of patients in the NmDS group, and 71% of patients in the BDI<10 group (p<0.001). Response to pain medication with NRS (0-10) was 5.6 among MDS, 5.8 among NmDS and 6.5 among BDI<10 patients (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Different types of depressive symptoms are associated with poor outcome after lumbar spine surgery. The outcome was worst in patients suffering from the MDS subtype. This was observed in pain intensity, functional disability and response to pain medication.

IMPLICATION

It would be important to evaluate depression pre- and postoperatively. Offering a tailored rehabilitation programme to MDS patients should be considered.

Neuropathic low back pain in clinical practice

Background and objective

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common chronic pain conditions. This paper reviews the available literature on the role of neuropathic mechanisms in chronic LBP and discusses implications for its clinical management, with a particular focus on pharmacological treatments.

Databases and data treatment

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, key pain congresses and ProQuest Dialog to identify published evidence on neuropathic back pain and its management. All titles were assessed for relevant literature.

Results

Chronic LBP comprises both nociceptive and neuropathic components, however, the neuropathic component appears under‐recognized and undertreated. Neuropathic pain (NP) is challenging to manage. Many patients with chronic LBP have pain that is refractory to existing treatments. Typically, less than half of patients experience clinically meaningful analgesia with oral pharmacotherapies; these are also associated with risks of adverse effects. Paracetamol and NSAIDs, although widely used for LBP, are unlikely to ameliorate the neuropathic component and data on the use of NP medications such as antidepressants and gabapentin/pregabalin are limited. While there is an unmet need for improved treatment options, recent data have shown tapentadol to have efficacy in the neuropathic component of LBP, and studies suggest that the capsaicin 8% patch and lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, topical analgesics available for the treatment of peripheral NP, may be a valuable additional approach for the management of neuropathic LBP.

Conclusions

Chronic LBP often has an under‐recognized neuropathic component, which can be challenging to manage, and requires improved understanding and better diagnosis and treatment.

What does this review add?

Increased recognition and improved understanding of the neuropathic component of low back pain raises the potential for the development of mechanism‐based therapies.

Open and retrospective studies suggest that agents like tapentadol and topical analgesics — such as the capsaicin 8% patch and the lidocaine 5% medicated plaster — may be effective options for the treatment of neuropathic low back pain in defined patient groups.

Chronic refractory myofascial pain and denervation supersensitivity as global public health disease

Chronic pain with a 30.3% global prevalence significantly impacts universal health. Low back pain has a 9.4% prevalence worldwide causing the most widespread disability. Neck pain ranks 4th highest regarding years lived with disability with a 4.9% prevalence worldwide. The principal cause of pain in 85% of patients visiting a tertiary pain clinic has a myofascial origin. The root cause is multifocal neuromuscular ischaemia at myofascial trigger points from muscle tightening and shortening following spondylotic radiculopathy induced partial denervation. Chronic refractory myofascial pain (CRMP) is a neuromusculoskeletal disease needing management innovations. Using electrical twitch-obtaining intramuscular stimulation (eToims), we provide objective evidence of denervation supersensitivity in multiple myotomes as cause, aggravation and maintenance of CRMP. This study underscores our previous findings that eToims is safe and efficacious for long-term use in CRMP. eToims aids potential prevention (pre-rehabilitation), simultaneous diagnosis, treatment (rehabilitation) and prognosis in real time for acute and CRMP management.

Low Back Pain in Athletes

CONTEXT

Low Back Pain (LBP) in athletes is common and has a broad spectrum of differential diagnoses that must be taken in to account when a clinician approaches the patient with LBP. The physicians should take into account spinal and extra spinal causes of low back pain in athletes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISTION

A literature review was performed for the years 1951 through 2013. Keywords used were Low Back Pain and Athletes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, PUBMED, the Cochrane Library, ELSEVIER, and the references of reviewed articles, for English-language of Low Back Pain in Athletes.

RESULTS

The two most common causes of LBP arising from spine in athletes are degenerative disc disease and spondylolysis with or without listhesis. Although most athletes, respond well to conservative treatment, surgical treatment is indicated when conservative treatment failes.

CONCLUSIONS

The major concern in athletes with LBP is return to play and previous level of their activity after treatment. There is insufficient evidence regarding this issue in literature to define the optimal time of return to play following treatment.

Effectiveness of a Web-based tailored interactive health communication application for patients with type 2 diabetes or chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial

Background

The prevalence of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and chronic low back pain is rising. Patient empowerment is a key strategy in the management of chronic diseases. Patient empowerment can be fostered by Web-based interactive health communication applications (IHCAs) that combine health information with decision support, social support, and/or behavioral change support. Tailoring the content and tone of IHCAs to the needs of individual patients might improve their effectiveness.

Objective

The main objective was to test the effectiveness of a Web-based, tailored, fully automated IHCA for patients with type 2 diabetes or chronic low back pain against a standard website with identical content without tailoring (control condition) on patients’ knowledge and empowerment.

Methods

We performed a blinded randomized trial with a parallel design. In the intervention group, the content was delivered in dialogue form, tailored to relevant patient characteristics. In the control group, the sections of the text were presented in a content tree without any tailoring. Participants were recruited online and offline and were blinded to their group assignments. Measurements were taken at baseline (t₀), directly after the first visit (t₁), and at 3-month follow-up (t₂). The primary hypothesis was that the tailored IHCA would have larger effects on knowledge and patient empowerment (primary outcomes) than the control website. The secondary outcomes were decisional conflict and preparation for decision making. All measurements were conducted by online self-report questionnaires. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and available cases (AC) analyses were performed for all outcomes.

Results

A total of 561 users agreed to participate in the study. Of these, 179 (31.9%) had type 2 diabetes and 382 (68.1%) had chronic low back pain. Usage was significantly higher in the tailored system (mean 51.2 minutes) than in the control system (mean 37.6 minutes; P<.001). Three months after system use, 52.4% of the sample was retained. There was no significant intervention effect in the ITT analysis. In the AC analysis, participants using the tailored system displayed significantly more knowledge at t₁ (P=.02) and more emotional well-being (subscale of empowerment) at t₂ (P=.009). The estimated mean difference between the groups was 3.9 (95% CI 0.5-7.3) points for knowledge and 25.4 (95% CI 6.3-44.5) points for emotional well-being on a 0-100 points scale.

Conclusions

The primary analysis did not support the study hypothesis. However, content tailoring and interactivity may increase knowledge and reduce health-related negative effects in persons who use IHCAs. There were no main effects of the intervention on other dimensions of patient empowerment or decision-related outcomes. This might be due to our tailored IHCA being, at its core, an educational intervention offering health information in a personalized, empathic fashion that merely additionally provides decision support. Tailoring and interactivity may not make a difference with regard to these outcomes.

Trial Registration

International Clinical Trials Registry: DRKS00003322; http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00003322 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6WPO0lJwE).