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

The challenge of pharmacotherapy for musculoskeletal pain: an overview of unmet needs

Musculoskeletal disorders are characterized by several impairments, including pain, affecting muscles, bones, joints and adjacent connective tissue, resulting in temporary or permanent functional limitations and disability. Musculoskeletal pain is particularly prevalent worldwide and greatly impacts the quality of life, social participation and economic burden. To date, several issues persist about the classification of musculoskeletal pain and its management strategies and resources. The treatment of musculoskeletal pain conditions is complex and often requires a multimodal approach, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy that might be ineffective in many cases, resulting in poor patient satisfaction and controversial expectations about the potential benefits of available interventions. This manuscript provides an overview of unmet needs in managing musculoskeletal pain, particularly focusing on pharmacotherapeutic pitfalls in this context.

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.

Adverse Events of the Long-Term Use of Opioids for Chronic Non-cancer Pain: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) has drawn more attention and debate. Although opioids are frequently used to treat chronic pain, their effectiveness and safety over extended periods are still unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of what is currently known about the adverse events of long-term use of opioids in CNCP. It also delivers patient-centered strategies designed to mitigate these risks.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Search terms included CNCP, pain pathophysiology, opioid pharmacodynamics, opioid prescribing trends, guidelines for opioid use, and opioid side effects.  Results: Our review highlights that while opioids may provide short-term relief from CNCP, their effectiveness diminishes over time due to the development of opioid tolerance. This tolerance often leads to increased dosages, which can subsequently result in opioid dependence. Additionally, long-term opioid therapy is associated with a spectrum of adverse effects, including constipation, drowsiness, respiratory depression, and potential for drug interactions. Furthermore, our review indicates that alternative pain management strategies play a crucial role in controlling CNCP. They offer significant benefits with fewer adverse events. These strategies include non-opioid medications, physical therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), various interventional procedures, injection therapy, and acupuncture.

CONCLUSION

Using opioids to manage CNCP presents several challenges. Given these challenges, alternative treatments are being considered as viable options. Moreover, it is crucial to customize treatment plans to align with the patients' specific health requirements, existing conditions, and potential risks to ensure the best possible outcomes.

[The role of structure-modifying agents in the treatment of back pain]

BACKGROUND

Back pain is currently one of the most urgent problems within pain syndromes. Inadequate treatment of nonspecific back pain, even with a relatively favorable prognosis, leads to its chronicity and decreases the patient's quality of life. The most common cause of vertebrogenic dorsopathies is spinal osteochondrosis. The etiopathogenetic basis of spinal osteochondrosis is degenerative and dystrophic changes in the intervertebral discs involving adjacent vertebrae, joints, and ligaments. Considering the experience of many years of using chondroprotective therapy in clinical practice, we performed an observational study using Ambene Bio to assess the change of pain severity over time in patients with osteochondrosis and back pain.

AIM

To study the change in the severity of pain and its components in patients with back pain during therapy with Ambene Bio combined with standard therapy (NSAIDs and muscle relaxants).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients with chronic lower back pain lasting more than 3 months were included in the study.

CONCLUSION

The study results confirmed the high efficacy of Ambene Bio in patients with dorsopathies with an alternating treatment regimen (10 IM injections 2 mL every other day).

Treatment Satisfaction, Efficacy, and Tolerability of Low-Dose Diclofenac Epolamine Soft Capsules in Acute, Mild, or Moderate Musculoskeletal Pain: A Prospective Open-Label, Single-Arm Interventional Study

INTRODUCTION

The use of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for acute musculoskeletal pain should be at the lowest effective dosage and for the shortest duration to minimize potential adverse effects. This study evaluated treatment satisfaction, effectiveness, and tolerability of a low-dose diclofenac epolamine 12.5-mg soft capsule formulation (DHEP 12.5-mg capsules) using patient-reported outcome measures in a real-life setting over a short period (3 days) in subjects with mild-to-moderate acute musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label, phase IV clinical study in adult outpatients at hospital clinic departments/general practitioner's clinics at eight sites in Italy. The primary efficacy variable was the degree of satisfaction with treatment at 72 ± 7 h after initiation of treatment, assessed using the Overall Satisfaction Question of the Pain Treatment Satisfaction Scale (PTSS) and described by classic descriptive statistics. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the analgesic effect after the first administration and over time; the time to and satisfaction with the onset of pain relief, amount of and duration of pain relief; pain intensity differences over time; and safety and tolerability. The investigator's satisfaction with the treatment was also assessed. Subjects initially took 1-2 capsules of the study treatment and then one or two soft capsules every 4-6 h according to their needs. Not more than six soft capsules were to be taken in any 24-h period.

RESULTS

A total of 182 subjects (mean age, 56.2 years; 54.4% female) took ≥ 1 dose of DHEP capsule and were included in the full analysis set. The most common musculoskeletal conditions were arthralgia (39.0%) and low back pain (23.1%). All subjects completed the study, and 165/182 (90.7%, 95% CI 0.86, 0.95) were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment at 72 ± 7 h after the first dose (primary efficacy variable). Similar percentages were recorded for treatment satisfaction concerning other efficacy parameters. The onset of the analgesic effect was rapid, with complete pain relief reached after a mean of 49.45 min. Investigators rated their overall treatment satisfaction as 92.9%. Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The low-dose (12.5 or 25 mg) oral diclofenac epolamine soft capsules formulation exerted rapid, effective, and safe analgesic activity in patients with mild-to-moderate musculoskeletal pain, with subjects' overall satisfaction with treatment more than 90%.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number: 2018-004886-15 (Study 18I-Fsg08). Registered 04/09/2018.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the short-term efficacy of a single-administration intramuscular injection with the fixed combination of thiocolchicoside-diclofenac versus diclofenac monotherapy in patients with acute moderate-to-severe low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem that may be accompanied by muscle spasm and decreased mobility. The combination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants represents an advantageous therapeutic option, however, available data on their combined use are conflicting. This prospective, randomized, single-blind, two-parallel-group trial assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular (IM) injection of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) diclofenac (75 mg)-thiocolchicoside (4 mg/4 ml) product (test treatment) compared to diclofenac (75 mg/3 ml) alone (reference treatment) for the symptomatic relief of acute LBP. Tolerability and safety were also assessed as secondary variables.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-four patients were enrolled (safety population) and randomly allocated to the combination or single-agent regimen. Pain intensity and muscle spasm, assessed respectively by the patient-reported visual analogue scale and investigator-performed finger-to-floor distance test, were determined prior to the injection as well as 1 and 3 h post-injection in 123 patients (per-protocol population). The patients were blinded to treatment. Safety was assessed up to 24 h post-injection.

RESULTS

The test treatment was superior in both alleviating the pain intensity and reducing the finger-to-floor distance at both 1 (p < 0.01 and p = 0.023 respectively) and 3 h post-injection (p < 0.01). A higher percentage of patients experienced > 30% reduction in pain intensity at 1 and 3 h with the test treatment (p = 0.037 and p < 0.01 respectively). The corresponding VAS (SD) scores for the test treatment group were at baseline, 1 and 3 h post-injection 72.03 (± 11.72), 45.37 (± 16.28) and 31.56 (± 15.08) respectively and for the reference treatment group 65.20 (± 12.16), 48.98 (± 18.76) and 44.52 (± 17.33) respectively. No adverse effects were reported with the combination treatment, whereas two patients treated with diclofenac reported dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDC treatment is an effective and well-tolerated option for the symptomatic treatment of LBP. Clinical and patient-reported assessments confirmed that a single IM injection of FDC diclofenac-thiocolchicoside was more effective than diclofenac alone in conferring rapid and sustained improvement in mobility and pain intensity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT No: 2017-004530-29 Available at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ Registered 04 Dec 2017.

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.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Long Duration Sonophoresis of Diclofenac to Augment Rehabilitation of Common Musculoskeletal Injuries

Background

The use of long duration sonophoresis (LDS) for musculoskeletal injuries is a new and emerging treatment option for patients undergoing rehabilitation. The treatment is non-invasive, provides multi-hour mechanical stimulus expediating tissue regeneration and deep tissue heat along with local application of therapeutic compound for improved pain relief. The objective of this prospective case study was to evaluate real-world application of diclofenac LDS as an add-on intervention for patients non-responsive to physical therapy alone.

Methods

Patient who failed to respond to at least 4 weeks of physical therapy were treated with the addition of 2.5% diclofenac LDS daily for 4 weeks. The numerical rating scale, global health improvement score, functional improvement, and treatment satisfaction index were measured to assess pain reduction and quality of life improvement from treatment. Patient outcome data was organized by injury type and patient age groups, and statistically analyzed with ANOVA to assess treatment differences within and between groups. The study was registered on clinicaltrails.gov NCT05254470.

Result

The study included (n=135) musculoskeletal injury LDS treatments with no adverse events. Patients reported a mean pain reduction from baseline of 4.44 points (p<0.0001) and a 4.85point health improvement score after 4-week of daily sonophoresis treatment. There were no age-related differences in pain reduction, and 97.8% of patients in the study reported functional improvement with the addition of LDS treatment. Significant pain relief was observed in injuries related to tendinopathy, sprain, strain, contusion, bone fracture, and post-surgical recovery.

Conclusion

The use of LDS significantly reduced pain and improved musculoskeletal function and quality of life for patients. Clinical findings suggest that LDS with 2.5% diclofenac is a viable therapeutic option for practitioners and should be further investigated.

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

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

A Scoping Review of the Use of Pioglitazone in the Treatment of Temporo-Mandibular Joint Arthritis

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are a group of diabetes medications currently being investigated for anti-arthritis effectiveness, one of which is pioglitazone. The purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the potential use of pioglitazone in the treatment of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis. The criteria of eligibility were studies with the diagnosis of arthritis and pioglitazone treatment with a change in any inflammation index as an outcome. Of the 1169 records initially identified following the selection process, two animal studies and four clinical studies were included in the review. Improvements from the baseline were observed in each treatment group for each inflammation indicator. The results of the animal studies on the temporomandibular joints and on patients with rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis indicate that the drug in question may have potential to treat arthritis, including within the temporomandibular joint.

Risk Factors, Prevention, and Primary and Secondary Management of Sciatica: An Updated Overview

Sciatica is a chronic condition causing crippling low back pain radiating down to the sciatic nerve innervation area, which is the posterior thigh. It remains a major public health problem worldwide with significant socio-economic, physical, and psychological impacts. Studies suggested different diagnostic methods due to the lack of consensus on diagnostic and treatment guidelines. When it comes to the management and treatment, there is ambiguous evidence about the use of painkillers, surgical interventions, and alternative options and their effectiveness, with most studies contrasting one another in addition to the lack of high-quality trials. This review presents the available data on the current understanding of sciatica covering clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment modalities, prognosis, and complications since a disagreement is observed in the scientific community regarding sciatica, starting with a definition of sciatica, its epidemiological characteristics, to the management and treatment. Our review would help raise knowledge and awareness about sciatica in the health professional community and the general public since the prevalence of low back pain is high in most parts of the world and there is insufficient knowledge of sciatica in the literature.

Obesity phenotypes related to musculoskeletal disorders; a cross-sectional study from RaNCD cohort

Background

This study was evaluated the association between obesity phenotypes and risk of lower torso musculoskeletal disorders including low back pain (LBP), low back stiffness (LBS), arthralgia, and joint stiffness in Ravansar non-communicable diseases (RaNCD) cohort study.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 6940 adults were examined for the presence of lower torso musculoskeletal disorders by a physician. Obesity phenotypes including metabolically healthy obesity (MHO) and metabolically unhealthy obesity (MUO) were defined based on the International Diabetes Federation, as well as, body mass index > 30 kg/m2. Metabolically unhealthy non-obesity (MUNO) phenotype was considered as unhealthy metabolic without obesity.

Results

The prevalence of LBP, LBS, arthralgia, and joint stiffness in MHO, MUO, and MUNO were significantly higher than in healthy participants compared to obesity phenotypes. Logistic regression showed that MHO phenotype was significantly increased with risk of LBP (OR: 1.19, CI 95%: 1.01–1.41), LBS (OR: 1.44, CI 95%: 1.12–1.86), arthralgia (OR: 1.54, CI 95%: 1.33–1.78), and joint stiffness (OR: 1.84, CI 95%: 1.35–2.52). Moreover, MUO phenotype was positively associated with risk of LBS (OR: 1.46, CI 95%: 1.09–1.94) and arthralgia (OR: 1.66, CI 95%: 1.41–1.96). In addition, MUNO phenotype was associated with a higher risk of arthralgia (OR: 1.21, CI 95%: 1.06–1.37).

Conclusion

All three phenotypes, MHO, MUO and MUNO were significantly increased the risk of arthralgia. However, MHO phenotype was significantly associated with a higher risk of all examined lower torso musculoskeletal disorders in the current study.

Clinical Outcomes After a Digital Musculoskeletal Program for Acute and Subacute Pain: Observational, Longitudinal Study With Comparison Group

Background

Telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions may produce similar or better outcomes than usual care, but most telerehabilitation studies address only chronic or postsurgical pain.

Objective

We aimed to examine pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 weeks for individuals with acute and subacute MSK pain who took part in a digital MSK program versus a nonparticipant comparison group.

Methods

We conducted an observational, longitudinal study with a nonparticipant comparison group. The intervention group had video visits with physical therapists who recommended exercise therapies and educational articles delivered via an app. Nonparticipants were those who were registered but unable to participate because their benefit coverage had not yet begun. We collected pain and function outcomes through surveys delivered at 3-, 6-, and 12-week follow-ups. We conducted descriptive analyses, unadjusted regression, and mixed effects regression adjusting for baseline characteristics, time as fixed effects, and a time*group interaction term.

Results

The analysis included data from 675 nonparticipants and 262 intervention group participants. Compared to baseline, the intervention group showed significantly more pain improvement at 3, 6, and 12 weeks versus nonparticipants after adjusting for baseline factors. Specifically, the intervention group’s pain scores decreased by 55.8% at 3 weeks versus baseline, 69.1% at 6 weeks, and 73% at 12 weeks. The intervention group’s adjusted pain scores decreased from 43.7 (95% CI 41.1-46.2) at baseline to 19.3 (95% CI 16.8-21.8) at 3 weeks to 13.5 (95% CI 10.8-16.2) at 6 weeks to 11.8 (95% CI 9-14.6) at 12 weeks. In contrast, nonparticipants’ pain scores decreased by 30.8% at 3 weeks versus baseline, 45.8% at 6 weeks, and 46.7% at 12 weeks. Nonparticipants’ adjusted pain scores decreased from 43.8 (95% CI 42-45.5) at baseline to 30.3 (95% CI 27.1-33.5) at 3 weeks to 23.7 (95% CI 20-27.5) at 6 weeks to 23.3 (95% CI 19.6-27) at 12 weeks. After adjustments, the percentage of participants reporting that pain was better or much better at follow-up was significantly higher by 40.6% at 3 weeks, 31.4% at 6 weeks, and 31.2% at 12 weeks for intervention group participants versus nonparticipants. After adjustments, the percentage of participants with meaningful functional improvement at follow-up was significantly higher by 15.2% at 3 weeks and 24.6% at 12 weeks for intervention group participants versus nonparticipants.

Conclusions

A digital MSK program may help to improve pain and function in the short term among those with acute and subacute MSK pain.

Nonoperative treatment for pain sensitization in patients with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a disability that occurs worldwide. It is a heterogeneous disorder that affects patients with dominant nociceptive, neuropathic, and central sensitization pain. An important pathophysiology of low back pain involves pain sensitization. Various nonoperative interventions are available for treatment, but there is inconclusive evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions for pain sensitization, leading to arbitrary nonoperative treatments for low back pain.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review of RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of nonoperative treatment for pain sensitization in patients with low back pain. The primary outcomes will be static quantitative sensory testing, dynamic quantitative sensory testing, and pain algometry. The secondary outcome will be adverse events. We will search the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Library databases. Two independent authors will screen the titles and abstracts, review full texts, extract data, assess the risk of bias, and evaluate the quality of evidence. We will qualitatively and quantitatively synthesize the results using a random effects model for meta-analysis.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review aims to provide evidence regarding which treatment, if any, provides the greatest benefit for pain sensitization and safety among patients with low back pain. Evidence synthesized from this systematic review will inform clinical practice and further research. Since there is still a small amount of research, additional studies might need to be conducted in the future.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Submitted to PROSPERO on March 20, 2021, CRD42021244054.

Management of acute low back pain in emergency departments in São Paulo, Brazil: a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe management strategies used in public emergency departments in a middle-income country for patients with acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A study with 600 patients with low back pain presenting in four public emergency departments from São Paulo, Brazil was conducted.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnostic tests, pharmacological interventions, and/or referral to other healthcare professionals were collected. Descriptive analyses were used to report all outcomes.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 12.5% (n=75) underwent some diagnostic imaging tests. Medication was administered to 94.7% (n=568) of patients. The most common medications were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (71.3%; n=428), opioids (29%; n=174) and corticosteroids (22.5%; n=135). Only 7.5% (n=45) of patients were referred to another type of care.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for research data on low back pain from middle-income countries. There was an acceptable rate of prescription for diagnostic imaging tests. However, there were high medication prescriptions and small rates of referrals to other healthcare services. Our findings indicate that there is still a need to implement best practices in the management of acute low back pain at public emergency departments in Brazil.

What Is New in the Clinical Management of Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition associated with disability. Treating patients with LBP becomes further complicated by the potential presence of underlying conditions, such as cancer or traumatic injury, or biopsychosocial aspects. LBP usually has a neuropathic component that must be assessed and treated appropriately. Pharmacological management of LBP requires a thorough knowledge of the available agents and the mechanisms of the LBP. Although there are effective pharmacological treatments for LBP, it is important to consider safety issues. Fixed-dose combination products may be helpful, as they can reduce opioid consumption without sacrificing analgesic benefits. Neuromodulation is an important and sometimes overlooked treatment option for LBP and may be appropriate for chronic LBP requiring long-term treatment. Imaging studies support neuroplastic changes in the brain as a result of neuromodulation. Interventional approaches to chronic LBP are numerous and must be appropriately selected based on the individual patient. Evidence in support of epidural injections for LBP is strong for short-term pain control but moderate to limited for long-term relief. Rehabilitation for LBP can be an important element of long-term care, and new forms of rehabilitation programs are being developed using telemedicine. A variety of new and established treatments are available for patients with LBP, and clinicians and patients may benefit from emerging new treatment modalities.

Evaluation of Sustained Acoustic Medicine for Treating Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military and Sports Medicine

Background

Musculoskeletal injuries are common in collegiate, professional, and military personnel and require expedited recovery to reduce lost work time. Sustained acoustic medicine (SAM) provides continuous long-duration ultrasound at 3MHz and 132mW/cm². The treatment is frequently prescribed to treat acute and chronic soft tissue injuries and reduce pain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SAM treatment for musculoskeletal injuries and accelerated recovery.

Methods

An 18-question electronic survey and panel discussion were conducted on Athletic Trainers (ATs) using SAM treatment in professional, collegiate, and military sports medicine. The survey included both qualitative and quantitative questions. In addition, a panel discussion discussed SAM effectiveness with expert ATs. Power calculation of sampling and statistical evaluation of data was utilized to generalize the results.

Results

Survey respondents (n=97) and panelists (n=142) included ATs from all National Athletic Trainers Association districts. SAM was primarily used for musculoskeletal injuries (83.9%, p<0.001) with a focus on healing tendons and ligaments (87.3%, p<0.001). SAM treatment was also used on joints (44.8%), large muscle groups (43.7%), and bone (41.4%). SAM provided clinical improvement in under 2 weeks (68.9%, p<0.001) and a 50% reduction in pain medication (63%, p<0.001). In addition, patients were highly receptive to treatment (87.3%, p<0.001), and ATs had a high level of confidence for improved function and returned to work after 30-days of SAM use (81.2%, p<0.001).

Conclusion

SAM is an effective, safe, easy-to-use, noninvasive, comfortable, and versatile therapeutic for healing musculoskeletal injuries.

Is single-point acupuncture effective in treating acute low back pain?

Acupuncture is often used for acute and chronic low back pain; however, its efficacy is controversial, primarily for acute low back pain (ALBP). An acupuncture point, GV-26, could be used as an analgesic acupoint to treat acute low back pain. Our study suggests that single acupuncture could relieve ALBP within a short time without any adverse events. Acupuncture can be integrated with allopathic (western) medicine and used in the hospital's emergency department to treat acute painful conditions.

Low Back Pain

Low back pain is a common problem that is the leading cause of disability and is associated with high costs. Evaluation focuses on identification of risk factors indicating a serious underlying condition and increased risk for persistent disabling symptoms in order to guide selective use of diagnostic testing (including imaging) and treatments. Nonpharmacologic therapies, including exercise and psychosocial management, are preferred for most patients with low back pain and may be supplemented with adjunctive drug therapies. Surgery and interventional procedures are options in a minority of patients who do not respond to standard treatments.

Future Pharmacists' Opinions on the Facilitation of Self-Care with Over-the-Counter Products and Whether This Should Remain a Core Role

Background: The aim was to investigate pharmacy students’ views on the role of the pharmacist in facilitating self-care with over-the-counter (OTC) medicines, particularly in light of new roles, and establish personal practice. Methods: Final year pharmacy students at Queen’s University Belfast were invited to participate. Data were collected via a pre-piloted questionnaire, distributed at a compulsory class (only non-identifiable data were requested). Descriptive statistics were performed, and non-parametric tests were employed for inferential statistical analysis (responses by gender). Results: The response rate was 87.6% (78/89); 34.6% (27/78) males and 65.4% (51/78) females. Over a third [34.6% (27/78)] reported using OTC medicines about once a month. All appreciated the importance of an evidence-based approach to optimize patient care. Most [(96.2% (75/78)] deemed OTC consultations should remain a fundamental responsibility of pharmacists and 69.2% (54/78) thought OTC consultations have the potential to be as complex as independent pharmacist prescribing. Females felt more confident recommending OTC emergency contraception than males (p = 0.002 for levonorgestrel and p = 0.011 for ulipristal acetate). Many [61.5% (48/78)] considered more medicines should not be deregulated from prescription-only status. Conclusions: Data from this single institution suggests that enabling self-medication is an important part of practice but there were confidence issues around deregulations.

[The efficacy of the combination of diclofenac and orphenadrine in the treatment of dorsalgia]

The high prevalence of dorsalgia and dorsopathy among the adult population makes a significant contribution to the structure of the financial burden of health care systems. The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as the basis for the pharmacotherapy of dorsopathy is recommended by most international clinical guidelines. The pharmacodynamic effects of NSAIDs underlie the clinical efficacy of this group of drugs in patients with pain of musculoskeletal origin, while monotherapy is not always accompanied by the rapid development of a persistent analgesic effect. An urgent direction in the therapy of dorsopathies may include combination of NSAIDs with analgesic drugs of other pharmacological groups capable of additive action. The fixed combination of diclofenac, 75 mg, and orphenadrine, 50 mg, allows achieving an effective analgesic effect in patients with lower back pain of various etiologies. It was demonstrated in a series of clinical cases that included 4 patients with dorsopathy who were treated at the City Clinical Hospital No. 24, Moscow in 2020.

Lumbo-pelvic proprioception in sitting is impaired in subgroups of low back pain-But the clinical utility of the differences is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Altered spinal postures and altered motor control observed among people with non-specific low back pain have been associated with abnormal processing of sensory inputs. Evidence indicates that patients with non-specific low back pain have impaired lumbo-pelvic proprioceptive acuity compared to asymptomatic individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review seated lumbo-pelvic proprioception among people with non-specific low back pain.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing lumbo-pelvic proprioception using active repositioning accuracy in sitting posture in individuals with and without non-specific low back pain. Study quality was assessed by using a modified Downs and Black's checklist. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted tool for cross-sectional design and case-control studies. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. Meta-analyses included subgroup analyses according to disability level, directional subgrouping pattern, and availability of vision during testing. We rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

16 studies met the eligibility criteria. Pooled meta-analyses were possible for absolute error, variable error, and constant error, measured in sagittal and transverse planes. There is very low and low certainty evidence of greater absolute and variable repositioning error in seated tasks among non-specific low back pain patients overall compared to asymptomatic individuals (sagittal plane). Subgroup analyses indicate moderate certainty evidence of greater absolute and variable error in seated tasks among directional subgroups of adults with non-specific low back pain, along with weaker evidence (low-very low certainty) of greater constant error.

DISCUSSION

Lumbo-pelvic proprioception is impaired among people with non-specific low back pain. However, the low certainty of evidence, the small magnitude of error observed and the calculated "noise" of proprioception measures, suggest that any observed differences in lumbo-pelvic proprioception may be of limited clinical utility.

PROSPERO-ID

CRD42018107671.

Pain Self-Management Strategies of Chronic Back Pain Sufferers in Thailand: A Qualitative Study (A Doctoral Project)

Background:

Chronic low back pain is among the most common chronic musculoskeletal disorders worldwide. It is prevalent in Thailand, affecting up to 30% of the general population, with much higher rates among manual labourers. Pain self-management, including education, exercise, medication and other components, is an effective strategy for reducing pain intensity and disability rates for chronic low back pain sufferers.

Objective:

To investigate pain self-management strategies among chronic lower back pain sufferers in Thailand.

Methods:

The study design was a qualitative interview-based technique. The study setting was an orthopaedic outpatient department at a university hospital in Northern Thailand. Participants (n = 19) were selected based on recruitment criteria, and data was collected using demographic forms and in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative analysis, with Wilcoxon signed-rank test used to assess changes in pain levels.

Results:

Participants used a combination of pain self-management modalities, including exercise, modified food consumption, increased rest, herbal treatments, hot and cold compression, Thai massage, and acupressure, along with psychological and spiritual coping tools like meditation and making merit. Ability to use these interventions was dependent on medical support from practitioners as well as social and other support. A small, but significant, mean difference in pain was also observed.

Conclusion:

Findings point to the possibility that there are significant cultural differences in pain self-management modalities and their effectiveness.

The Management of Sciatica by Acupuncture: An Expert Consensus Using the Improved Delphi Survey

Objective

Acupuncture therapy is an effective non-drug therapy for sciatica, but it has not yet formed an effective treatment strategy and recommendations. Our objective was to establish an expert consensus on acupuncture treatment of sciatica for clinical guidance based on the improved Delphi survey.

Methods

A group of 80 clinical specialists was invited to participate in two rounds of semi-open clinical issue investigation. At the same time, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for systematic reviews on acupuncture treatment of sciatica, and the quality of evidence was evaluated. Then the three-round Delphi survey was undertaken with 30 experts based on the clinical issue investigation and systematic reviews.

Results

In round 1 of the Delphi survey, the experts evaluated 17 items identified from the results of the clinical investigation and literature review. The criterion for achieving consensus was a threshold of 80% agreement. After the three-round Delphi survey, 16 items (94.12%) achieved consensus, including 5 domains: the principle of acupuncture treatment for sciatica; the “dose” of acupuncture; the clinical effects of acupuncture; the adverse effects, and others.

Conclusion

This Delphi survey achieved an expert consensus on key items in the management of sciatica for acupuncture, which provides the current opinions in China. We trust that these treatment recommendations may facilitate their implementation in the future.