Efficacy of duloxetine versus alternative oral therapies: an indirect comparison of randomised clinical trials in chronic low back pain

Duloxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy with phone-based support for the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain: study protocol of the PRECICE randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is the most common, disabling, and costly of all pain conditions. While evidence exists for the efficacy of both duloxetine and web-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as monotherapy, there is a clear need to consider study of treatment components that may complement each other. In addition, given the reported association between patient's adherence and treatment outcomes, strategies are needed to enhance participant's motivation to adopt and maintain continued use of newly learned pain coping skills from CBT.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty participants will be recruited from the primary care clinics of a large academic health care system in North Carolina. Participants with CMP will be randomized to one of three treatment arms: (1) combination treatment (duloxetine + web-based self-guided CBT) with phone-based motivational interviewing (MI), (2) combination treatment without phone-based MI, and (3) duloxetine monotherapy. Participants will be in the study for 24 weeks and will be assessed at baseline, week 13, and week 25. The primary outcome is the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-Global Pain Severity score, which combines BPI pain severity and BPI pain interference. Secondary measures include between-group comparisons in mean BPI pain severity and BPI pain interference scores. Data collection and outcome assessment will be blinded to treatment group assignment.

DISCUSSION

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) will determine if combination treatment with duloxetine and web-based CBT is superior to duloxetine monotherapy for the management of CMP. Furthermore, this RCT will determine the effectiveness of phone-based motivational interviewing in promoting the continued practice of pain coping skills, thereby enhancing treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04395001 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered on May 15, 2020.

Duloxetine and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy with Phone-based Support for the Treatment of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Study Protocol of the PRECICE Randomized Control Trial

Background

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is the most common, disabling, and costly of all pain conditions. While evidence exists for the efficacy of both duloxetine and web-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as monotherapy, there is a clear need to consider study of treatment components that may complement each other. In addition, given the reported association between patient's adherence and treatment outcomes, strategies are needed to enhance participant's motivation to adopt and maintain continued use of newly learned pain coping skills from CBT.

Methods

Two hundred eighty participants will be recruited from the primary care clinics of a large academic health care system in North Carolina. Participants with CMP will be randomized to one of 3 treatment arms: (1) combination treatment (duloxetine + web-based self-guided CBT) with phone-based motivational interviewing (MI), (2) combination treatment without phone-based MI and (3) duloxetine monotherapy. Participants will be in the study for 24 weeks and will be assessed at baseline, week 13, and week 25. The primary outcome is the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-Global Pain Severity score, which combines BPI pain severity and BPI pain interference. Secondary measures include between-group comparisons in mean BPI pain severity and BPI pain interference scores. Data collection and outcome assessment will be blinded to treatment group assignment.

Discussion

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) will determine if combination treatment with duloxetine and web-based CBT is superior to duloxetine monotherapy for the management of CMP. Furthermore, this RCT will determine the effectiveness of phone-based motivational interviewing in promoting the continued practice of pain coping skills; thereby, enhancing treatment outcomes.

Trial Registration

NCT04395001. Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on May 15, 2020.

Diagnosis and Management of Neuropathic Pain in Spine Diseases

Neuropathic pain is generally defined as a non-physiological pain experience caused by damage to the nervous system. It can occur spontaneously, as a reaction to a given stimulus, or independently of its action, leading to unusual pain sensations usually referred to as firing, burning or throbbing. In the course of spine disorders, pain symptoms commonly occur. According to available epidemiological studies, a neuropathic component of pain is often present in patients with spinal diseases, with a frequency ranging from 36% to 55% of patients. Distinguishing between chronic nociceptive pain and neuropathic pain very often remains a challenge. Consequently, neuropathic pain is often underdiagnosed in patients with spinal diseases. In reference to current guidelines for the treatment of neuropathic pain, gabapentin, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants constitute first-line therapeutic agents. However, long-term pharmacologic treatment often leads to developing tolerance and resistance to used medications. Therefore, in recent years, a plethora of therapeutic methods for neuropathic pain have been developed and investigated to improve clinical outcomes. In this review, we briefly summarized current knowledge about the pathophysiology and diagnosis of neuropathic pain. Moreover, we described the most effective treatment approaches for neuropathic pain and discussed their relevance in the treatment of spinal pain.

Low-Dose NSAIDs Efficacy in Orthopedic Applications

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors] and COXIBs (the COX-2 selective inhibitors) may induce several potentially severe and life-threatening issues especially in elderly patients. The use of low-dose NSAIDs is associated with lower risk of side effects compared to the standard dosage. Low-dose NSAIDs could minimize the side effects of these drugs while maintaining their clinical efficacy and effectiveness. The present study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of low-dose NSAIDs in musculoskeletal applications.

Early Optimized Pharmacological Treatment in Patients With Depression and Chronic Pain

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Patients with MDD have high rates of comorbidity with mental and physical conditions, one of which is chronic pain. Chronic pain conditions themselves are also associated with significant disability, and the large number of patients with MDD who have chronic pain drives high levels of disability and compounds healthcare burden. The management of depression in patients who also have chronic pain can be particularly challenging due to underlying mechanisms that are common to both conditions, and because many patients with these conditions are already taking multiple medications. For these reasons, healthcare providers may be reluctant to treat such patients. The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of MDD and comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions such as anxiety, substance use disorder, and cardiovascular disease; however, comorbid chronic pain is not addressed. In this article, we provide an overview of the pathophysiological and clinical overlap between depression and chronic pain and review evidence-based pharmacological recommendations in current treatment guidelines for MDD and for chronic pain. Based on clinical experience with MDD patients with comorbid pain, we recommend rapidly and aggressively treating depression according to CANMAT treatment guidelines, using antidepressant medications with analgesic properties, while addressing pain with first-line pharmacotherapy as treatment for depression is optimized. We review options for treating pain symptoms that remain after response to antidepressant treatment is achieved.

A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions

BACKGROUND

Network meta-analysis (NMA) has rapidly grown in use during the past decade for the comparison of healthcare interventions. While its general use in the comparison of conventional medicines has been studied previously, to our awareness, its use to assess complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has not been studied. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify systematic reviews incorporating NMAs involving one or more CAM interventions.

METHODS

An information specialist executed a multi-database search (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane), and two reviewers performed study selection and data collection. Information on publication characteristics, diseases studied, interventions compared, reporting transparency, outcomes assessed, and other parameters were extracted from each review.

RESULTS

A total of 89 SR/NMAs were included. The largest number of NMAs was conducted in China (39.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.4%) and the United States (9.0%). Reviews were published between 2010 and 2018, with the majority published between 2015 and 2018. More than 90 different CAM therapies appeared at least once, and the median number per NMA was 2 (IQR 1-4); 20.2% of reviews consisted of only CAM therapies. Dietary supplements (51.1%) and vitamins and minerals (42.2%) were the most commonly studied therapies, followed by electrical stimulation (31.1%), herbal medicines (24.4%), and acupuncture and related treatments (22.2%). A diverse set of conditions was identified, the most common being various forms of cancer (11.1%), osteoarthritis of the hip/knee (7.8%), and depression (5.9%). Most reviews adequately addressed a majority of the PRISMA NMA extension items; however, there were limitations in indication of an existing review protocol, exploration of network geometry, and exploration of risk of bias across studies, such as publication bias.

CONCLUSION

The use of NMA to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions is growing rapidly. Efforts to identify priority topics for future CAM-related NMAs and to enhance methods for CAM comparisons with conventional medicine are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/35658.

Neck Pain and Lower Back Pain

Neck pain is the fourth leading cause of disability. Acute neck pain largely resolves within 2 months. History and physical examination play a key role in ruling out some of the more serious causes for neck pain. The evidence for pharmacologic interventions for acute and chronic musculoskeletal neck pain is limited. Lower back pain is the leading cause of disability and productivity loss. Consultation with a physical medicine and rehabilitation spine specialist within 48 hours for acute pain and within 10 days for all patients with lower back pain may significantly decrease rate of surgical interventions and increase patient satisfaction.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Different Aceclofenac Treatments for Chronic Lower Back Pain: Prospective, Randomized, Single Center, Open-Label Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are a mainstay for medical treatment of chronic lower back pain (CLBP). Increased dose intervals for medication have been associated with increased patient adherence to prescriptions. The purpose of this clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of a once daily dose of aceclofenac controlled release (CR) and a twice daily dose of aceclofenac for CLBP management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized, single center, open-label clinical trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of aceclofenac CR (200 mg once daily) to aceclofenac dose (100 mg twice daily). Fifty patients in each group were enrolled for the study. The primary end point was Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) change at baseline to that at 2 weeks after medication and safety profiles. Also, change in quality of life measured by EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) functional score for the lumbar spine were also assessed.

RESULTS

Within groups at pre- and post-treatment, there were significant VAS reductions for aceclofenac CR and aceclofenac (p=0.028). EQ-5D increased significantly in both groups (p=0.037). ODI scores decreased significantly in both groups (p=0.012). However, there were no significant differences between aceclofenac CR and aceclofenac at pre- and post-treatment. Patients with aceclofenac CR showed significant increases in heartburn and indigestion and adverse gastrointestinal effects, compared to aceclofenac.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CLBP, aceclofenac CR and aceclofenac demonstrated significant symptomatic pain relief, improvement in quality of life and functional scores. Aceclofenac CR slightly increased gastrointestinal adverse effects, such as heartburn and indigestion.

Can Chronic Pain Patients Be Adequately Treated Using Generic Pain Medications to the Exclusion of Brand-Name Ones?

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, approximately 8 in 10 prescriptions filled in the United States are for generic medications, with an expectation that this number will increase over the next few years. The impetus for this emphasis on generics is the cost disparity between them and brand-name products. The use of FDA-approved generic drugs saved 158 billion dollars in 2010 alone. In the current health care climate, there is continually increasing pressure for prescribers to write for generic alternative medications, occasionally at the expense of best clinical practices. This creates a conflict wherein both physicians and patients may find brand-name medications clinically superior but nevertheless choose generic ones. The issue of generic versus brand medications is a key component of the discussion of health payers, physicians and their patients. This review evaluates some of the important medications in the armamentarium of pain physicians that are frequently used in the management of chronic pain, and that are currently at the forefront of this issue, including Opana (oxymorphone; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malvern, PA), Gralise (gabapentin; Depomed, Newark, CA), and Horizant (gabapentin enacarbil; XenoPort, Santa Clara, CA) that are each available in generic forms as well. We also discuss the use of Lyrica (pregabalin; Pfizer, New York, NY), which is currently unavailable as generic medication, and Cymbalta (duloxetine; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), which has been recently FDA approved to be available in a generic form. It is clear that the use of generic medications results in large financial savings for the cost of prescriptions on a national scale. However, cost-analysis is only part of the equation when treating chronic pain patients and undervalues the relationships of enhanced compliance due to single-daily dosing and stable and reliable pharmacokinetics associated with extended-duration preparations using either retentive technologies or delayed absorption strategies. Medications given to chronic pain patients should be individualized to best serve analgesic needs and assure patient safety primarily, based on high levels of scientific and economic evidence. Decisions regarding utilization should not be made based solely on limited or faulty assessments of cost-benefit analyses.

Reporting of Sex Effects by Systematic Reviews on Interventions for Depression, Diabetes, and Chronic Pain

Systematic reviews (SRs) have the potential to contribute uniquely to the evaluation of sex and gender differences (termed "sex effects"). This article describes the reporting of sex effects by SRs on interventions for depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). It includes SRs published since 1 October 2009 that evaluate medications, behavioral interventions, exercise, quality improvement, and some condition-specific treatments. The reporting of sex effects by primary randomized, controlled trials is also examined. Of 313 eligible SRs (86 for depression, 159 for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 68 for chronic pain), few (n = 29) reported sex effects. Most SRs reporting sex effects used metaregression, whereas 9 SRs used subgroup analysis or individual-patient data meta-analysis. The proportion of SRs reporting the sex distribution of primary studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia. Primary randomized, controlled trials also infrequently reported sex effects, and most lacked an adequate sample size to examine them. Therefore, all SRs should report the proportion of women enrolled in primary studies and evaluate sex effects using appropriate methods whenever power is adequate.

Evaluation and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Clinically Focused Review for Primary Care Specialists

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. In the absence of a classification system for pain syndromes, classification of LBP on the basis of the distribution of pain as axial (pain generally localized to the low back) or radicular neuropathic (pain radiating to the lower extremities) is relevant to clinical practice because the distribution of pain is often a corollary of frequently occurring disease processes involving the lumbar spine. Common sources of axial LBP include the intervertebral disc, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, and paraspinal musculature, whereas common sources of radicular pain include a herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis. The accuracy of historical and physical examination findings has been established for sacroiliac joint pain, radiculopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the accuracy of similar data, so-called red flags, for identifying the underlying medical sources of LBP has been overstated. Diagnostic imaging studies can be useful, and adherence to established guidelines can protect against overuse. Multiple pharmacological trials exist for the management of LBP; however, the long-term outcomes of commonly used drugs are mixed. For carefully selected patients with axial LBP, radiofrequency denervation techniques can provide sustained pain relief. In patients with radicular pain, transforaminal epidural steroid injections may provide short-term pain relief, but neurostimulation may confer more enduring benefits of refractory symptoms. Pain-related indications for commonly performed operations include spinal decompression for radicular symptoms as well as spinal fusion or disc prosthesis for discogenic LBP. Physical modalities and psychological treatments can improve pain and functioning, but patient preferences may influence treatment adherence.