A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ibuprofen Plus Metaxalone, Tizanidine, or Baclofen for Acute Low Back Pain

A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain

The number of low back pain (LBP) cases is projected to increase to more than 800 million by 2050. To address the substantial burden of disease associated with this rise in prevalence, effective treatments are needed. While clinical practice guidelines (CPG) consistently recommend non-pharmacological therapies as first-line treatments, recommendations regarding manual therapy (MT) in treating low back pain vary. The goal of this narrative review was to critically summarize the available evidence for MT behind these recommendations, to scrutinize its mechanisms of action, and propose some actionable steps for clinicians on how this knowledge can be integrated into a person-centered approach. Despite disparate recommendations from CPG, MT is as effective as other available treatments and may be offered to patients with LBP, especially as part of a treatment package with exercise and education. Most of the effects of MT are not specific to the technique. MT and other interventions share several mechanisms of action that mediate treatment success. These mechanisms can encompass patients' expectations, prior experiences, beliefs and convictions, epistemic trust, and nonspecific contextual effects. Although MT is safer than opioids for patients with LBP, this alone is insufficient. Our goal is to encourage clinicians to shift away from outdated and refuted ideas in MT and embrace a person-centered approach rooted in a comprehensive biopsychosocial framework while incorporating patients' beliefs, addressing illness behaviors, and seeking to understand each patient's journey.

Comparison of diclofenac with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo in the treatment of acute low back pain and sciatica: multi-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has posed numerous health and socioeconomic challenges. This study compared whether nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in combination with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo would be the best treatment regime to improve the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores at 1 week.

METHODS

This was a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial including adult patients with acute LBP and sciatica in three emergency departments in Hong Kong. Patients were randomized to the receive tramadol 50 mg, tizanidine 2 mg, or placebo every 6 hours for 2 weeks in a 1:1:1 ratio. The RMDQ and other secondary outcomes were measured at baseline, Day 2, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Crude and adjusted mean differences in the changes of RMDQ and NRS scores from baseline to Day 7 between tizanidine/tramadol and placebo were determined with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-one patients were analyzed with the mean age of 47.4 years and 57.7% were male. The primary outcome of mean difference in RMDQs on Day 7 (compared with baseline) was non-significant for tizanidine compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.56, 95% CI -2.48 to 1.37) and tramadol compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.85, 95% CI -2.80 to 1.10). Only 23.7% were fully compliant to the treatment allocated. Complier Average Causal Effect analysis also showed no difference in the primary outcome for the tizanidine and tramadol versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with acute LBP and sciatica presenting to the ED, adding tramadol or tizanidine to diclofenac did not improve functional recovery.

Epidemiology of back pain visits and medication usage among United States emergency departments from 2016 to 2023

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain is a common reason for presentation to the Emergency Department (ED). However, there are limited large-scale, recent data on the epidemiology, disposition, and medication administration for this condition. The objective of this was to assess the incidence, admission rates, medication administrations, and discharge prescriptions among ED visits for low back pain in the United States.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of ED presentations for low back pain from 1/1/2016 to 12/31/2023 using the Epic Cosmos database. All ED visits for adults with low back pain identified by ICD-10 codes were included. Outcomes included admission rates, distribution of opioid, benzodiazepine, (non-benzodiazepine) muscle relaxant, acetaminophen, NSAID, and corticosteroid medications administered in the ED, and distribution of opioid, benzodiazepine, muscle relaxant, and corticosteroid medications given upon discharge. Subgroup analyses were performed by specific medication.

RESULTS

Of 207,154,419 ED encounters, 12,241,240 (5.9%) were due to back pain with 1,957,299 of these (16.0%) admitted. The admission rate increased over time from 12.8% to 17.1%. The most common medication given in the ED was opioids (40.7%), followed by acetaminophen (37.8%), NSAIDs (22.6%), muscle relaxants (18.4%) benzodiazepines (12.8%), and corticosteroids (5.5%). The most common medications prescribed upon discharge were muscle relaxants (32.1%), followed by opioids (23.2%), corticosteroids (12.2%), and benzodiazepines (3.0%).

CONCLUSION

Low back pain represents a common reason for presentation to the ED, and admissions have been increasing over time. Opioids remain the most common ED medication, whereas muscle relaxants have arisen as the most common discharge prescription. These findings can help inform health policy decisions, resource allocation, and evidence-based interventions for medication administration.

El-Gazar A, M. Ragab G, A. Essa M, M. Abdel-Haleem K, El-Dahmy RM. Transcending Traditional Treatment: The Therapeutical Potential of Nanovesicles for Transdermal Baclofen Delivery in Repeated Traumatic Brain Injury

Purpose

The repositioning of previously approved drugs is occupying the researchers' plans. Baclofen (Bac) was our candidate for its established neuroprotective capacity, with a proposal of efficient drug delivery as non-ionic surfactant-based nanovesicles (NISNV) formulae against mild repetitive traumatic brain injury (mRTBI) in rats, thus reducing the number of orally or injected medications, especially in severely comatose patients or pediatrics.

Methods

A (23) factorial design was implemented for confining Bac-loaded NISNV formulae, where a bunch of variables were inspected. An in-vivo experiment was done to test the prepared formula's efficacy transdermally. The following parameters were measured: brain expression of gamma amino butyric acid B (GABAB), protein kinase C- α (PKC-α), focal adhesion kinase (FAK), TNF-α and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) p65, malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and histopathology.

Results

The particle size (PS) and entrapment efficiency percent (EE%) speckled from 60.40±0.28% to 88.02±0.01% for the former and 174.64±0.93 to 1174.50±3.54 nm for the latter. In vitro release% after 8 hours ranged from 63.25±5.47% to 84.79±3.75%. The optimized formula (F4) illustrated desirability=1, with 630.09±3.53 µg/cm2 of Bac permeated over 8 hours, which equates to 100% of Bac. Bac post-trauma treatment restored brain expression of GABAB and PKC-α, while decreasing FAK. Besides enhancing the histological findings, the anti-inflammatory effect was clear by decreasing TNF-α and NF-κB p65. Consequently, significant antioxidant sequelae were revealed herein by diminishing MDA levels and restoring SOD activity.

Conclusion

Transdermal delivery of Bac-loaded niosomes confirmed neuroprotection and succeeded in surpassing skin-to-brain barriers, which makes it a promising therapeutic option for repeated traumas.

Impact of Prescription Medicines on Work-Related Outcomes in Workers with Musculoskeletal Disorders or Injuries: A Systematic Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Medicines are often prescribed to workers with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and injuries to relieve pain and facilitate their recovery and return to work. However, there is a growing concern that prescription medicines may have adverse effects on work function. This scoping review aimed to summarize the existing empirical evidence on prescription medicine use by workers with MSD or injury and its relationship with work-related outcomes.

METHODS

We identified studies through structured searching of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases, and via searching of dissertations, theses, and grey literature databases. Studies that examined the association between prescription medicine and work-related outcomes in working age people with injury or MSDs, and were published in English after the year 2000 were eligible.

RESULTS

From the 4884 records identified, 65 studies were included for review. Back disorders and opioids were the most commonly studied musculoskeletal conditions and prescription medicines, respectively. Most studies showed a negative relationship between prescription medicines and work outcomes. Opioids, psychotropics and their combination were the most common medicines associated with adverse work outcomes. Opioid prescriptions with early initiation, long-term use, strong and/or high dose and extended pre- and post-operative use in workers' compensation setting were consistently associated with adverse work function. We found emerging but inconsistent evidence that skeletal muscle relaxants and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were associated with unfavorable work outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Opioids and other prescription medicines might be associated with adverse work outcomes. However, the evidence is conflicting and there were relatively fewer studies on non-opioid medicines. Further studies with more robust design are required to enable more definitive exploration of causal relationships and settle inconsistent evidence.

Topical Diclofenac Versus Oral Ibuprofen Versus Diclofenac + Ibuprofen for Emergency Department Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are useful for a variety of musculoskeletal injuries. It is not known whether topical NSAIDs should be used for patients presenting with acute nonradicular musculoskeletal low back pain.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study in which patients 18 to 69 years of age visiting the emergency department (ED) with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular, musculoskeletal low back pain were randomized at the time of discharge to treatment with 400 mg oral ibuprofen + placebo topical gel, 1% diclofenac topical gel + oral placebo, or 400 mg ibuprofen + 1% diclofenac topical gel. We measured outcomes using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a 24-item yes/no instrument about the effect of back pain on a respondent's daily activities. The primary outcome was change in RMDQ score between ED discharge and 2 days later. Medication-related adverse events were elicited by asking whether the study medications caused any new symptoms.

RESULTS

In total, 3,281 patients were screened for participation, and 198 were randomized. Overall, 36% of the population were women, the mean age was 40 years (standard deviation, 13), and the median RMDQ score at baseline was 18 (25th to 75th percentile: 13 to 22), indicating substantial low back-related functional impairment. In total, 183 (92%) participants provided primary outcome data. Two days after the ED visit, the ibuprofen + placebo group had improved by 10.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5 to 12.7), the diclofenac gel + placebo group by 6.4 (95% CI 4.0 to 8.8), and the ibuprofen + diclofenac gel by 8.7 (95% CI 6.3 to 11.1). The between-group differences were as follows: ibuprofen versus diclofenac, 3.7 (95% CI 0.2 to 7.2); ibuprofen versus both medications 1.4 (95% CI -2.1 to 4.9); and diclofenac versus both medications, 2.3 (95% CI -5.7 to 1.0). Medication-related adverse events were reported by 3/60 (5%) ibuprofen patients, 1/63 (2%) diclofenac patients, and 4/64 (6%) patients who received both.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with nontraumatic, nonradicular acute musculoskeletal low back pain discharged from an ED, topical diclofenac was probably less efficacious than oral ibuprofen. It demonstrated no additive benefit when coadministered with oral ibuprofen.

Similarities and Differences in the Management of Patients with Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures and Those with Rebound-Associated Vertebral Fractures Following Discontinuation of Denosumab

Rebound-associated vertebral fractures (RVFx) following denosumab discontinuation are typically multiple, are commonly associated with acute sharp pain, increase the risk of imminent fractures, and are pathogenetically different from common osteoporotic vertebral fractures (VFx). A clinically relevant question is whether patients with RVFx should be managed differently from patients with osteoporotic VFx. To address this question, we performed a systematic search of the PubMed database, and we reviewed current evidence on the optimal management of patients with RVFx. For pain relief of patients with RVFx, potent analgesics, often opioids, are essential. Information on the effectiveness of braces in these patients is scarce. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are strongly contraindicated as they confer a substantial risk for new VFx. Exercise may be helpful, but again evidence is lacking. In contrast to patients with osteoporotic VFx, in whom initial treatment with bone-forming agents is recommended, patients with RVFx should initiate treatment with potent antiresorptives. To summarize, patients who have sustained RVFx following denosumab discontinuation are at a very high risk for new fractures, especially VFx. The management of such patients requires a multidisciplinary approach that should not be restricted to pain relief and administration of antiosteoporotic medication, but should also include back protection, early mobilization, and appropriate exercise.

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.

Between guidelines and clinical trials: evidence-based advice on the pharmacological management of non-specific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore patients' daily activities and improve their quality of life. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Pharmacological management should be considered as co-adjuvant to non-pharmacological therapy, and should be guided by the symptoms reported by the patients. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from dedicated therapy. This article provides an evidence-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

Ultrasound-Guided Trigger Point Injections for the Treatment of Neck and Back Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with neck or back pain, which can be difficult to treat. We sought to compare ultrasound-guided trigger point injection (TPI) to standard medications for patients with neck or back pain.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, open label, randomized controlled trial on ED patients with neck or back pain from myofascial pain syndrome comparing ultrasound-guided TPIs to those who received the combination of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and a muscle relaxant (MR). The primary outcome of this study was the reduction in mean pain score at the time of ED disposition.

RESULTS

In total, we analyzed 196 patients. At the time of ED disposition, patients in the TPI group had a mean reduction in their pain scores of 45.0 mm as compared to 49.9 mm in the NSAID plus MR group (difference: 4.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to 12.7], P = .22). At the first reassessment, patients in the TPI group had greater pain reduction by 10.7 mm (95% CI 3.1 to 18.4). The rate of rescue therapy use was higher in the NSAID plus MR group (difference: 17.5% [95% CI 4.4 to 36.2]).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in pain reduction at the time of ED disposition between patients randomized to the ultrasound-guided TPI group as compared to those who received an NSAID plus a MR. However, patients in the TPI group had greater pain reduction at the time of first reassessment and lower rates of rescue therapy use.

Efficacy and safety of oral tizanidine premedication as pre-emptive analgesia in adult patients undergoing elective surgeries- A systematic review

Tizanidine is a centrally acting α2 agonist which has been used as a premedication due to its opioid-sparing and sympatholytic properties. This systematic review assessed the safety and feasibility of oral tizanidine. After registering the protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42022368546), randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies were searched in various databases. The primary outcome was intraoperative opioid use; the secondary outcomes were 24-hr opioid consumption, pain scores, time to rescue analgesia, and adverse events. The risk of bias scale was used to assess the quality of evidence. Out of 202 studies identified, five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Intraoperative opioid consumption was significantly less in the tizanidine group (MD: -2.40; 95% CI: -4.22, -0.59; P = 0.010; I2 = 0 %). The 24-hr opioid consumption was comparable between both groups (MD: -42.53, 95% CI: -91.45, 6.39; P = 0.09; I2 = 99%). Time to rescue analgesia was comparable between both groups (MD: 308.22; 95% CI: -263.67, 880.11, P = 0.29, I2 = 100%). Pain scores at 6 and 12 hours were comparable (MD: -1.37; 95% CI: -3.68, 0.94; P = 0.24; I2 = 97%) and (MD: -1.76; 95% CI: -4.06, 0.53; P = 0.13; I2 = 95%); however, at 24 hours the scores were better in the tizanidine group (MD: -1.10; 95% CI: -1.50, -0.69; P < 0.0001 I2 = 0%). Although dry mouth was significantly more in the tizanidine group (MD: 5.35; 95% CI: 1.72, 16.62; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%), postoperative nausea/vomiting and dizziness were comparable. Tizanidine reduces intraoperative opioid consumption without significant adverse events. However, it does not provide effective opioid-sparing analgesia or reduced opioid requirement in the first 24 hours after surgery.

Nonopioid pharmacological management of acute low back pain: A level I of evidence systematic review

Acute low back pain (LBP) imposes a significant socioeconomical burden as it is the condition that, worldwide, cause the most disability. Nonetheless, the literature regarding the best pharmacological management of acute LBP is limited, and the indications available in the literature are conflicting. This work investigates whether the pharmacological management of acute LBP can effectively reduce pain and disability, and aims to identify which drugs show the highest efficacy. This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In September 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were accessed. All the randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of myorelaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and paracetamol for acute LPB were accessed. Only studies that investigated the lumbar spine were included. Only studies reporting on patients with acute LBP with symptom duration of less than 12 weeks were included. Only patients older than 18 years and with nonspecific low back pain were included. Studies that investigated the use of opioids in acute LBP were not considered. Data from 18 studies and 3478 patients were available. Myorelaxants and NSAIDs were effective in reducing pain and disability in acute LBP at approximately one week. The combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol was associated with a greater improvement than the use of NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol alone did not induce any significant improvement. Placebo was not effective in reducing pain. Clinical Significance: Myorelaxants, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs with paracetamol could reduce pain and disability in patients with acute LBP.

The efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapy for sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails

Background and objective

Sciatica is a common type of neuropathic pain disease which poses a huge financial burden to the patient. For patients with sciatica, acupuncture has been recommended as an effective method for pain relief, while there is currently a lack of sufficient evidence to support its efficacy and safety. In this review, we aimed to critically assess the published clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapy for treating sciatica.

Methods

An extensive literature search strategy was established in seven databases from their inception to 31 March 2022. Two independent reviewers performed the literature search, identification, and screening. Data extraction was performed on studies that meet the inclusion criteria, and a further quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) recommendations. Summary Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the fixed-effects or the random-effects model. Heterogeneity in effect size across studies was explored using the subgroup analysis and the sensitivity analysis. The quality of evidence was estimated following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Results

A total of 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2,662 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the integration of clinical outcomes showed that the clinical efficacy of acupuncture was superior to that of medicine treatment (MT) in improving the total effective rate (relative risk (RR) = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.21, 1.30]; moderate certainty of evidence), reducing the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.72, 95% CI [-2.61, -0.84]; very low certainty of evidence), increasing pain threshold (SMD = 2.07, 95% CI [1.38, 2.75]; very low certainty of evidence), and decreasing recurrence rate (RR = 0.27, 95% CI [0.13, 0.56]; low certainty of evidence). In addition, a few adverse events (RR = 0.38, 95% CI [0.19, 0.72]; moderate certainty of evidence) were reported during the intervention, which indicated that acupuncture was a safe treatment option.

Conclusions

Acupuncture therapy is an effective and safe treatment for patients with sciatica, and it can be considered a suitable replacement for medicine treatment (MT). However, given the high heterogeneity and a low methodological quality of previous studies, future RCTs should be well-designed according to the rigorous methodology.

Systematic review registration

International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) (https://inplasy.com/register/), identifier [INPLASY202240060].

Rescaling pain intensity measures for meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain appears justified: an empirical examination from randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain often rescale measures of pain intensity to use mean difference (MD) instead of standardised mean difference for pooled estimates. Although this improves clinical interpretability, it is not clear whether this method is justified. Our study evaluated the justification for this method.

METHODS

We identified randomised clinical trials of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain that used two scales with different ranges to measure the same construct of pain intensity. We transformed all data to a 0-100 scale, then compared between-group estimates across pairs of scales with different ranges.

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included. Overall, differences in means between pain intensity measures that were rescaled to a common 0-100 scale appeared to be small and randomly distributed. For one study that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-10 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the difference in MD between the scales was 0.8 points out of 100. For three studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-10 scale and 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.2 points out of 100 (range 5.5 points lower to 2.7 points higher). For two studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points out of 100 (range 6.2 points lower to 12.1 points higher). Finally, for six studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-4 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points (range 5.4 points lower to 8.3 points higher).

CONCLUSION

Rescaling pain intensity measures may be justified in meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain. Systematic reviewers may consider this method to improve clinical interpretability and enable more data to be included.

STUDY REGISTRATION/DATA AVAILABILITY

Open Science Framework (osf.io/8rq7f).

The contribution of autonomic mechanisms to pain in temporomandibular disorders: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are diagnosed based on symptom presentation and, like other functional pain disorders, often lack definitive pathology. There is a strong association between elevated stress levels and the severity of TMD-related pain, which suggests that alterations in autonomic tone may contribute to this pain condition.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review examines the association between altered autonomic function and pain in TMD.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified by searching PubMed and through the reference list of those studies.

RESULTS

TMD sufferers report an increased incidence of orthostatic hypotension. As in other chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions, TMD is associated with increased sympathetic tone, diminished baroreceptor reflex sensitivity and decreased parasympathetic tone. It remains to be determined whether ongoing pain drives these autonomic changes and/or is exacerbated by them. To examine whether increased sympathetic tone contributes to TMD-related pain through β₂ adrenergic receptor activation, clinical trials with the beta blocker propranolol have been undertaken. Although evidence from small studies suggested propranolol reduced TMD-related pain, a larger clinical trial did not find a significant effect of propranolol treatment. This is consistent with human experimental pain studies that were unable to demonstrate an effect of β₂ adrenergic receptor activation or inhibition on masticatory muscle pain. In preclinical models of temporomandibular joint arthritis, β₂ adrenergic receptor activation appears to contribute to inflammation and nociception, whereas in masticatory muscle, α₁ adrenergic receptor activation has been found to induce mechanical sensitization. Some agents used to treat TMD, such as botulinum neurotoxin A, antidepressants and α₂ adrenergic receptor agonists, may interact with the autonomic nervous system as part of their analgesic mechanism.

CONCLUSION

Even if dysautonomia turns out to be a consequence rather than a causative factor of painful TMD, the study of its role has opened up a greater understanding of the pathogenesis of this condition.

A Disproportionality Analysis of Drug-Drug Interactions of Tizanidine and CYP1A2 Inhibitors from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

INTRODUCTION

Tizanidine is primarily metabolized via cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 and therefore medications that inhibit the enzyme will affect the clearance of tizanidine, leading to increased plasma concentrations of tizanidine and potentially serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to study the occurrence of adverse events reported in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) involving the combination of tizanidine and drugs that inhibit the metabolic activity of CYP1A2.

METHODS

A disproportionality analysis of FAERS reports from 2004 quarter 1 through 2020 quarter 3 was conducted to calculate the reporting odds ratio (ROR) of reports mentioning tizanidine in a suspect or interacting role or having any role, a CYP1A2 inhibitor, and the following adverse events: hypotension, bradycardia, syncope, shock, cardiorespiratory arrest, and fall or fracture.

RESULTS

A total of 89 reports were identified mentioning tizanidine, at least one CYP1A2 inhibitor, and one of the adverse events of interest. More than half of the reports identified tizanidine as having a suspect or interacting role (n = 59, 66.3%), and the reports more frequently involved women (n = 58, 65.1%). The median age was 56.1 years (standard deviation 17.1). Some of the important safety signals included interactions between tizanidine in a suspect or interacting role and ciprofloxacin (ROR for hypotension 28.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.2-41.2) or fluvoxamine (ROR for hypotension 36.9, 95% CI 13.1-103.4), and also when reported in "any role" with ciprofloxacin (ROR for hypotension 6.3, 95% CI 4.7-8.5), fluvoxamine (ROR for hypotension 11.4, 95% CI 4.5-28.8), and zafirlukast (ROR for falls 16.0, 95% CI 6.1-42.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Reports involving tizanidine and a CYP1A2 inhibitor have higher odds of reporting hypotension. This study suggests that concurrent use of tizanidine with CYP1A2 inhibitors may lead to serious health consequences associated with low blood pressure such as falls and fractures.

Pharmacotherapy for Spine-Related Pain in Older Adults

As the population ages, spine-related pain is increasingly common in older adults. While medications play an important role in pain management, their use has limitations in geriatric patients due to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy. This review will assess the evidence basis for medications used for spine-related pain in older adults, with a focus on drug metabolism and adverse drug reactions. A PubMed/OVID search crossing common spine, neck, and back pain terms with key words for older adults and geriatrics was combined with common drug classes and common drug names and limited to clinical trials and age over 65 years. The results were then reviewed with identification of commonly used drugs and drug categories: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, corticosteroids, gabapentin and pregabalin, antispastic and antispasmodic muscle relaxants, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tramadol, and opioids. Collectively, 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were the focus of the review. The review found a variable contribution of high-quality studies examining the efficacy of medications for spine pain primarily in the geriatric population. There was strong evidence for NSAID use with adjustments for gastrointestinal and renal risk factors. Gabapentin and pregabalin had mixed evidence for neuropathic pain. SNRIs had good evidence for neuropathic pain and a more favorable safety profile than TCAs. Tramadol had some evidence in older patients, but more so in persons aged < 65 years. Rational therapeutic choices based on geriatric spine pain diagnosis are helpful, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based pain, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular pain, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies. Tramadol can be well tolerated in older patients, but has risks of cognitive and classic opioid side effects. Otherwise, opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults due to their morbidity and mortality risk and are reserved for refractory severe pain. Whenever possible, beneficial geriatric spine pain pharmacotherapy should employ the lowest therapeutic doses with consideration of polypharmacy, potentially decreased renal and hepatic metabolism, and co-morbid medical disorders.

The Relative Efficacy of Seven Skeletal Muscle Relaxants. An Analysis of Data From Randomized Studies

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) causes 2.6 million visits to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) annually. These patients are often treated with skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs).

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to determine whether efficacy of SMRs is associated with age, sex, or baseline LBP severity.

METHODS

This was a planned analysis of data from 4 randomized studies of patients with acute nonradicular LBP. Patients were enrolled during an ED visit and followed-up 1 week later. The primary outcome was improvement in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and the 1-week follow-up. We compared the change in RMDQ among 8 groups: placebo, baclofen, metaxalone, tizanidine, diazepam, orphenadrine, methocarbamol, and cyclobenzaprine. All patients also received a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. We performed analysis of variance to determine statistically significant differences between medications and linear regression to determine the association of age, sex, and baseline severity with the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The mean improvement in RMDQ per group was placebo 10.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-11.5), baclofen 10.6 (95% CI 8.6-12.7), metaxalone 10.3 (95% CI 8.1-12.4), tizanidine 11.5 (95% CI 9.5-13.4), diazepam 11.1 (95% CI 9-13.2), orphenadrine 9.5 (95% CI 7.4-11.5), methocarbamol 8.1 (95% CI 6.1-10.1), and cyclobenzaprine 10.1 (95% CI 8.3-12). The between-group differences were not statistically significantly different. Results were similar regardless of age, sex, and baseline severity. Higher baseline RMDQ was associated with greater clinical improvement (B coefficient 5.7, p < 0.01). Adverse medication effects were more common with cyclobenzaprine than with placebo (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients in the ED with acute LBP treated with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, SMRs do not improve outcomes more than placebo. Neither age, sex, nor baseline impairment impacts these results.

A randomized controlled trial of ibuprofen versus ketorolac versus diclofenac for acute, nonradicular low back pain

OBJECTIVES

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the first-line medication for acute low back pain (LBP). It is unclear if the choice of NSAID impacts outcomes. We compared ibuprofen, ketorolac, and diclofenac for the treatment of acute, nonradicular LBP.

METHODS

This was a three-armed, double-blind, comparative effectiveness study, in which we enrolled patients at the conclusion of an ED visit for musculoskeletal LBP and determined outcomes by telephone 5 days later. Patients were randomized to receive a 5-day supply of 600 mg of ibuprofen, 10 mg of ketorolac, or 50 mg of diclofenac, each to be used every 8 h as needed. Every participant also received LBP education. The primary outcome was improvement in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a 24-item instrument on which lower scores indicate better LBP functional outcomes, between ED visit and day 5. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, measured using the descriptors none, mild, moderate, and severe, and the presence of stomach irritation.

RESULTS

A total of 868 patients were screened and 66 patients were enrolled in each of the three arms. Baseline characteristics were similar. Improvements in RMDQ by day 5 were as follows: ibuprofen 9.4, ketorolac 11.9, and diclofenac 10.9 (p = 0.34). Mild or no pain on day 5 was as follows: ibuprofen 38 of 61 (62%), ketorolac 47 of 59 (80%), and diclofenac 45 of 62 (71%; 95% CI for rounded mean difference of 17% between ibuprofen and ketorolac = 1, 33%, p = 0.04, number needed to treat = 6 [95% CI = 3-69]). Stomach irritation was reported by 16 of 62 (26%) ibuprofen patients versus three of 61 (5%) in the ketorolac arm and six of 64 (9%) in the diclofenac arm (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There were no important differences between groups with regard to the primary outcome. These data do not rule out that possibility that ketorolac results in better pain relief and less stomach irritation than ibuprofen.

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event).

RESULTS

49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/.

Management of patients presenting with low back pain to a private hospital emergency department in Melbourne, Australia

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggest many patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to public hospital EDs receive low-value care. The primary aim was to describe management of patients presenting with low back pain to the ED of a private hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and received a final ED diagnosis of non-specific low back pain. We also determined predictors of hospital admission.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who presented with low back pain and received a final ED diagnosis of non-specific low back pain to Cabrini Malvern ED in 2015. Demographics, lumbar spinal imaging, pathology tests and medications were extracted from hospital records. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of hospital admission.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty presentations were included (60% female); 238 (52.9%) were admitted to hospital. One hundred and seventy-seven (39.3%) patients received lumbar spine imaging. Two hundred and eighty (62.2%) patients had pathology tests and 391 (86.9%) received medications, which included opioids (n = 298, 66.2%), paracetamol (n = 219, 48.7%), NSAIDs (n = 161, 35.8%), benzodiazepines (n = 118, 26.2%) and pregabalin (n = 26, 5.8%). Predictors of hospital admission included older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.05), arrival by ambulance (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.06-3.90) and receipt of pathology tests (OR 3.32, 95% CI 2.01-5.49) or computed tomography scans (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12-3.11).

CONCLUSION

We observed high rates of imaging, pathology tests and hospital admissions compared with previous public hospital studies, while medication use was similar. Implementation of strategies to optimise evidence-based ED care is needed to reduce low-value care and improve patient outcomes.

Can NSAIDs and Acetaminophen Effectively Replace Opioid Treatment Options for Acute Pain?

INTRODUCTION

Opioid analgesia for acute painful conditions has come under increasing scrutiny with the public health crisis of opioid overdose, leading clinicians to seek nonopioid alternatives, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen (paracetamol).

AREAS COVERED

This perspective evaluates recent clinical trials of nonopioids, opioids, and combination therapy for use in acute pain. Acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) often provide adequate analgesia, although these agents are not without risks. Combination therapy using a small amount of opioid together with a nonopioid pain reliever has been shown effective and reduces opioid consumption.

EXPERT OPINION

The short-term use of opioids under close clinical supervision, such as in-hospital use of opioid analgesics for postoperative pain, may be appropriate, but even here, combination therapy or nonopioid therapy may be preferred. The use of opioids even for acute pain of short duration has been questioned. The ideal analgesic has yet to be developed, but effective pain control pharmacological regimens for acute pain are available.

Rapid Fire: Polypharmacy in the Geriatric Patient

Increasing prescription drug use trends in the United States affects patients across all ages, but especially the geriatric patient. As patients age, they are at increased risk for adverse events owing to natural changes in body composition and organ function, increased sensitivity to medications, and a higher chance of adverse events from drug-drug interactions and polypharmacy. Falls are common and can increase morbidity and mortality. To mitigate falls, it is imperative to have a comprehensive approach to screening home medication lists, be aware of and avoid high-risk medications, and deprescribe agents that are potentially inappropriate for this patient population.

Trends in the Evaluation and Management of Back Pain in Emergency Departments, United States, 2007-2016

OBJECTIVE

Back pain is one of the most common pain syndromes in the United States, but there has been limited recent description of the role of emergency departments (EDs) in caring for patients with back pain. We investigated trends in the evaluation and management of back pain in U.S. EDs from 2007 to 2016.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative annual survey of ED visits, which includes data on patient-, hospital-, and visit-level characteristics. We evaluated trends among adult ED visits for back pain, including demographics, resource utilization, and disposition. Trends were assessed through the use of survey-weighted analyses.

RESULTS

Visit rates as a proportion of overall ED visits were stable from 2007 to 2016 (9.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.5-9.6] vs. 9.3% [95% CI: 8.6-10.0]; P = 0.44). Admission rates declined from 6.4% (95% CI: 5.1-8.0) to 5.0% (95% CI: 3.5-6.9; P < 0.001). Imaging utilization increased from 51.7% (95% CI: 49.3-54.1) to 57.6% (95% CI: 53.3-61.7; P = 0.023), with an increase of 58.3% in computed tomography. Overall opioid utilization declined from 53.5% (95% CI: 49.4-57.5) to 46.5% (95% CI: 43.2-49.8; P < 0.001). Tramadol use increased over the study period (4.1% [95% CI: 3.0-5.8] vs. 8.4% [95% CI: 6.6-10.7]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid utilization during ED visits for back pain decreased from 2007 to 2016, whereas tramadol use more than doubled. Care intensity increased significantly despite declining admission rates. Further research into optimal strategies for back pain management in the ED is needed.

Emergency department interventions for adult patients with low back pain: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Most low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) -15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.0 to -9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD -15.7, 95% CI -19.8 to -11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD -11.4, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI -0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD -6.8, 95% CI -24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Ketoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.

The therapeutic management of back pain with and without sciatica in the emergency department: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of patients are attending the Emergency Department (ED) with back pain with or without sciatica. There is evidence to suggest that medical management is varied and inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to review the literature to determine the evidence base for the therapeutic management of adults presenting with back pain with or without sciatica in the ED.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature included the therapeutic management of patients presenting in the ED. Articles published in peer review journals in English language up to August 2018 were searched for in the following data-bases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, ZETOC, PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), Web of Science, Open Grey and ETHOS. A narrative synthesis approach was followed.

RESULTS

Twenty two studies, including 17 randomised control trials, one randomised control pilot study, two cohort studies, one cohort pilot study and one retrospective audit were included. The Downs and Black methodological quality scores ranged from 16 to 31 with a mean score of 24 out of a possible 32.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that Naproxen alone should be considered as first line management in cases of back pain without sciatica. Intra-venous corticosteroids should be considered in the management of cases of severe sciatica. More high quality trials are needed to determine an evidence-based management protocol for the treatment of acute low back pain in the ED, specifically focusing on non-pharmacological management and the first line management of patients presenting with LBP with sciatica. Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42016042087.

Opioid prescription practices for patients discharged from the emergency department with acute musculoskeletal fractures

BACKGROUND

Opioid related mortality rate has increased 200% over the past decade. Studies show variable emergency department (ED) opioid prescription practices and a correlation with increased long-term use. ED physicians may be contributing to this problem. Our objective was to analyze ED opioid prescription practices for patients with acute fractures.

METHODS

We conducted a review of ED patients seen at two campuses of a tertiary care hospital. We evaluated a consecutive sample of patients with acute fractures (January 2016-April 2016) seen by ED physicians. Patients admitted or discharged by consultant services were excluded. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged with an opioid prescription. Data were collected using screening lists, electronic records, and interobserver agreement. We calculated simple descriptive statistics and a multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

We enrolled 816 patients, including 441 females (54.0%). Most common fracture was wrist/hand (35.2%). 260 patients (31.8%) were discharged with an opioid; hydromorphone (N = 115, range 1-120 mg) was most common. 35 patients (4.3%) had pain related ED visits <1 month after discharge. Fractures of the lumbar spine (OR 10.78 [95% CI: 3.15-36.90]) and rib(s)/sternum/thoracic spine (OR 5.46 [95% CI: 2.88-10.35)] had a significantly higher likelihood of opioid prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients presenting to the ED with acute fractures were not discharged with an opioid. Hydromorphone was the most common opioid prescribed, with large variations in total dosage. Overall, there were few return to ED visits. We recommend standardization of ED opioid prescribing, with attention to limiting total dosage.

Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Emergency Care Research: A Primer for Researchers, Peer Reviewers, and Readers

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are of increasing importance in clinical research because they capture patients' experience with well-being, illness, and their interactions with health care. Because PROs tend to focus on specific symptoms (e.g., pain, anxiety) or general assessments of patient functioning and quality of life that offer unique advantages compared to traditional clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, emergency department revisits), emergency care researchers may benefit from incorporation of PRO measures into their research design as a primary or secondary outcome. Patients may also benefit from the ability of PROs to inform clinical practice and facilitate patient decision making, as PROs are obtained directly from the lived experience of other patients with similar conditions or health status. This review article introduces and defines key terminology relating to PROs, discusses reasons for utilizing PROs in clinical research, outlines basic psychometric and practical assessments that can be used to select a specific PRO measure, and highlights examples of commonly utilized PRO measures in emergency care research.

Ibuprofen Plus Acetaminophen Versus Ibuprofen Alone for Acute Low Back Pain: An Emergency Department-based Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

Patients with low back pain (LBP) are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). NSAIDs are modestly effective for LBP, but many patients with LBP continue to suffer despite treatment with these medications. We compared pain and functional outcomes 1 week after emergency department (ED) discharge among patients randomized to a 1-week course of ibuprofen plus acetaminophen versus ibuprofen plus placebo.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind study conducted in two urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP of no more than 2 weeks' duration were eligible for enrollment immediately prior to discharge from an ED if they had a score > 5 on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a 24-item validated instrument, indicating more than minimal functional impairment. All patients were given a standardized 10-minute LBP educational session prior to discharge. The primary outcome was improvement on the RMDQ between ED discharge and 1 week later. One secondary outcome was pain intensity, as measured on a 4-point descriptive scale (severe, moderate, mild, none) at 1 week.

RESULTS

Enrollment began in October 2018. A total of 120 patients met selection criteria and were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups. By 1 week after the ED visit, patients randomized to ibuprofen plus placebo reported a mean (±SD) improvement in the RMDQ of 11.9 (±9.7), while those randomized to ibuprofen plus acetaminophen reported a mean (±SD) improvement of 11.1 (±10.7). The 95% CI for the between-group difference of 0.8 was -3.0 to 4.7. At 1 week, moderate or severe pain was reported by 15 of 53 (28%) patients in the ibuprofen plus placebo group and 16 of 57 (28%) patients in the ibuprofen plus acetaminophen group (95% CI for between-group difference of 0% = -17% to 17%).

CONCLUSION

Among ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP, adding acetaminophen to ibuprofen does not improve outcomes within 1 week.