Patient Nonadherence to Guideline-Recommended Care in Acute Low Back Pain

Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol or Placebo for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain After Oral Surgery: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (STARDOM1)

INTRODUCTION

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is the first analgesic co-crystal for acute pain. This completed phase 3 multicenter, double-blind trial assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of CTC in comparison with that of tramadol in the setting of moderate-to-severe pain up to 72 h after elective third molar extraction requiring bone removal.

METHODS

Adults (n = 726) were assigned randomly to five groups (2:2:2:2:1): orally administered twice-daily CTC 100 mg (44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride/56 mg celecoxib; n = 164), 150 mg (66/84 mg; n = 160) or 200 mg (88/112 mg; n = 160); tramadol 100 mg four times daily (n = 159); or placebo four times daily (n = 83). Participants in CTC groups also received twice-daily placebo. The full analysis set included all participants who underwent randomization. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0 to 4 h (SPID0-4; visual analog scale). Key secondary endpoints included 4-h 50% responder and rescue medication use rates. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), laboratory measures, and Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) score.

RESULTS

All CTC doses were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for primary and key secondary endpoints. All were superior to tramadol for SPID0-4 (analysis of covariance least squares mean differences [95% confidence interval]: - 37.1 [- 56.5, - 17.6], - 40.2 [- 59.7, - 20.6], and - 41.7 [- 61.2, - 22.2] for 100, 150, and 200 mg CTC, respectively; P < 0.001) and 4-h 50% responder rate. Four-hour 50% responder rates were 32.9% (CTC 100 mg), 33.8% (CTC 150 mg), 40.6% (CTC 200 mg), 20.1% (tramadol), and 7.2% (placebo). Rescue medication use was lower in the 100-mg (P = 0.013) and 200-mg (P = 0.003) CTC groups versus tramadol group. AE incidence and OR-SDS scores were highest for tramadol alone.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.

Opioid analgesia for acute low back pain and neck pain (the OPAL trial): a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics are commonly used for acute low back pain and neck pain, but supporting efficacy data are scarce. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a judicious short course of an opioid analgesic for acute low back pain and neck pain.

METHODS

OPAL was a triple-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) presenting to one of 157 primary care or emergency department sites in Sydney, NSW, Australia, with 12 weeks or less of low back or neck pain (or both) of at least moderate pain severity. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using statistician-generated randomly permuted blocks to guideline-recommended care plus an opioid (oxycodone-naloxone, up to 20 mg oxycodone per day orally) or guideline-recommended care and an identical placebo, for up to 6 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity at 6 weeks measured with the pain severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (10-point scale), analysed in all eligible participants who provided at least one post-randomisation pain score, by use of a repeated measures linear mixed model. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned eligible participants. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000775516).

FINDINGS

Between Feb 29, 2016, and March 10, 2022, 347 participants were recruited (174 to the opioid group and 173 to the placebo group). 170 (49%) of 346 participants were female and 176 (51%) were male. 33 (19%) of 174 participants in the opioid group and 25 (15%) of 172 in the placebo group had discontinued from the trial by week 6, due to loss to follow-up and participant withdrawals. 151 participants in the opioid group and 159 in the placebo group were included in the primary analysis. Mean pain score at 6 weeks was 2·78 (SE 0·20) in the opioid group versus 2·25 (0·19) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference 0·53, 95% CI -0·00 to 1·07, p=0·051). 61 (35%) of 174 participants in the opioid group reported at least one adverse event versus 51 (30%) of 172 in the placebo group (p=0·30), but more people in the opioid group reported opioid-related adverse events (eg, 13 [7·5%] of 174 participants in the opioid group reported constipation vs six [3·5%] of 173 in the placebo group).

INTERPRETATION

Opioids should not be recommended for acute non-specific low back pain or neck pain given that we found no significant difference in pain severity compared with placebo. This finding calls for a change in the frequent use of opioids for these conditions.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council, University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, and SafeWork SA.

Paracetamol for low back pain: the state of the research field

INTRODUCTION

Paracetamol is one of the most frequently used analgesics for people with low back pain, but despite its frequent use there is still debate regarding its efficacy and safety for this indication.

AREAS COVERED

We describe the origin of paracetamol and its proposed mechanisms of action. We focus in on low back pain and describe the evidence it has on the efficacy of paracetamol (taken by patients orally) and current insights on its side-effects. When searching for relevant publications we focused mainly on recent Cochrane reviews and published RCTs. We found that there is increasing evidence that shows paracetamol is not more effective than placebo in patients with acute low back pain. Concerning patients with subacute and chronic back pain, the evidence for or against the efficacy of paracetamol vs placebo is lacking and would need more research.

EXPERT OPINION

We argue that we still need better evidence on the efficacy of paracetamol for acute and chronic back pain. Until that evidence becomes available paracetamol should still be considered as an option for patients with back pain. However, we suggest that a strategy focusing on non-pharmacological management as the first treatment option in low back pain may be equally effective with less side effects.

Paracetamol is ineffective for acute low back pain even for patients who comply with treatment: complier average causal effect analysis of a randomized controlled trial

In 2014, the Paracetamol for Acute Low Back Pain (PACE) trial demonstrated that paracetamol had no effect compared with placebo in acute low back pain (LBP). However, noncompliance was a potential limitation of this trial. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of paracetamol in acute LBP among compliers. Using individual participant data from the PACE trial (ACTN12609000966291), complier average causal effect (CACE), intention-to-treat, and per protocol estimates were calculated for pain intensity (primary), disability, global rating of symptom change, and function (all secondary) after 2 weeks of follow-up. Compliance was defined as intake of an average of at least 4 of the prescribed 6 tablets of regular paracetamol per day (2660 mg in total) during the first 2 weeks after enrolment. Exploratory analyses using alternative time points and definitions of compliance were conducted. Mean between-group differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale using the primary time point and definition of compliance were not clinically relevant (propensity-weighted CACE 0.07 [-0.37 to 0.50] P = 0.76; joint modelling CACE 0.23 [-0.16 to 0.62] P = 0.24; intention-to-treat 0.11 [-0.20 to 0.42] P = 0.49; per protocol 0.29 [-0.07 to 0.65] P = 0.12); results for secondary outcomes and for exploratory analyses were similar. Paracetamol is ineffective for acute LBP even for patients who comply with treatment. This reinforces the notion that management of acute LBP should focus on providing patients advice and reassurance without the addition of paracetamol.