Comparative study of the efficacy of limaprost and pregabalin as single agents and in combination for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

A Meta-analysis Exploring the Efficacy of Neuropathic Pain Medication for Low Back Pain or Spine-Related Leg Pain: Is Efficacy Dependent on the Presence of Neuropathic Pain?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Highly variable pain mechanisms in people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain might contribute to inefficacy of neuropathic pain medication. This meta-analysis aimed to determine how neuropathic pain is identified in clinical trials for people taking neuropathic pain medication for low back pain or spine-related leg pain and whether subgrouping based on the presence of neuropathic pain influences efficacy.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, CINAHL [EBSCO], APA PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to 14 May, 2024. Randomized and crossover trials comparing first-line neuropathic pain medication for people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain to placebo or usual care were included. Two independent authors extracted data. Random-effects meta-analyses of all studies combined, and pre-planned subgroup meta-analyses based on the certainty of neuropathic pain (according to the neuropathic pain Special Interest Group [NeuPSIG] neuropathic pain grading criteria) were completed. Certainty of evidence was judged using the grading of recommendations assessment development and evaluation [GRADE] framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven included studies reported on 3619 participants. Overall, 33% of studies were judged unlikely to include people with neuropathic pain, 26% remained unclear. Only 41% identified people with possible, probable, or definite neuropathic pain. For pain, general analyses revealed only small effects at short term (mean difference [MD] - 9.30 [95% confidence interval [CI] - 13.71, - 4.88], I2 = 87%) and medium term (MD - 5.49 [95% CI - 7.24, - 3.74], I2 = 0%). Subgrouping at short term revealed studies including people with definite or probable neuropathic pain showed larger effects on pain (definite; MD - 16.65 [95% CI - 35.95, 2.65], I2 = 84%; probable; MD - 10.45 [95% CI - 14.79, - 6.12], I2 = 20%) than studies including people with possible (MD - 5.50 [95% CI - 20.52, 9.52], I2 = 78%), unlikely (MD - 6.67 [95% CI - 10.58, 2.76], I2 = 0%), or unclear neuropathic pain (MD - 8.93 [95% CI - 20.57, 2.71], I2 = 96%). Similarly, general analyses revealed negligible effects on disability at short term (MD - 3.35 [95% CI - 9.00, 2.29], I2 = 93%) and medium term (MD - 4.06 [95% CI - 5.63, - 2.48], I2 = 0%). Sub-grouping at short term revealed larger effects in studies including people with definite/probable neuropathic pain (MD - 9.25 [95% CI - 12.59, - 5.90], I2 = 2%) compared with those with possible/unclear/unlikely neuropathic pain (MD -1.57 [95% CI - 8.96, 5.82] I2 = 95%). Medium-term outcomes showed a similar trend, but were limited by low numbers of studies. Certainty of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies using neuropathic pain medication for low back pain or spine-related leg pain fail to adequately consider the presence of neuropathic pain. Meta-analyses suggest neuropathic pain medication may be most effective in people with low back pain or spine-related leg pain with a definite/probable neuropathic pain component. However, the low to very low certainty of evidence and poor identification of neuropathic pain in most studies prevent firm recommendations.

Medication recommendations for treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain guideline-recommended pharmaceutical approaches to lumbosacral radicular symptoms, assess the quality of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool, and qualitatively synthesize the guideline recommendations.

LITERATURE SURVEY

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We included guidelines published between January 1, 2017, and January 9, 2022, written in the English language, related to radiculopathy, sciatica, and/or low back pain with leg pain, and that provided recommendations on oral medication.

METHODOLOGY

The review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the protocol was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Eligibility screening, full-text review, extraction of information pertaining to pharmacological management, and synthesis of results were performed independently by two authors and a third investigator was recruited to arbitrate any disagreements. The AGREE II tool was administered by four authors to appraise CPG quality.

SYNTHESIS

After screening 413 citations and assessing 37 full-text articles, 11 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. They represented seven countries (Belgium, Canada, England, France, Japan, Korea, and United States) and three continents (Asia, Europe, and North America), as well as the Global Spine Care Initiative aimed at a worldwide presence. The mean overall AGREE II score was 87.1% (standard deviation [SD] 12.6%), generally reflecting high-quality CPGs. The highest domain mean score was for Clarity of Presentation (96.7%, SD 4.4%), and the lowest was Applicability (75.6%, SD 22.8%). Five classes of medications were recommended by at least one CPG: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, oral corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common medication class recommended by the CPGs for lumbar radiculopathy was antidepressants. No CPGs recommended prescribing acetaminophen, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or antibiotics. There was very little agreement between the CPGs, and all the medication classes had at least one CPG recommended against its use. Three guidelines reviewed did not recommend any medications due to lack of supporting literature, and instead recommended nonpharmacologic therapy.

Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Pregabalin Versus Limaprost in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) typically complain of back pain and leg pain. These symptoms reduce the quality of life (QoL) and also cause sleep disturbances. This study compares pregabalin and limaprost's efficacy in LSS for pain, disability, QoL, and sleep, aiming to offer insights for medication selection.

METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, single-center, single-blinded, clinical superiority trial targeting patients with LSS. For 6 weeks, 111 patients per group were administered medication following a standard regimen, after which patient-reported outcomes were measured. The primary outcome was the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and sleep quality.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks of medication, there were significant improvements over time in the primary outcome, VAS for back pain and leg pain, in both groups, but no significant difference between the 2 groups. Similarly, for the secondary outcomes, ODI and EQ-5D, both groups showed significant improvements, yet there was no significant difference between them. In the subgroup analysis targeting poor sleepers (Pittsburgh sleep quality index, PSQI >5), both groups also exhibited significant improvements in sleep quality, but again, there was no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of pregabalin, limaprost in back and leg pain, ODI, EQ-5D, and sleep quality, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Thus, it is advisable to prescribe based on individual drug responses and potential complications.

Novel approach of ultrasound-guided lateral recess block for a patient with lateral recess stenosis: A case report

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound guide technology, which can provide real-time visualization of the needle tip and tissues and avoid many adverse events, is widely used in minimally invasive therapy. However, the studies on ultrasound-guided Lateral recess block (LRB) are limited, this is probably because there is no recognized standard method for ultrasound scanning. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of ultrasound-guided LRB in patients with lateral recess stenosis (LRS).

CASE SUMMARY

A 65-year-old patient complained of low back pain accompanied occasionally by pain and numbness in the left lower limb. Physical examination showed tenderness on the spinous process and paraspinal muscles from L1 to S1, extensor hallucis longus and tibialis anterior weakness (muscle strength: 4-), and a positive straight leg raising test in the left lower limb (60°). Magnetic resonance imaging showed L4-L5 disc degeneration with left LRS and nerve root entrapment. Subsequently, the patient was diagnosed with LRS. This patient was treated with a novel ultrasound-guided LRB approach. The patient's symptoms significantly improved without any complications at 1 wk postoperatively and at the 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report on the LRS treatment with ultrasound-guided LRB from the contralateral spinous process along the inner side of the articular process by out-plane technique. Further studies are expected to investigate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided LRB for patients with LRS.

Effect of Comprehensive and Integrative Medical Services on Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: Two types of medicinal systems are available in Korea: Western and oriental. These exist as separate services that independently provide medical care to patients. We determined the utility and benefits of compressive and integrated medical services (CIMS) comprising 12 sessions of acupuncture and healing programs over 6 weeks. Methods and Methods: In this two-group parallel single-center randomized controlled assessor-blinded trial, 25 participants were assigned to either the experimental (conventional medical treatment plus CIMS, n = 12) or control (conventional medical treatment, n = 13) group. Spinal nerve root block was performed on the compressed spinal nerve root (identified using magnetic resonance imaging) when no improvement was observed after the initial treatment. The experimental group received 12 cycles of acupuncture and manual therapy for 6 weeks; the control group received conventional medical treatment alone. Results: The average age of participants in the experimental and control groups was 70.73 ± 5.95 and 67.33 ± 8.89 years, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, body mass index, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, sex, and current medical history. We found high compliance for both programs (acupuncture and healing). On exclusion of between-group effects, the visual analog scale (VAS) score improved significantly over time (p = 0.045). Further, comparison of the groups after excluding the effects of visits revealed significantly lower VAS scores in the experimental group than in the control group (p = 0.000). Conclusions: Patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who mainly complain of radiating pain in the lower leg may benefit from CIMS after spinal nerve root block for ≤3 months after treatment. Our study findings suggest that this treatment improves spinal function and Oswestry Disability Index score. However, CIMS did not improve QoL.

Limaprost and the Risk of Bleeding: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between the use of limaprost and the risk of bleeding.

METHODS

A self-controlled case series analysis was conducted using the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort database in South Korea. We identified patients aged 18 years or older who had at least one prescription of limaprost and were diagnosed with at least one case of bleeding between 2003 and 2019. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of bleeding was calculated by dividing the incidence rate in the exposed period to limaprost by that in the unexposed period and adjusted for age using conditional Poisson regression model.

RESULTS

Among 72,860 patients with limaprost prescriptions and bleeding diagnoses, there were 184,732 events of bleeding. After adjusting for age, the IRR was 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-1.50), wherein the IRR was the highest during the 0-7 days after limaprost initiation (IRR, 2.11; 95% CI, 2.03-2.18). Risk of bleeding was higher when limaprost was concomitantly used with antithrombotics or other drugs for spinal stenosis treatment, and when higher daily doses of limaprost were administered.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the risk of bleeding increased by 1.5-fold in periods of limaprost exposure compared to unexposed periods, with particularly higher risks observed during the first week after limaprost initiation, with concomitant drugs related to bleeding, and with a higher daily dose. A careful risk-benefit assessment is warranted when initiating limaprost, especially when administered with other medications or in higher daily doses.

Clinical Efficacy of Neurotropin for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Low Back Pain

PURPOSE

We compared the clinical effects of Neurotropin, limaprost alfadex, and a combination of both drugs for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, active-controlled, open-label trial from March 2021 to May 2022. Participants were patients diagnosed with LSS by MRI and were randomly assigned to three groups: Neurotropin/limaprost combination (NL group), Neurotropin (N group), and limaprost group (L group). Participants received the drugs administered orally for 12 weeks, and each examination and observation was performed before any drug administration and every 2 weeks thereafter. We recorded age, sex, height, weight, duration of symptoms, intermittent claudication distance, level of stenosis in MRI, and concomitant analgesics as examination items in the trial period. Items measured during the trial were visual analog scale (VAS) score (mm) for LBP, leg pain and numbness, walking activity (walking speed, stride length), standing balance (3 m Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) Test results, Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) results), LBP/Quality of Life (QOL)-related scores (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Euro QOL 5-Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ)), psychological factors (Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) scores), and adverse events. Each item was evaluated using changes at each visit (weeks 2-12) from baseline value before drug administration (week 0), and changes were considered significant when p < 0.05.

RESULTS

We included results from 64 patients in the present study; 24 were assigned to the NL group (mean age 71.2 years), 20 to the N group (mean age 76.2 years), and 20 to the L group (mean age 74.4 years). There were no significant differences between the three groups in patient characteristics, concomitant analgesics, or baseline VAS score, gait balance, or QOL-related scores (p ≥ 0.05). The VAS and leg pain scores were significantly improved in Group L, and LBP was improved significantly in Group N. QOL and ODI scores improved significantly in the NL and L groups, EQ-5D score improved significantly in the L group, and RDQ score improved significantly in all groups (p < 0.05). Psychological factor and PCS scores improved significantly in the NL and L groups (p < 0.05). Walking speed and stride length were improved significantly in the NL and N groups (p < 0.05). TUG/FTSST scores were improved significantly in all groups (p < 0.05). Leg pain VAS score was improved significantly (p < 0.05) in the L group compared with the NL group after 6 and 12 weeks of administration, and LBP VAS was improved significantly in the N group after 6 weeks compared with the NL group (p < 0.05). Walking speed was significantly improved in the NL group after 2 weeks compared with the N group and improved significantly in the NL group after 6 weeks (p < 0.05) compared with the L group. RDQ was decreased significantly in the L group compared with the NL group after 8 weeks (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined use of Neurotropin and limaprost showed an additional effect on walking speed compared with single drug administration. Neurotropin may contribute to the improvement of low back pain, walking speed/stride length, and standing balance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031200282).

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of rehabilitation, surgical, injection, and medication interventions

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has a substantial impact on mobility, autonomy, and quality of life. Previous reviews have demonstrated inconsistent results and/or have not delineated between specific nonsurgical interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions in the management of LSS.

METHODS

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies, included patients with LSS, assessed the effectiveness of any interventions (rehabilitation, surgical, injection, medication), included at least two intervention groups, and included at least one measure of pain, disability, ambulation assessment, or LSS-specific symptoms. Eighty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted across outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge's g and reported descriptively. Formal grading of evidence was conducted.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis comparing rehabilitation to no treatment/placebo demonstrated significant effects on pain favoring rehabilitation (mean difference, MD -1.63; 95% CI: -2.68, -0.57; I² = 71%; p = .002). All other comparisons to no treatment/placebo revealed nonsignificant findings. The level of evidence ranged from very low to high for rehabilitation and medication versus no treatment/placebo for pain, disability, ambulation ability, and LSS symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review are inconclusive regarding superiority of interventions, this accentuates the value of multimodal patient-centered care in the management of patients with LSS.

Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Neuropathic pain causes substantial morbidity and healthcare utilization. Monotherapy with antidepressants or anticonvulsants often fails to provide relief. Combining different drugs sometimes provides improved analgesia and/or tolerability. More than half of patients receive 2 or more analgesics, and combination trials continue to emerge. This review comprehensively searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for relevant trials. Included studies are double-blind randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of 2 or more drugs vs placebo or at least one monotherapy in adults with neuropathic pain. Outcomes included measures of efficacy and adverse effects. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses compared combination to monotherapy wherever 2 or more similar studies were available. Forty studies (4741 participants) were included. Studies were heterogenous with respect to various characteristics, including dose titration methods and administration (ie, simultaneous vs sequential) of the combination. Few combinations involved a nonsedating drug, and several methodological problems were identified. For opioid-antidepressant, opioid-gabapentinoid, and gabapentinoid-antidepressant combinations, meta-analyses failed to demonstrate superiority over both monotherapies. In general, adverse event profiles were not substantially different for combination therapy compared with monotherapy. Despite widespread use and a growing number of trials, convincing evidence has not yet emerged to suggest superiority of any combination over its respective monotherapies. Therefore, implementing combination therapy-as second- or third-line treatment-in situations where monotherapy is insufficient, should involve closely monitored individual dosing trials to confirm safety and overall added benefit. Further research is needed, including trials of combinations involving nonsedating agents, and to identify clinical settings and specific combinations that safely provide added benefit.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lumbar spinal stenosis, 2021 - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) guideline for the management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) was first published in 2011. Since then, the medical care system for LSS has changed and many new articles regarding the epidemiology and diagnostics of LSS, conservative treatments such as new pharmacotherapy and physical therapy, and surgical treatments including minimally invasive surgery have been published. In addition, various issues need to be examined, such as verification of patient-reported outcome measures, and the economic effect of revised medical management of patients with lumbar spinal disorders. Accordingly, in 2019 the JOA clinical guidelines committee decided to update the guideline and consequently established a formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline, incorporating the recent advances of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The JOA LSS guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on the method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service in 2017. Background and clinical questions were determined followed by a literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles based on keywords were selected from all the searched literature. Using prepared structured abstracts, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed. The strength of evidence and recommendations for each clinical question was decided by the committee members.

RESULTS

Eight background and 15 clinical questions were determined. Answers and explanations were described for the background questions. For each clinical question, the strength of evidence and the recommendation were both decided, and an explanation was provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of LSS was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We expect that this guideline will be useful for all medical providers as an index in daily medical care, as well as for patients with LSS.

Efficacy and Safety of Add-on Mirogabalin to NSAIDs in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized, Open-Label Study

INTRODUCTION

In Japan, conservative therapy for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), prostaglandin E1, tramadol, physical/exercise therapy, and nerve blocks. Mirogabalin, a selective oral α2δ ligand, is approved for treating peripheral neuropathic pain, though data regarding visual analog scores (VAS) for pain in patients with LSS are limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of mirogabalin as an add-on treatment in patients with LSS taking NSAIDs compared with patients taking NSAIDs only.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, open-label study (MiroTAS) was conducted at 32 centers in Japan between June 2020 and October 2021. Patients were randomly assigned to mirogabalin and NSAIDs or NSAIDs alone in a 1:1 ratio. NSAIDs were administered according to their Japanese package inserts; mirogabalin was administered based on renal function [creatinine clearance (CrCL) ≥ 60 mL/min, 5 mg twice daily (BID) in Weeks 1-2, 10 mg BID in Weeks 3-4, and 15 or 10 mg BID after Week 5; CrCL 30 to < 60 mL/min, 2.5 mg BID Weeks 1-2, 5 mg BID Weeks 3-4, and 7.5 or 5 mg BID after Week 5]. The primary endpoint was the change in VAS score for leg pain from baseline to Week 12. Secondary endpoints were quality of life, evaluated using the EuroQol five-dimensional descriptive system (EQ-5D-5L) (at baseline and Week 12) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) (at Week 12), and safety. Change in VAS score at Week 12 was calculated using a linear mixed model for repeated measures. The safety endpoints were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions.

RESULTS

In total, 220 patients who met the eligibility criteria were enrolled. In the mirogabalin and NSAIDs and NSAIDs groups, mean ages (67.8 vs. 70.9 years), proportions of female patients (54.5% vs. 49.0%), mean body weights (63.9 vs. 62.0 kg), mean CrCL values (81.5 vs. 70.7 mL/min), proportions of patients with CrCL 30 to < 60 mL/min (27.3% vs. 33.7%), mean VAS scores (63.8 vs. 62.8 mm), and proportions of patients with VAS score ≥ 60 (53.6% vs. 52.9%) at enrollment were similar. The median durations of LSS were 9.0 and 11.0 months and the spine pain DETECT questionnaire (SPDQ) scores were 6.8 and 7.8, respectively. The least square (LS) mean change in VAS score from baseline to Week 12 was - 24.1 mm in the mirogabalin and NSAIDs group and - 14.2 mm in the NSAIDs group (both P < 0.0001 vs. baseline). The difference in LS mean was - 9.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 18.0, - 1.8] (P = 0.0174). The improvement in EQ-5D-5L score at Week 12 was significantly greater in the mirogabalin and NSAIDs group versus the NSAIDs group [mean difference, 0.0529 (95% CI, 0.0036, 0.1022), P = 0.0357]. At Week 12, the proportions of patients with PGIC scores ≤ 3 and ≤ 2 were higher in the mirogabalin and NSAIDs group vs. the NSAIDs group (76.2% vs. 50.0%, P = 0.0006, and 47.6% vs. 32.4%, P = 0.0523). In the mirogabalin and NSAIDs group, the incidences of TEAEs and adverse drug reactions were 60.9% and 57.3%, respectively, and the most common TEAEs were somnolence (30.0%) and dizziness (25.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of mirogabalin to NSAIDs improved VAS, EQ-5D-5L, and PGIC. The main TEAEs were somnolence and dizziness. The addition of mirogabalin to NSAIDs improved peripheral neuropathic pain associated with LSS and raised no new safety concerns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs021200007).

The Effectiveness of Pharmacopuncture in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Protocol for a Multi-Centered, Pragmatic, Randomized, Controlled, Parallel Group Study

Purpose

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a chronic degenerative disease. Non-surgical intervention is recommended, considering the risks and benefits for the affected age group, as well as the characteristics of the disease. However, to date, no studies have compared various non-surgical interventions to ascertain the appropriate first-line non-surgical treatment for LSS. Therefore, the objective of this study will be to assess the efficacy of pharmacopuncture as a non-surgical, conservative treatment for LSS.

Patients and Methods

A multi-centered, pragmatic, parallel-group study will be conducted. In total, 98 patients will be recruited at seven institutes; recruitment began in May 2022. After two treatment sessions per week over a period of 12 weeks, follow-up assessments will be held at weeks 13, 25, and 53.

Results

The efficacy of pharmacopuncture and conservative care will be pragmatically compared in patients radiologically diagnosed with LSS. Pain severity will be measured using the numeric rating scale and visual analog scale. Walking distance will also be evaluated. Patient-centered evaluations will include the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, Short-Form 12 for Health-Related Quality of Life, EuroQoL 5 Dimension 5 Levels, and Patient Global Impression of Change.

Conclusion

The results of this study will confirm the efficacy of pharmacopuncture in comparison to conventional non-surgical treatment and will thus facilitate the prioritization of patient-centered interventions for LSS.

Trial registration

This study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (registration identifier: NCT05242497) and CRiS (registration identifier: KCT0007145).

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.

Clinical Effectiveness of Conservative Treatments on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness of conservative treatments including pharmacological treatments and nonpharmacological treatments on patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods: We searched six electronic databases systematically for randomized clinical trials published between January 2000 and July 2021, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library. The studies focused on the therapeutic effects of pharmacological treatments including calcitonin, antiepileptics, neurotrophic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Chinese Traditional Medicine, limaprost, and nonpharmacological treatments like physiotherapy for treating lumbar spinal stenosis were included. The outcome was measured using the visual analog scale, Oswestry Dysfunction Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, and EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. The quality of eligible studies was assessed by using the Cochrane recommended bias risk assessment tool. Stata was used to conduct the network meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 12 randomized control trials with 1,194 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that for the visual analog scale, a better therapeutic effect was noted while using Chinese Traditional Medicine and physiotherapy, followed by analgesics drugs and limaprost. Limaprost and calcitonin were better in decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index. In terms of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score, the use of traditional Chinese Medicine and limaprost were associated with a better improvement than other treatments. Meanwhile, limaprost combined with analgesics drugs was found to be effective to improve the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire.

Conclusion: Among the commonly used conservative treatments for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, limaprost may have better efficacy in improving the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score and decreasing the Oswestry Dysfunction Index, with a beneficial effect on decreasing the visual analog scale and improving the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire.

Systematic Review Registration: website, identifier registration number.

Non-Surgical Interventions for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Leading To Neurogenic Claudication: A Clinical Practice Guideline

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causing neurogenic claudication (NC) is increasingly common with an aging population and can be associated with significant symptoms and functional limitations. We developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on nonsurgical management of patients with LSS causing NC. Using the GRADE approach, a multidisciplinary guidelines panel based recommendations on evidence from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published through June 2019, or expert consensus. The literature monitored up to October 2020. Clinical outcomes evaluated included pain, disability, quality of life, and walking capacity. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with LSS (congenital and/or acquired, lateral recess or central canal, with or without low back pain, with or without spondylolisthesis) causing NC. The guidelines panel developed 6 recommendations based on randomized controlled trials and 5 others based on professional consensus, summarized in 3 overarching recommendations: (Grade: statements are all conditional/weak recommendations) Recommendation 1. For patients with LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may initially select multimodal care nonpharmacological therapies with education, advice and lifestyle changes, behavioral change techniques in conjunction with home exercise, manual therapy, and/or rehabilitation (moderate-quality evidence), traditional acupuncture on a trial basis (very low-quality evidence), and postoperative rehabilitation (supervised program of exercises and/or educational materials encouraging activity) with cognitive-behavioral therapy 12 weeks postsurgery (low-quality evidence). Recommendation 2. In patients LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may consider a trial of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants. (very low-quality evidence). Recommendation 3. For patients LSS causing NC, we recommend against the use of the following pharmacological therapies: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methylcobalamin, calcitonin, paracetamol, opioids, muscle relaxants, pregabalin (consensus-based), gabapentin (very low-quality), and epidural steroidal injections (high-quality evidence). PERSPECTIVE: This guideline, on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence on the nonsurgical management of lumbar spine stenosis, provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Safe and effective non-surgical management of lumbar spine stenosis should be on the basis of a plan of care tailored to the individual and the type of treatment involved, and multimodal care is recommended in most situations.

Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain: A Review of Recent Evidence

Pharmacological treatment is not very effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in the use of the multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a new independent review to assess whether more and better-quality evidence has become available since the last systematic review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of double-blinded randomized controlled trials involving only adult participants and comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥2 drugs) with a placebo and/or at least one other comparator with an NP indication. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain reductions from baseline. The secondary outcome assessed was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent adverse events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened, with 164 articles assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only five lasted for at least 12 weeks and only six complied with the required data for complete analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts have been made to achieve better-quality evidence, but the quality has not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations about CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Potential Management With Prostaglandin E1 Analogs

ABSTRACT

Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most commonly diagnosed spinal disorders worldwide and remains a major cause for surgery in older adults. Lumbar spinal stenosis is clinically defined as a progressive degenerative disorder with low back pain and associated neurogenic intermittent claudication. Conservative and surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis has been shown to be minimally effective on its symptoms. A treatment option that has not been investigated in the United States is the utilization of prostaglandin E1 analogs, which have been used primarily in Japan for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis since the 1980s. The vasodilatory and antiplatelet aggregation effects of prostaglandin E1 presumably improve symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis by increasing blood flow to the spinal nerve roots. This brief report examines the potential vascular pathology of lumbar spinal stenosis, reviews evidence on the use of prostaglandin E1 analog limaprost in Japan for lumbar spinal stenosis, and briefly discusses misoprostol as a possible alternative in the United States. The studies summarized in this report suggest that prostaglandin E1 analogs may provide benefit as a conservative treatment option for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, higher-quality studies conducted in the United States and comparison with other currently used conservative treatments are required before it can be recommended for routine clinical use.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Pathophysiology and Treatment Principle: A Narrative Review

Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis may exhibit symptoms such as back pain, radiating pain, and neurogenic claudication. Although long-term outcome of treatments manifests similar results for both nonsurgical and surgical treatments, positive effects such as short-term improvement in symptoms and decreased fall risk may be expected with surgery. Surgical treatment is basically decompression, and a combination of treatments can be added depending on the degree of decompression and the accompanying instability. Recently, minimally invasive surgery has been found to result in excellent outcomes in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Therefore, better treatment effects can be anticipated with an approach aimed at understanding the overall pathophysiology and treatment methods of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Preparation and Chiral HPLC Separation of the Enantiomeric Forms of Natural Prostaglandins

Four enantiomeric forms of natural prostaglandins, ent-PGF2α ((−)-1), ent-PGE2 ((+)-2) ent-PGF1α ((−)-3), and ent-PGE1 ((+)-4) have been synthetized in gram scale by Corey synthesis used in the prostaglandin plants of CHINOIN, Budapest. Chiral HPLC methods have been developed to separate the enantiomeric pairs. Enantiomers of natural prostaglandins can be used as analytical standards to verify the enantiopurity of synthetic prostaglandins, or as biomarkers to study oxidation processes in vivo.

Expansive Suspension Laminoplasty Using a Spinous Process-Splitting Approach for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Surgical Technique and Outcomes Over 8 Years of Follow-up

Introduction:

To maximize the benefits of posterior decompression for severe multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis, we refined the expansive laminoplasty technique using a spinous process–splitting approach. This study tests the hypothesis that the surgical benefit of adequate decompression with posterior element preservation is maintained in the long term, over 8 years of follow-up.

Methods:

Fifty-eight patients were followed up yearly for 8 years. Eight patients having nonlumbar spine surgery or Parkinson disease were excluded. The noninferiority of the 8-year versus peak-year outcomes was tested, with margins of 5 points for the Oswestry disability index and 1 point for the numeric rating scales (NRSs).

Results:

In the 50 patients available for follow-up, the peak values of the mean improvements from baseline within the first 7 years were 35.8, 5.7, 5.9, and 2.8 points for the Oswestry disability index, low back pain NRS, leg pain NRS, and leg numbness NRS, respectively. The 95% lower confidence limits for the differences between the mean improvements from baseline at 8 years and the peak year were within the noninferiority margins for each scale.

Conclusion:

Our technique was associated with substantial improvement from baseline for each scale. The initial improvements in function and symptoms were maintained for 8 years.

Comparisons between the efficacy of limaprost alfadex and pregabalin in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy : design of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) is a relatively common neurological disease caused by the mechanical compression of nerve roots. Limaprost, a prostaglandin E₁ derivative, functions as a vasodilator and has been used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in Japan. However, the effects of limaprost in cervical radiculopathy remain unclear. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of limaprost with that of pregabalin, which is widely used for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

METHODS

In this randomized trial, patients with CSR received either limaprost or pregabalin orally for 8 weeks, along with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The primary outcomes were assessed using a numerical rating scale of pain and numbness, both at rest and during movement. Secondary outcomes were assessed using Short Form-36, provocation tests, painDETECT questionnaire, and subjective global assessment. The obtained data were evaluated according to the per-protocol analysis principle.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients were enrolled in this study, and 35 were available for analysis. A greater reduction in pain score was observed in neck pain during movement, and scapular and arm pain both at rest and during movement in the pregabalin-treated group up to 4 weeks. In the limaprost-treated group, numbness of the arm during movement showed a marked alleviation compared to the pregabalin-treated group at 8 weeks. There were no apparent differences between the two groups in terms of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pregabalin provided an earlier pain relief than limaprost, limaprost was superior to pregabalin in treating arm numbness. Limaprost might be one of the effective therapeutic options for CSR in primary care settings.

Optimal treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our review of current literature within the past 12-24 months for the treatment of lumbar spinals stenosis (LSS) serves to update providers on recent advances and comparisons regarding therapy spanning lifestyle modification, pharmacologic therapy, minimally invasive interventions, and surgical interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current literature supporting the inclusion of physical therapy and gabapentin/pregabalin within an initial treatment regimen have been positive. A recent randomized, double-blinded clinical trial of adding calcitonin to epidural steroid injections have shown improvement in pain and function up to 1 year. The minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild) procedure is showing ongoing beneficial results in pain and function. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have a role for select patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Finally, the benefits of surgical treatment versus nonsurgical treatment is ultimately inconclusive because of the nature of data collection, inconsistencies with the clinical definition of LSS, and a lack of standardized treatment guidelines.

SUMMARY

Our review of current research demonstrates there is a positive role for the current conservative therapies, with favorable results for interventions such as minimally invasive decompression and SCS. Pharmacologic interventions such as systemic prostaglandin analogues and epidural agents such as calcitonin demonstrate early promise, but need to undergo additional safety testing and confirmatory trials. Further long-term research with validated, objective measurements for the aforementioned treatments are needed to draw any definitive conclusions for clinical practice.

Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common indication for spinal surgery in older adults; however, the efficacy of surgery for LSS as compared to nonsurgical treatments remains unclear. Here, we reviewed numerous studies, including randomized control trails (RCTs), to compare nonsurgical and surgical treatments for LSS. The nonsurgical management of LSS includes medication, epidural injections, physiotherapy, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitative approaches. Patients with LSS who do not improve after nonsurgical treatments are typically treated surgically using decompressive surgery, which has the strongest evidence base. Although decompressive surgical treatment is associated with modestly successful outcomes, it remains unclear whether decompression combined with fusion surgery results in clinical outcomes that are superior to those following decompression surgery alone. Future RCTs assessing the effectiveness of specific treatments based on high-quality scientific evidence are expected to aid clinical decision-making and improve treatment outcomes for LSS.