Efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials

Effect of a New Synergistic Combination of Low Doses of Acetylsalicylic Acid, Caffeine, Acetaminophen, and Chlorpheniramine in Acute Low Back Pain

The present paper continues a more complex research related to the increased synergism in terms of both anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect obtained by the addition of chlorpheniramine (CLF) to the common acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), acetaminophen (PAR), and caffeine (CAF) combination. This synergistic effect was previously highlighted both in vitro in rat models and in vivo in the treatment of migraine. The aim of the research was to further evaluate the analgesic effect of a synergistic low-dose ASA-PAR-CAF-CLF combination in the treatment of low back pain, in a parallel, multiple-dose, double-blind, active controlled clinical trial. A number of 89 patients with low back pain of at least moderate intensity were randomly assigned to receive Algopirin^® (ALG), a combinational product containing 125 mg ASA, 75 mg PAR, 15 mg CAF, and 2 mg CLF, or PAR 500 mg, a drug recognized by American Pain Society as "safe and effective" in the treatment of low back pain. One tablet of the assigned product was administered three times a day for seven consecutive days. The patients evaluated their pain level using a Visual Analog Scale prior to administration, and at 1, 2, 4, and 6 h after the morning dose. Time course of effect was similar in structure and size for both treatments. Pain relief appeared rapidly and steadily increased over 4 h after drug administration. Differential pain curves of ALG and PAR were very similar and comparable with the previously determined ALG analgesia pattern in migraine. Differences between the daily mean pain scores were not statistically significant for the two treatments. Similar results were obtained for the Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID) for 0-4 h and 0-6 h intervals as well as for the time course of the proportion of patients with at least 30% and at least 50% pain relief. In conclusion, in spite of very small doses of active components, ALG proved equally effective to the standard low back pain treatment and therefore a viable therapeutic alternative, mainly for patients with gastrointestinal and hepatic sensitivity. Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier EudraCT No.: 2015-002314-74.

Role of Cerebrolysin in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cerebrolysin is a mixture containing 85% free amino acids and 15% biologically active low-molecular weight peptides that is believed to mimic the effects of endogenous neurotrophic factors to interact with the pathologic process cascade of neurodegenerative diseases. No study has examined the effect of Cerebrolysin on cervical myelopathic patients.

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of Cerebrolysin as a conservative modality on cervical spondylotic myelopathic patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective randomized study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 192 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) were subdivided blindly into two equal groups.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Followed-up was performed at 1, 3, and 6 months comparing the recovery rate Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for cervical myelopathy between the two groups.

METHODS

Group I received Cerebrolysin and Group II received placebo for 4 weeks; both groups received celecoxib 200 mg for 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Myelopathy improved in 92% and 52% of patients at 1 month in Groups I and II, respectively; these changed at 6 months to 87% and 33%; the remaining 13% in Group I neither improved nor deteriorated, whereas 60% in Group II neither improved nor deteriorated and 7% deteriorated with statistically significant differences when comparing the mean JOA recovery rate between the 2 groups at 1, 3, and 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Cerebrolysin over 4 weeks is safe and effective for the improvement of CSM as compared with placebo, with no reported cases of neurologic deterioration over 6 months of follow-up.

Lumbar herniated disc: spontaneous regression

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a frequent condition that results in substantial disability and causes admission of patients to neurosurgery clinics. To evaluate and present the therapeutic outcomes in lumbar disc hernia (LDH) patients treated by means of a conservative approach, consisting of bed rest and medical therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort was carried out in the neurosurgery departments of hospitals in Kahramanmaraş city and 23 patients diagnosed with LDH at the levels of L3-L4, L4-L5 or L5-S1 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The average age was 38.4 ± 8.0 and the chief complaint was low back pain and sciatica radiating to one or both lower extremities. Conservative treatment was administered. Neurological examination findings, durations of treatment and intervals until symptomatic recovery were recorded. Laségue tests and neurosensory examination revealed that mild neurological deficits existed in 16 of our patients. Previously, 5 patients had received physiotherapy and 7 patients had been on medical treatment. The number of patients with LDH at the level of L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 were 1, 13, and 9, respectively. All patients reported that they had benefit from medical treatment and bed rest, and radiologic improvement was observed simultaneously on MRI scans. The average duration until symptomatic recovery and/or regression of LDH symptoms was 13.6 ± 5.4 months (range: 5-22).

CONCLUSIONS

It should be kept in mind that lumbar disc hernias could regress with medical treatment and rest without surgery, and there should be an awareness that these patients could recover radiologically. This condition must be taken into account during decision making for surgical intervention in LDH patients devoid of indications for emergent surgery.

Evolving therapeutic strategies to improve nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug safety

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) possess potent anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties through inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes (COX-1 and COX-2), which are responsible for synthesis of proinflammatory mediators. NSAIDs are frequently used for treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions. However, their use is associated with serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal (GI), cardiovascular, renal, and hepatic adverse effects, which pose a serious clinical concern for both patients and physicians. During the past 2 decades, approaches to improving the tolerability of NSAIDs were mainly directed toward discovery of COX-2 selective NSAIDs (coxibs), which were expected to minimize the risk of GI injury. Unfortunately, the results from multiple clinical studies have shown that treatment with coxibs may increase the risk for cardiovascular complications. This review summarizes current strategies used to reduce the toxicity of NSAIDs and outlines novel therapeutic approaches still in preclinical development. To minimize the risk of GI ulcerations and bleeding, combination therapies with gastroprotective agents are currently recommended. The new therapeutic agents anticipated to have similar effects include nitric oxide- and hydrogen sulfide-releasing NSAIDs. Novel manufacturing technologies enhance dissolution and absorption of NSAID products, allowing for their administration at low doses, which could lead to improved drug tolerability without diminishing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of NSAIDs. This principle is in line with the current recommendation by the US Food and Drug Administration that NSAIDs should be used at the lowest effective dosage. Finally, NSAID formulations targeted directly to the site of inflammation are expected to reduce systemic drug exposure and thus decrease the risk of systemic adverse effects.

Enhanced analgesic activity by cyclodextrins - a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Analgesics can be ineffective in treating some types of pain, hence, improved drug delivery systems could optimize their efficacy.

AREA COVERED

The authors conducted a systematic review to evaluate the analgesic activity of compounds complexed in cyclodextrins, analyzing whether these complexes improved analgesic efficacy. The search terms 'analgesics', 'cyclodextrins' and 'drug effects' were used to retrieve articles in SCOPUS, PUBMED and EMBASE. A total of 22 papers were identified. In the clinical studies, there was greater efficacy in the complexed drug when compared with control groups, with differences ranging from 25 to 83%. Through a meta-analysis, the preclinical studies showed that the complexed drug had a significantly (p < 0.01) greater effect than the non-complexed drug.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of cyclodextrins can improve the efficacy of analgesic compounds, and they are an important tool in the search for greater analgesic effect. They may also be a way to reduce the therapeutic doses, and hence increasing the potential of the drug.

Review of the efficacy and safety of over-the-counter medicine

<p>Over-the-counter medicines are available without prescription because of their safety and effectiveness, to treat minor ailments and symptoms. The objective of the study was to analyze the availability and quality of systematic reviews published about nonprescription medicines, identifying the groups for which there are gaps in evidence. We identified published articles through the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and MEDLINE, from the start of the database until May 2012, using the search terms "nonprescription drugs," "over the counter," and "OTC." We searched for articles that describe systematic reviews addressing the efficacy and safety of drugs dispensed without a prescription, according to the lists published by the Association of the European Self-Medication Industry and in Brazil, in the clinical conditions listed in Groups and Specified Therapeutic Indications. We included 49 articles, 18 articles were of moderate quality and 31 of high quality. Of the studies, 74.5% demonstrated efficacy in favor of the use of drugs evaluated. Of the 24 studies that evaluated safety, 21% showed evidence unfavorable to the drug. Overall, the evidence found in the studies included in the overview is favorable to the use of the drugs evaluated. However, there are gaps in evidence for some therapy groups.</p>

Delivery systems for the treatment of degenerated intervertebral discs

The intervertebral disc (IVD) is the most avascular and acellular tissue in the body and therefore prone to degeneration. During IVD degeneration, the balance between anabolic and catabolic processes in the disc is deregulated, amongst others leading to alteration of extracellular matrix production, abnormal enzyme activities and production of pro-inflammatory substances like cytokines. The established treatment strategy for IVD degeneration consists of physiotherapy, pain medication by drug therapy and if necessary surgery. This approach, however, has shown limited success. Alternative strategies to increase and prolong the effects of bioactive agents and to reverse the process of IVD degeneration include the use of delivery systems for drugs, proteins, cells and genes. In view of the specific anatomy and physiology of the IVD and depending on the strategy of the therapy, different delivery systems have been developed which are reviewed in this article.

Efficacy of intervertebral disc regeneration with stem cells - a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal controlled trials

Management of intervertebral disc (IVD) degenerative disease is challenging, as it is accompanied by irreversible loss of IVD cells. Stem cell transplantation to the disc has shown promise in decelerating or arresting the degenerative process. Multiple pre-clinical animal trials have been conducted, but with conflicting outcomes. To assess the effect of stem cell transplantation, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Week 3, 2015. Inclusion criteria consisted of controlled animal trials. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Random effects models were constructed to pool standardized mean difference (SMD). Twenty two studies were included; nine of which were randomized. Statistically significant differences were found with the stem cell group exhibiting increased disc height index (SMD=3.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.49, 4.78; p<0.001), increased MRI T2 signal intensity (SMD=2.28, 95% CI: 1.48, 3.08; p<0.001), increased Type II collagen mRNA expression (SMD=3.68, 95% CI: 1.66, 5.70; p<0.001), and decreased histologic disc degeneration grade (SMD=-2.97, 95% CI: -3.97, -1.97; p<0.001). There was statistical heterogeneity between studies that could not be explained with pre-planned subgroup analyses based on animal species, study designs, and transplanted cell types. Stem cells transplanted to the IVD in quadruped animals decelerate or arrest the IVD degenerative process. Further studies in human clinical trials will be needed to understand if such benefit can be translated to bipedal humans.

A study on factors affecting low back pain and safety and efficacy of NSAIDs in acute low back pain in a tertiary care hospital of Western Nepal

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain is characterized by a range of symptoms which include pain, muscle tension or stiffness, and is localized between the shoulder blades and the folds of the buttocks, with or without spreading to the legs. Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) are the drugs of choice which provide an analgesic effect for acute low back pain.

AIM

To study the factors affecting low back pain, efficacy and safety of different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (aceclofenac, diclofenac, naproxen and nimesulide) in low back pain.

METHODOLOGY

Data collection form and numeric pain rating scale were used as study tools for studying patients' demographies and severities of pain respectively. Patients prescribed with aceclofenac 100 mg , diclofenac 100 mg, naproxen 500 mg and nimesulide 100 mg for acute low back pain at Orthopaedics Outpatients Department of Manipal Teaching Hospital, Nepal, were enrolled in this study. The decrease in pain scores was recorded on 5th and 10th days of follow-up and pain scores were calculated. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal Wallis non parametric test were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Among 150 patients, 67.3% were females (n=101). Low back pain was more prevalent (24.7%) in age-group of 59-68 years and a positive correlation was seen. Similarly, low back pain was found to be high among people involved in agriculture, heavy weight lifters and non smokers. The decrease in average pain scores was more in the patients treated with aceclofenac (4.83 ± 0.537), followed by that in those who were treated with naproxen (4.13 ± 0.067) and diclofenac (3.84 ± 0.086). The decrease in pain scores was found to be lowest among patients who were treated with nimesulide (2.11 ± 0.148). Nimesulide presented more number of side-effects than the comparative drugs.

CONCLUSION

Different factors affect low back pain, such as age, gender, personal habit, posture, occupation, weight lifting. Aceclofenac showed greater decrease in pain scores with lesser number of side-effects.

Effects of motion style acupuncture treatment in acute low back pain patients with severe disability: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, comparative effectiveness trial

Reviews of the efficacy of acupuncture as a treatment for acute low back pain (aLBP) have shown that there is insufficient evidence for its effect and that more research is needed. Motion style acupuncture treatment (MSAT) is novel in that it requires a part of the patient's body to move passively or actively while acupuncture needles are retained. A multicenter, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of MSAT in aLBP with severe disability. A total of 58 aLBP patients with severe functional disability (defined per Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ⩾60%) were recruited and assigned randomly to receive 1 session of either conventional diclofenac injection (n=29) or MSAT (n=29). The primary outcome measured improvement in LBP using the 10-point numerical rating scale of LBP, and the secondary outcome assessed disability using the Oswestry Disability Index at 30minutes and at 2, 4, and 24weeks after treatment. Analyses were by intention to treat. The numerical rating scale of the MSAT group decreased 3.12 (95% confidence interval=2.26, 3.98; P<.0001) more than that of the injection group and the Oswestry Disability Index of the MSAT group decreased 32.95% (95% confidence interval=26.88, 39.03; P<.0001) more than that of the injection group, respectively. The difference between the 2 groups maintained statistical significance at 2 and 4weeks after treatment. These results suggest that MSAT has positive effects on immediate pain relief and the functional recovery of aLBP patients with severe disability.

An oral TRPV1 antagonist attenuates laser radiant-heat-evoked potentials and pain ratings from UV(B)-inflamed and normal skin

AIMS

Laser (radiant-heat) evoked potentials (LEPs) from vertex-EEG peak-to-peak (PtP) amplitude were used to determine acute antinociceptive/antihyperalgesic efficacy of ABT-102, a novel TRPV1 antagonist efficacious in preclinical pain models, compared with active controls and placebo in normal and UV(B)-inflamed skin.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind, intra-individual, crossover trial. Twenty-four healthy subjects received six sequences of single doses of ABT-102 (0.5, 2, 6 mg), etoricoxib 90 mg, tramadol 100 mg and placebo. Painful stimuli were induced by CO(2) -laser on normal and UV(B) -inflamed skin. LEPs and visual analogue scale (VAS-pain) ratings were taken at baseline and hourly up to 8 h post-dose from both skin types.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, significant mean decreases in the primary variable of LEP PtP-amplitude from UV(B)-inflamed skin were observed with ABT-102 6 mg (P < 0.001), ABT-102 2 mg (P = 0.002), tramadol 100 mg (P < 0.001), and etoricoxib 90 mg (P = 0.001) over the 8 h period; ABT-102 0.5 mg was similar to placebo. ABT-102 6 mg was superior to active controls over the 8 h period (P < 0.05) whereas ABT-102 2 mg was comparable. Improvements in VAS scores compared with placebo were observed with ABT-102 6 mg (P < 0.001) and ABT-102 2 mg (P = 0.002). ABT-102 average plasma concentrations were 1.3, 4.4 and 9.4 ng ml(-1) for the 0.5, 2 and 6 mg doses, respectively. There were no clinically significant safety findings.

CONCLUSIONS

TRPV-1 antagonism appears promising in the management of clinical pain, but requires further investigation.

Efficacy and safety of flupirtine modified release for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain: results of SUPREME, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group phase IV study

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate non-inferior/superior efficacy of flupirtine modified release (MR) compared with tramadol/placebo for the management of moderate to severe chronic low back pain (LBP).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, active-/placebo-controlled double-dummy multicenter study, performed in 31 German study centers. LBP patients (n = 363) with moderate pain intensity were randomized 1:1:1 to receive flupirtine MR 400 mg, tramadol extended release (ER) 200 mg, or matching placebo (each given OD in the evening) over 4 weeks.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2009-013268-38.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoint was change from baseline in the LBP intensity index (LBPIX; 11-point NRS) at week 4; last observation carried forward was used to impute missing scores.

RESULTS

Least square (LS) mean ± SD LBPIX changes from baseline at week 4 were clinically significant for all three treatment groups of the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per-protocol (PP) population (n = 326/276): placebo (n = 110/96): -1.81 ± 1.65/-1.77 ± 1.59; flupirtine MR (n = 109/95): -2.23 ± 1.73/-2.28 ± 1.68; and tramadol ER (n = 107/85): -1.92 ± 1.84/2.03 ± 1.83 (p < 0.001 for each). ITT/PP treatment effects for flupirtine MR were non-inferior when compared with tramadol ER and superior when compared with placebo (p = 0.003/0.033). Significantly more ITT patients treated with flupirtine MR (59.6/37.6 showed a ≥30/50% LBPIX relief in comparison to placebo (46.4/24.6%; p vs. flupirtine MR: 0.049/0.037). Treatment contrasts for tramadol failed to reach significance vs. placebo. Within the safety population (n = 355), flupirtine MR (n = 119) was associated with a significantly lower incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs; 21.0%) and TEAE-related study discontinuations (3.4%) than tramadol ER (n = 116; 34.5/12.0%; p = 0.039/0.017) and exhibited an overall safety/tolerability profile non-inferior to placebo (n = 120; 15.8/3.3%; p = ns for each). Major limitations of this study were the short treatment duration, the comparison of different drug classes and the lack of a titration phase.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic efficacy of flupirtine MR 400 mg OD was comparable to that of tramadol ER 200 mg OD and superior to that of placebo.

Efficacy and gastrointestinal risk of aspirin used for the treatment of pain and cold

AIMS

To analyse major sources of evidence-based information on the efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability of aspirin, used short-term, in over-the-counter (OTC) doses, to relieve acute pain and cold symptoms, including associated feverishness.

METHODS

Evidence was largely collected from published meta-analyses and systematic reviews that focused on randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trials, in which aspirin was compared to placebo and, in some cases also, to active comparators such as OTC doses of paracetamol or ibuprofen.

RESULTS

Across a large number of comparisons, aspirin was superior to placebo in treating pain, cold or fever. Efficacy was essentially similar to that of comparators used in equivalent doses. There was no serious GI adverse event attributed to ASA in any study, but mild-to-moderate dyspepsia in small percentages of cases was commonly reported.

CONCLUSION

OTC aspirin is safe and effective. Safety concerns should not limit brief use to relieve acute pain, cold or fever.

Adherence of Irish general practitioners to European guidelines for acute low back pain: A prospective pilot study

There are no national low back pain (LBP) clinical guidelines in Ireland, and neither the level of adherence of General Practitioners (GPs) to the European guidelines, nor the cost of LBP to the patient and the state, have been investigated. A prospective pilot study was conducted on 54 consenting patients (18M, 36F: mean age (SD): 40.5 (14.3) years) with a new episode of acute LBP (<3 months) attending one of nine participating GPs. Baseline demographic, LBP classification [i.e. simple back ache (SBA), nerve root pain (NRP), serious spinal pathology (SSP)] and primary care management data were recorded over a three month period. Adherence and costs were estimated based on: medication prescription, referral for investigations, treatment or consultations, and wage replacement costs (time signed off work). For both SBA and NRP, medication prescriptions were consistent with European guideline recommendations, but not for referral for further treatment (39% of SBA patients were referred on first visit), secondary care (54% of NRP patients were referred on first visit), or discontinuation of work (50% NRP patients on first GP visit). The average total cost (direct and wage replacement) for a single episode of LBP over 12 weeks was 20,531 Euros (20,300-20,762). Direct costs accounted for 43% [8874.36 Euros, (8643.37-9105.37 Euros)] and wage replacement costs 57% (11,657 Euros). In conclusion, management of acute LBP in a cohort of GPs in Ireland was not consistent with European clinical guideline recommendations, and warrants higher levels of postgraduate education among GPs, as well as restructuring of primary care services, which should improve patient outcome and reduce costs.

Nonoperative modalities to treat symptomatic cervical spondylosis

Cervical spondylosis is a common and disabling condition. It is generally felt that the initial management should be nonoperative, and these modalities include physiotherapy, analgesia and selective nerve root injections. Surgery should be reserved for moderate to severe myelopathy patients who have failed a period of conservative treatment and patients whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by nonoperative means. A review of the literature supporting various modalities of conservative management is presented, and it is concluded that although effective, nonoperative treatment is labour intensive, requiring regular review and careful selection of medications and physical therapy on a case by case basis.

Treatment-based subgroups of low back pain: a guide to appraisal of research studies and a summary of current evidence

There has been a recent increase in research evaluating treatment-based subgroups of non-specific low back pain. The aim of these sub-classification schemes is to identify subgroups of patients who will respond preferentially to one treatment as opposed to another. Our article provides accessible guidance on to how to interpret this research and determine its implications for clinical practice. We propose that studies evaluating treatment-based subgroups can be interpreted in the context of a three-stage process: (1) hypothesis generation-proposal of clinical features to define subgroups; (2) hypothesis testing-a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test that subgroup membership modifies the effect of a treatment; and (3) replication-another RCT to confirm the results of stage 2 and ensure that findings hold beyond the specific original conditions. At this point, the bulk of research evidence in defining subgroups of patients with low back pain is in the hypothesis generation stage; no classification system is supported by sufficient evidence to recommend implementation into clinical practice.

The effectiveness of a weak opioid medication versus a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug in treating flare-up of chronic low-back pain: results from two randomized, double-blind, 6-week studies

Two 6-week studies compared the analgesic efficacy, tolerability and safety of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib 200 mg twice a day [bid]) and an opioid (tramadol HCl 50 mg four times a day [qid]) in subjects with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). Successful responders (primary endpoint) were defined as subjects completing 6 weeks of treatment and having > or = 30% improvement on the Numerical Rating Scale for pain. A total of 796 and 802 subjects were randomized to treatment in study 1 and study 2, respectively. A significantly greater percentage of celecoxib-treated subjects were successful responders compared with tramadol HCl-treated subjects (study 1: 63.2% versus 49.9%, respectively; study 2: 64.1% versus 55.1%, respectively). Fewer adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported in the celecoxib-treated group. Overall, celecoxib 200 mg bid was more effective than tramadol HCl 50 mg qid in the treatment of CLBP, with fewer AEs reported.

[Prescribing non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs and gastrointestinal protection in primary care]

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether prescribing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is adequate for gastrointestinal protection associated with NSAID use.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive study.

SETTING

Primary Care Centre in La Mina, Barcelona, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sample of 500 patients, stratified by doctor was selected from a total of 4504 patients with an NSAID prescription.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

The dependent variables were the adequacy of NSAID prescription and gastrointestinal protection. The independent variables were: age, sex, concomitant treatments, type and number of NSAIDs. The variables were collected from the clinical history.

RESULTS

The 476 patients included with an NSAID prescription had a mean age of 47.9 (18.1) years, and 63.4% were women. The NSAIDs most prescribed were, ibuprofen (60.3%), diclofenac (23.1%), and naproxen (4.0%). The most common reason for prescribing the NSAID was locomotor system pathology; 45.4%. The prescription was adequate in 44.7% (95% CI, 40.2-49.3), and inadequate in 23.5% (95% CI, 19.8-27.6). It was inadequate in 49.5% of patients over 65 years, while in under 65 year-olds 16.5% were inadequate. Gastrointestinal protection was inadequate in 28.2% (95% CI, 22.7-35.7); 12.8% excessive and 16% insufficient. In the multivariate analysis, the inadequacy probability of NSAIDs is 5.45 times greater in patients of 65 or more years than in younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAID prescribing and gastrointestinal protection can be considered to be inadequate in 25% of patients. Advanced age is a major risk factor in inadequate prescribing.

Back pain in osteoporotic vertebral fractures

This review article examines the epidemiology and pathogenesis of back pain and vertebral fractures in osteoporosis, reviewing the management of pain in patients with vertebral fractures and the direct and indirect effect of osteoporosis treatments on back pain.

INTRODUCTION

The management of patients with vertebral fractures has largely concentrated on the prevention of further fractures by the treatment of underlying osteoporosis, with drug treatment for acute and chronic back pain and the non-pharmacological management of vertebral fractures receiving less attention.

DISCUSSION

Emerging evidence suggests that, in addition to reducing the incidence of vertebral fractures, calcitonin, intravenous bisphosphonates and teriparatide may also have a direct effect on bone pain. Targeted analgesia, tailored to individual need is often required in both the acute and chronic phases following vertebral fracture. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have also been approved for use in the management of vertebral fractures and may prove useful in selected patients unresponsive to conventional pain relief. There is some evidence to support the use of individualised tailored exercise programmes aimed at strengthening back muscles to maintain bone density and reduce further fracture incidence. In addition the use of specific orthoses may help to reduce kyphosis, improve mobility and reduce pain.

CONCLUSION

Chronic back pain associated with vertebral fracture provides a great challenge to health care professionals and the patient. This demands a combination of options, including not only therapeutic interventions, but also physiotherapy, psychological support and patient education.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, and simple analgesics

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing amongst available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

WITHDRAWN: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of NSAIDs in the treatment of non-specific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Medline and Embase databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) up to and including September 1998 if reported in English, Dutch or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in non-specific low back pain with or without radiation were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors blinded with respect to authors, institution and journal independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. A methodological quality score was applied, and studies meeting at least six of 11 specified criteria were considered high quality studies. If data were considered clinically homogeneous, a meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model for statistically homogeneous subgroups and a random effects model for statistically heterogeneous subgroups. If data were considered clinically heterogeneous, a qualitative analysis was performed using a rating system with four levels of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, no).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 51 trials (total number of patients = 6057) were included in this review, of which 46 were published in English and five in German. Sixteen trials (31%) were of high quality. The pooled Relative Risk for global improvement after one week was 1.24 (95% CI 1.10 , 1.41) and for additional analgesic use 1.29 (95% CI 1.05 , 1.57), indicating a statistically significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo. The results of the qualitative analysis showed that there is conflicting evidence (level 3) that NSAIDs are more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, and that there is moderate evidence (level 2) that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence (level 1) that various types of NSAIDs are equally effective for acute low back pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the evidence from the 51 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute low back pain. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID which is clearly more effective than others. Sufficient evidence on chronic low back pain is still lacking.

Medical management of cervical spondylosis

Medical management is often the initial management of cervical spondylitic syndromes, including radiculopathy, myelopathy, and neck pain. This includes pharmacological and rehabilitation treatment. Prospective studies comparing the efficacy of surgical versus medical management are lacking. The indications and efficacy of pharmacological and rehabilitative treatments are reviewed. The use of anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, analgesics, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, steroids, facet joint ablation, and physical therapy are reviewed. A rationale for the medical management of acute neck pain, chronic neck pain, radiculopathy, and myelopathy is presented.

Nonsurgical management of acute and chronic low back pain

A variety of nonsurgical treatment alternatives exists for acute and chronic low back pain. Patients should receive appropriate education about the favorable natural history of low back pain, basic body mechanics, and methods (eg, exercises, activity modification, behavioral modification) that can reduce symptoms. Nonprescription medication is efficacious for mild to moderate pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or in combination with muscle relaxants, relieve pain and improve overall symptoms of acute low back pain. Exercise therapy has limited value for acute low back pain, but strong evidence supports exercise therapy in the management of chronic low back pain. Moderately strong evidence supports the use of manipulation in acute back pain. Evidence is weak for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with acute low back pain, strong for short-term relief of chronic low back pain, and limited for long-term relief of chronic low back pain. The use of facet injections in the management of acute low back pain is not supported by evidence, nor is the effectiveness of orthoses, traction, magnets, or acupuncture. Trigger point injections are not indicated for nonspecific acute or chronic low back pain, and sacroiliac joint injections are not indicated in the routine management of low back pain. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Update on guidelines for the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major - and growing - burden on today's ageing populations. Professional organisations including the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), American Pain Society (APS) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) have published treatment guidelines within the past 5 years to assist clinicians achieve effective pain management. Safety is a core concern in all these guidelines, especially for chronic conditions such as osteoarthritis that require long-term treatment. Hence, there is a consensus among recommendations that paracetamol should be the first-line analgesic agent due to its favourable side effect and safety profile, despite being somewhat less effective in pain relief than anti-inflammatory drugs. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective anti-inflammatory drugs were developed with the goal of delivering effective pain relief without the serious gastrointestinal (GI) side effects linked with traditional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Clinical trial evidence supported these benefits, and COX-2 inhibitors were widely adopted, both in clinical practice and in official guidelines. Recently, accumulating data have linked COX-2 inhibitors with serious cardiovascular and/or cardiorenal effects and/or serious cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), particularly at anti-inflammatory doses or when used long term. Regulatory authorities in both Europe and the USA have responded to these data with the withdrawal of rofecoxib and valdecoxib, and the strengthening of prescribing advice on all anti-inflammatory drugs. COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs should now be used with increased caution in patients at increased cardiovascular and/or cardiorenal risk, e.g., patients with congestive heart failure, hypertension, etc. Regulatory advice and good clinical practice are to use anti-inflammatory drugs at the lowest effective dose and for the shortest possible time. There are as yet no updated official guidelines that incorporate these new data and regulatory advice. An international multidisciplinary panel, the Working Group on Pain Management, has generated new recommendations for the treatment of moderate-to-severe musculoskeletal pain. These guidelines, formulated in response to recent developments concerning COX-2 inhibitors and other NSAIDs, focus on paracetamol as the baseline drug for chronic pain management; when greater analgesia is desired, the addition of weak opioids is recommended based on a preferable GI and cardiovascular profile, compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Nonsurgical resource utilization in adult spinal deformity

STUDY DESIGN

The enrollment data were retrospectively reviewed for 1,061 patients entered into a prospective multicenter study of adult spinal deformity between January 2002 and June 2004.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to quantify and analyze the use of nonsurgical resources in patients with adult spinal deformity.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Limited data exist regarding the utilization of nonsurgical treatment methods for adult spinal deformity.

METHODS

Demographic data, surgical history, symptom assessment, and nonsurgical treatment regimen were reviewed. Health status measures were the SF-12, SRS-29, and ODI. Nonsurgical patients were divided into low- and high-symptom subgroups based on age adjusted ODI score. Resource utilization was analyzed based on both patient and physician questionnaire responses.

RESULTS

High- and low-symptom nonsurgical subgroups differed significantly on all reported health status measures (P < 0.0001). High-symptom patients used greater resources in terms of narcotics, epidural blocks, and physical agent methods (P < 0.001), analgesics (P < 0.01), pain management referral and bed rest (P < 0.02), strength training, nerve root blocks, and stabilization exercises (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that, within the population of adult deformity patients, distinct high- and low-symptom groups exist and can be clearly identified. While high-symptom patients used significantly greater resources, most low-symptom patients used nonsurgical resources as well.

A randomized trial of chiropractic and medical care for patients with low back pain: eighteen-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the long-term effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for low back pain in managed care and to assess the effectiveness of physical therapy and modalities among patients receiving medical or chiropractic care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Evidence comparing the long-term relative effectiveness of common treatment strategies offered to low back pain patients in managed care is lacking.

METHODS

A total of 681 low back pain patients presenting to a managed-care facility were randomized to chiropractic with or without physical modalities, or medical care with or without physical therapy, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome variables are low back pain intensity, disability, and complete remission. The secondary outcome is participants' perception of improvement in low back symptoms.

RESULTS

Of the 681 patients, 610 (89.6%) were followed through 18 months. Among participants not assigned to receive physical therapy or modalities, the estimated improvements in pain and disability and 18-month risk of complete remission were a little greater in the chiropractic group than in the medical group (adjusted RR of remission = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.80-2.07). Among participants assigned to medical care, mean changes in pain and disability and risk of remission were larger in patients assigned to receive physical therapy (adjusted RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.08-2.66). Among those assigned to chiropractic care, however, assignment to methods was not associated with improvement or remission (adjusted RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.62-1.55). Compared with medical care only patients, chiropractic and physical therapy patients were much more likely to perceive improvement in their low back symptoms. However, less than 20% of all patients were pain-free at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in outcomes between medical and chiropractic care without physical therapy or modalities are not clinically meaningful, although chiropractic may result in a greater likelihood of perceived improvement, perhaps reflecting satisfaction or lack of blinding. Physical therapy may be more effective than medical care alone for some patients, while physical modalities appear to have no benefit in chiropractic care.

Efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day in reduction of pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain: results of a 4-week, multinational, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 60 mg/day in patients with established chronic low back pain (CLBP) were compared with those of diclofenac 150 mg/day in a 4-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Four hundred and forty-six adult patients with CLBP (Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders Class 1 or 2) and with worsening pain upon discontinuation of pre-study analgesic medication were enrolled in the study. The study primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in Low Back Pain Intensity Scale (LBP-IS) score over the 4-week treatment period. Secondary and other efficacy endpoints included: changes in Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Low Back Pain Bothersomeness Scale (LBP-BS) scores. Early efficacy was assessed using PGART and LBP-IS scores 4 h after the first dose on the mornings of Days 1, 2 and 3. The overall safety and tolerability of etoricoxib 60 mg/day during 4 weeks of treatment were also assessed.

RESULTS

The least-squares mean time-weighted change from baseline LBP-IS score over 4 weeks was -32.94 mm (95% CI -36.25, -29.63) for etoricoxib, indicating substantial efficacy in relief of pain. The treatment difference for the primary outcome was 2.51 mm (95% CI -1.50, 6.51), fulfilling the prespecified equivalence criterion of 95% confidence interval wholly within +/- 10 mm. Etoricoxib improved all secondary and other efficacy outcomes. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients with one or more clinical adverse events (AEs) (etoricoxib 35%, diclofenac 39%), or the proportion of patients who discontinued due to AEs (etoricoxib 7%, diclofenac 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm that, for adult patients with CLBP, etoricoxib 60 mg once daily over 4 weeks is effective for relief of pain and improvement of physical function and comparable to high-dose diclofenac 150 mg daily.

Do strong opioids have a role in the early management of back pain? Recommendations from a European expert panel

BACKGROUND

Since chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a complex biopsychosocial problem the ideal treatment is multimodal and multidisciplinary. However, in many countries, primary-care physicians care for many people with CLBP and have a pivotal role in selecting patients for more intensive treatments when these are available. Guidelines on the general use of strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain have been published but, until now, no specific guidelines were available on their use in chronic low back pain. Given the prevalence of CLBP, and the complex nature of this multifactorial condition, it was felt that specific, evidence-based recommendations, with a focus on primary-care treatment, would be helpful.

METHODS

An expert panel drawn from across Europe including pain specialists, anaesthetists, neurologists, rheumatologists, a general practitioner, an epidemiologist and the chairman of a pain charity was therefore convened. The aim of the group was to develop evidence-based recommendations that could be used as a framework for more specific guidelines to reflect local differences in the availability of specialist pain services and in the legal status and availability of strong opioids. Statements were based on published evidence (identified by a literature search) wherever possible, and supported by clinical experience when suitable evidence was lacking.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Strong opioids have a role in the treatment of low back pain when other treatments have failed. They should be prescribed as part of a multimodal, and ideally interdisciplinary, treatment plan. The aim of treatment should be to relieve pain and facilitate rehabilitation.

Effects of a Managed Chiropractic Benefit on the Use of Specific Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in the Treatment of Low Back and Neck Pain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to measure the effects of a managed chiropractic benefit on the rates of specific diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for the treatment of back pain and neck pain.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of claims data from a managed-care health plan over a 4-year period. The use rates of advanced imaging, surgery, inpatient care, and plain-film radiographs were compared between employer groups with and without a chiropractic benefit.

RESULTS

For patients with low back pain, the use rates of all 4 studied procedures were lower in the group with chiropractic coverage. On a per-episode basis, the rates in the group with coverage were reduced by the following: surgery (-32.1%); computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (-37.2%); plain-film radiography (-23.1%); and inpatient care (-40.1%). On a per-patient basis, the rates were reduced by the following: surgery (-13.7%); CT/MRI (-20.3%); plain-film radiography (-2.2%); and inpatient care (-24.8%). For patients with neck pain, the use rates were reduced per episode in the group with chiropractic coverage as follows: surgery (-49.4%); CT/MRI (-45.6%); plain-film radiography (-36.0%); and inpatient care (-49.5%). Per patient, the rates were surgery (-31.1%); CT/MRI (-25.7%); plain-film radiography (-12.5%); and inpatient care (31.1%). All group differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of low back and neck pain, the inclusion of a chiropractic benefit resulted in a reduction in the rates of surgery, advanced imaging, inpatient care, and plain-film radiographs. This effect was greater on a per-episode basis than on a per-patient basis.

Etoricoxib reduced pain and disability and improved quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain: a 3 month, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a growing health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat this condition, but have not demonstrated efficacy beyond 2 weeks, and no studies have shown that NSAIDs produce durable improvements in disability.

METHODS

To evaluate the efficacy and durability of effect of etoricoxib for chronic LBP, a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 46 centres. Three hundred and twenty-five patients with chronic LBP requiring treatment with an NSAID or paracetamol were randomized 1:1:1 to etoricoxib 60 mg (n=109), 90 mg (n=106), or placebo (n=110), daily for 3 months. Pre-specified endpoints over 3 months included LBP intensity scale (visual analog scale 0-100 mm) time-weighted average change from baseline, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the LBP bothersomeness scale, patient and investigator global assessments, and measures of quality of life.

RESULTS

Both etoricoxib groups experienced significant reductions in LBP intensity at 4 weeks versus placebo [-15.15 mm and -13.03 mm for 60 and 90 mg, respectively, probability (p)<0.001 for each], which was maintained over 3 months. Treatment resulted in significant improvement from baseline compared to placebo in RMDQ scores (etoricoxib 60 mg, -2.82 and 90 mg, -2.38, p<0.001 for each) over 12 weeks and most other efficacy endpoints. There were no significant differences between treatments in incidence of adverse events (AEs) or discontinuations due to AEs.

CONCLUSION

Etoricoxib provided significant relief of symptoms and disability associated with chronic LBP detected at 1 week, confirmed at 4 weeks, and maintained over 3 months. Reductions in chronic LBP severity corresponded to improvements in physical functioning and quality of life. All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Diagnostic Blocks

Malingering is not a diagnosis. It is a behavior for which there are no established diagnostic criteria. Guidelines have been published according to which malingering might be suspected, but those guidelines do not discriminate between patients who are malingering and ones with genuine sources of chronic pain. In such patients, malingering cannot be proven, but it can be refuted if a genuine source of pain can be established. In patients with no apparent cause of pain, the source of that pain can be established using controlled diagnostic blocks. A positive response to diagnostic blocks demonstrates that the complaint of pain is genuine and, by implication, refutes any contention that the patient is malingering. When positive, diagnostic blocks provide objective data by which disputes based on opinion can be resolved, as to whether a patient is malingering or not. Negative responses do not exclude a genuine complaint of pain, for patients may have a source of pain that is not amenable to testing with diagnostic blocks. Diagnostic blocks have proved particularly useful in the investigation of spinal pain for which the cause is not evident on conventional medical imaging. They can also confirm or refute purported mechanisms of certain clinical features in complex regional pain syndromes.

A comprehensive review of clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of drugs for the treatment of low back pain

A systematic review involving 50 randomized controlled trials (4,863 patients) published since 1980 was undertaken with the objective of assessing efficacy and safety of low back pain (LBP) medications. The methodological quality of each trial was evaluated based on a standardized system. Quality scores ranged from 26 to 82 points on a 100-point scale (from 0 to 100), indicating an overall moderate quality of the trials reviewed. Limited evidence was found regarding the effectiveness of drug treatments for LBP and current studies focused on short-term usage of the therapies. Available evidence supported the effectiveness of non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in acute and chronic LBP, of muscle relaxants in acute LBP, and of antidepressants in chronic LBP; safety results were heterogeneous. More rigorously designed trials should be implemented to establish comparative efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat chronic and acute LBP.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intradiscal electrothermal therapy for the treatment of discogenic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) is a treatment for discogenic low back pain the efficacy of which has not been rigorously tested.

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of IDET with that of a placebo treatment.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, placebo-controlled, prospective trial.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients were recruited by referral and the media. No inducements were provided to any patient in order to have them participate. Of 1,360 individuals who were prepared to submit to randomization, 260 were found potentially eligible after clinical examination and 64 became eligible after discography. All had discogenic low back pain lasting longer than 6 months, with no comorbidity. Thirty-seven were allocated to IDET and 27 to sham treatment. Both groups were satisfactorily matched for demographic and clinical features.

METHODS

IDET was performed using a standard protocol, in which the posterior annulus of the painful disc was heated to 90 C. Sham therapy consisted of introducing a needle onto the disc and exposing the patient to the same visual and auditory environment as for a real procedure. Thirty-two (85%) of the patients randomized to the IDET group and 24 (89%) of those assigned to the sham group complied fully with the protocol of the study, and complete follow-up data are available for all of these patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The principal outcome measures were pain and disability, assessed using a visual analog scale for pain, the Short Form (SF)-36, and the Oswestry disability scale.

RESULTS

Patients in both groups exhibited improvements, but mean improvements in pain, disability and depression were significantly greater in the group treated with IDET. More patients deteriorated when subjected to sham treatment, whereas a greater proportion showed improvements in pain when treated with IDET. The number needed to treat, to achieve 75% relief of pain, was five. Whereas approximately 40% of the patients achieved greater than 50% relief of their pain, approximately 50% of the patients experienced no appreciable benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonspecific factors associated with the procedure account for a proportion of the apparent efficacy of IDET, but its efficacy cannot be attributed wholly to a placebo effect. The results of this trial cannot be generalized to patients who do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of this study, but IDET appears to provide worthwhile relief in a small proportion of strictly defined patients undergoing this treatment for intractable low back pain.

Treatment of chronic low back pain with etoricoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor: improvement in pain and disability—a randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-month trial

We evaluated etoricoxib, a novel COX-2-specific inhibitor, in 319 patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to a 60 mg dose (n = 103) or 90 mg dose (n = 107) of etoricoxib, or placebo (n = 109), daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was low back pain intensity scale (Visual Analog Scale of 0- to 100-mm) time-weighted average change from baseline over 4 weeks. Other endpoints included evaluation over 3 months of low back pain intensity scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), low back pain bothersomeness scale, patient- and investigator-global assessments, Patient Health Survey (MOS SF-12), rescue acetaminophen use, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. Etoricoxib provided significant improvement from baseline versus placebo in pain intensity (4 weeks: 12.9 mm and 10.3 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P <.001 for each; 12 weeks: 10.5 mm and 7.5 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P =.001 and.018, respectively). Etoricoxib at either dose led to significant improvement in other endpoints, including RMDQ scores, bothersomeness scores and global assessments. Etoricoxib given once daily provided significant relief of symptoms, and disability associated with chronic LBP that was observed 1 week after initiating therapy, was maximal at 4 weeks, and was maintained over 3 months.

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib in patients with chronic low back pain: results from two 4-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind trials

STUDY DESIGN

Two replicate, 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trials of rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg versus placebo for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of two doses of rofecoxib compared to placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly prescribed for chronic low back pain, their efficacy is unproven and toxicity can be serious. These studies evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Patients with chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1:1 to rofecoxib 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo once daily. Primary endpoint: Low Back Pain Intensity. Secondary endpoints: Pain Bothersomeness, Global Assessments of Response to Therapy, Global Assessment of Disease Status, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-12 Health Survey, Use of Rescue Acetaminophen, and Discontinuations Due to Lack of Efficacy.

RESULTS

Combining both studies, 690 patients were randomized to placebo (N = 228), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 233), or rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 229). Mean (+/- SD) age was 53.4 (+/- 12.9) years, pain duration 12.1 (+/- 11.8) years, 62.3% female. Both rofecoxib groups improved significantly. Mean differences from placebo in pain intensity were -13.50 mm, -13.81 mm (25, 50 mg doses) respectively (P < 0.001). Both regimens were superior to placebo in eight of nine secondary endpoints. Fifty mg provided no advantage over 25 mg. Both rofecoxib regimens were well tolerated, although 25 mg had a slightly better safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib significantly reduced chronic low back pain in adults and was well tolerated.

Evaluation and treatment of low back pain: an evidence-based approach to clinical care

Low back pain is a common reason for patient visits to a health care provider. For most patients, low back symptoms are nonspecific, meaning that the pain is localized to the back or buttocks and is due to a presumed musculoligamentous process. For patients with radicular leg symptoms, a precise etiology is more commonly identified. The history and physical examination usually provide clues to the uncommon but potentially serious causes of low back pain, as well as to those patients at risk for prolonged recovery. Diagnostic testing should not be a routine part of the initial evaluation, but used selectively based upon the history, examination, and initial treatment response. For patients without significant neurological impairment, initial treatments should include activity modification, nonnarcotic analgesics, and education. For patients whose symptoms are not improving over 2 to 4 weeks, referral for physical treatments is appropriate. A variety of therapeutic options of limited or unproven benefit are available for patients with radicular leg symptoms or chronic low back pain. Patients with radicular pain and little or no neurological findings should receive conservative treatment, but elective surgery is appropriate for those with nerve root compression who are unresponsive to conservative therapy.