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

Pharmacological interventions for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: disparity between synthesized evidence and real-world clinical practice

Introduction

Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain (CPMP) poses a major problem of public health, with high prevalence rates and economic burden. There is a wealth of clinical trials examining pharmacological interventions for patients with CPMP. Nevertheless, evidence from such trials does not necessarily mirror clinical realities.

Objectives

We aimed to compare data sets from a clinical sample with an randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based sample.

Methods

Both data sets included participants living with CPMP who received pharmacological interventions. The clinical sample was retrieved from electronic health records. The RCT-based sample stemmed from a network meta-analysis project. The following outcomes were used: demographic information, diagnosis-specific data, and pharmacological interventions (categorized according to the World Health Organization [WHO] analgesic ladder).

Results

The clinical sample consisted of 103 patients (mean age: 50.25 years; SD: 14.0) and the RCT-based samples contributed 8665 participants (mean age: 51.97 years; SD: 6.74). In both samples, the proportion of women was higher than that of men (ie, 74.8% vs 58.9%). Psychiatric disorders were the most common comorbidities in the clinic sample but also the most frequent reason for patient exclusion in RCTs. The 2 samples differed significantly in medication classified as WHO III (clinical sample: 12.9%; RCT sample: 23.5%; P = 0.023) and WHO IV (clinical sample: 23.4%; RCT sample: 8.6%; P < 0.001), yet not WHO I and II.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest a disparity between research-based study populations and clinical populations with CPMP. We advocate for future investigations on how to implement robust scientific evidence into real-world clinical practice, with a particular focus on addressing psychiatric comorbidities.

Predictors of success of pharmacological management in patients with chronic lower back pain: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conservative management is recommended as the first therapeutic step in chronic low back pain (LBP), but there is no available evidence regarding the possible effect of patients' baseline characteristics on the therapeutic outcomes. A systematic review of the literature was performed to investigate this point.

METHODS

In February 2024, all the level I studies investigating the role of pharmacological management for chronic LBP were accessed. Data concerning the patient demographic at baseline were collected: number of patients and related mean BMI and age, duration of the symptoms, duration of the follow-up, percentage of females, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The outcomes at the last follow-up were evaluated through NRS, RMQ, and ODI. A multiple linear model regression diagnostic through the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) was used.

RESULTS

Data from 47 articles (9007 patients) were obtained. The analysis yielded the following significant associations: age at baseline and NRS at follow-up (r = - 0.22; P = 0.04), NRS at baseline with NRS (r = 0.26; P = 0.03) and RMQ (r = - 0.58; P = 0.02) at follow-up, RMQ at baseline and the same at follow-up (r = 0.69; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Older age, higher BMI, presence of comorbidities, higher ODI and a long history of symptoms or surgical treatments do not reduce the efficacy of pharmacological management of chronic LBP. However, pharmacological therapy is not an effective option for patients with high baseline RMQ.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I systematic review of RCTs.

The Efficacy and Safety of a Combination of Thiocolchicoside and Etoricoxib in Low Back Pain (ESCoTEL): A Randomized Active-Controlled Trial

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a global health concern. Management of LBP aims at pain relief facilitating improvement of functional ability. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the first line of therapy. However, the selection of NSAIDs is challenging given the range of underlying etiologies and severity. The current study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), namely, a dual FDC (DFC) of etoricoxib (60 mg) and thiocolchicoside (4 mg) versus a triple FDC (TFC) of chlorzoxazone (500 mg), diclofenac (50 mg), and paracetamol (325 mg). Methodology A total of 200 eligible adult subjects aged 18-70 years with a history of LBP and muscle spasm for ≤14 days and Wong-Baker Faces Pain score >4 were enrolled after obtaining written informed consent and randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to be treated with either DFC or TFC for 28 days. Efficacy was assessed based on the change in score from baseline (before treatment) to day 28 on the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, as well as the proportion of subjects who improved upon treatment. Safety was assessed based on adverse events and clinical laboratory test results. Results A significant decrease in pain intensity (p < 0.001) and significant improvement in functional ability (p < 0.001) was observed after treatment with either DFC or TFC. The decrease in Wong-Baker Faces Pain score and ODI, from baseline, was comparable between the treatment groups. However, more subjects with very severe pain at baseline showed ≥30% improvement upon treatment with DFC than with TFC (~25% versus ~12%; p = 0.172). Also, significantly more crippled subjects with very severe functional disability showed improvement in the DFC group compared to the TFC group (~26% versus ~4%; p = 0.008). No adverse events or clinically relevant laboratory test results were evident. Conclusions Both DFC and TFC were comparable in efficacy and safety for the management of recent-onset LBP. However, significantly more subjects with very severe pain or functional disability showed improvement after 28 days when treated with DFC compared to TFC.

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

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

Results of ELBRUS clinical non-interventional study

Objective: non-interventional study ELBRUS (Etoricoxib in the Treatment of Back Pain) was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of daily administration of Rixia® (Etoricoxib) 60 mg per day in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP).

Patients and methods. The study included 50 patients (31 women and 19 men, mean age 54.3±16.8 years) with CNSLBP. Educational conversation, cognitive therapy, regular therapeutic exercises, identification and treatment of comorbidities were conducted. Patients received etoricoxib 60 mg once daily. Pain intensity was assessed on a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS), pain-related disability was assessed on the Oswestry Scale (ODS), and emotional state was assessed on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

Results and discussion. The causes of CNSLBP were: in 5 (10%) patients – sacroiliac joint involvement, in 14 (28%) – lower lumbar facet joints involvement, in 3 (6%) – myofascial pain, the remaining 28 (56%) patients had a combination of several reasons. As a result of complex treatment, the intensity of pain at rest decreased on average from 4.0±2.5 to 1.4±1.3 points, while moving – from 6.6±1.9 to 2.8±1.8 points, at night – from 2.7±2 to 0.7±0.9 points according to the NRS, disability – from 39±18.9 to 19.9±14.6% according to the ODS, the severity of anxiety – from 6.5±3.9 to 3.3±2.4 points and depression from 5.0±3.7 to 3.1±2.9 points according to HADS (p<0.001). The duration of treatment was 14.14±3.6 days on average. No adverse events were observed during treatment with etoricoxib. Conclusion. The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib in the complex therapy of patients with CNSLBP was noted. Keywords: chronic nonspecific low back pain, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, etoricoxib, Rixia®>˂0.001). The duration of treatment was 14.14±3.6 days on average. No adverse events were observed during treatment with etoricoxib.

Conclusion. The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib in the complex therapy of patients with CNSLBP was noted. 

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.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic lumbar pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Several pharmacological therapies have been proposed for the management of chronic low back pain (LBP), but no consensus has been reached yet.

SOURCE OF DATA

Recent published literatures identified accessing PubMed, Google scholar, Embase and Scopus.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Exploring effective conservative alternatives to the surgical intervention is of especial interest.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic LBP are debated. Several clinical studies showed controversial results, and the most effective and safe class of drugs has not yet been clarified.

GROWING POINTS

The effects of selective and non-selective NSAIDs and gabapentinoids in chronic LBP are probably over-estimated.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The effect of behavioural changes, including exercise, should be explored, alone or in combination with drugs.

A Comprehensive Review of Over the Counter Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major contributor to societal disease burden and years lived with disability. Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is attributed to physical and psychosocial factors, including lifestyle factors, obesity, and depression. Mechanical low back pain occurs related to repeated trauma to or overuse of the spine, intervertebral disks, and surrounding tissues. This causes disc herniation, vertebral compression fractures, lumbar spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, and lumbosacral muscle strain.

RECENT FINDINGS

A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 were included in this review. Search terms included: low back pain, over the counter, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID), CLBP, ibuprofen, naproxen, acetaminophen, disk herniation, lumbar spondylosis, vertebral compression fractures, spondylolisthesis, and lumbosacral muscle strain. Over-the-counter analgesics are the most frequently used first-line medication for LBP, and current guidelines indicate that over-the-counter medications should be the first prescribed treatment for non-specific LBP. Current literature suggests that NSAIDs and acetaminophen as well as antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and opioids are effective treatments for CLBP. Recent randomized controlled trials also evaluate the benefit of buprenorphine, tramadol, and strong opioids such as oxycodone. This systematic review discusses current evidence pertaining to non-prescription treatment options for chronic low back pain.

Comparative safety review of current treatment options for chronic low back pain and unmet needs: a narrative review

Introduction: The healthcare expenditures in the United States are substantial for the management of refractory, chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objective of this review is to summarize and evaluate the safety profiles of different pharmacological treatment options used in the management of CLBP.Areas covered: The authors conducted a search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the safety profiles of different pharmacological agents used in the management of CLBP. This narrative review covered corticosteroids, opioids, antidepressants, gabapentinoids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, anti-nerve growth factor antibodies and topical agents, as monotherapy or in combination.Expert opinion: The risk-benefit ratio of a particular treatment is a subject driving the ongoing development of pharmaceuticals. The most commonly reported AEs across all drug classes are of gastrointestinal nature, followed by neurological and skin-related. These AEs include nausea, dizziness, constipation, arthralgia, headache, dry mouth, pruritus, etc. The majority of the AEs reported are not life-threatening, although they may lower patients' quality of life, thus, affecting their compliance. One of the biggest limitations of our review stems from the paucity of safety assessments in published RCTs. Advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of pain will promote development of new therapeutic strategies.

The pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain

INTRODUCTION

Treating chronic low back pain (LBP) can be challenging, and the most effective pharmacological therapy is controversial. The present systematic review investigated the efficacy of various pharmacological compounds to achieve pain relief and improve disability in chronic LBP patients. The present study focused on acetaminophen, amoxicillin, flupirtine, baclofen, tryciclic antidepressants (TCAs), duloxetine, topiramate, gabapentinoids, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids.

AREAS COVERED

All randomized clinical trials comparing two or more drug treatments for chronic low back pain were accessed. Studies reporting outcomes concerning patients with neurologic or mechanic, specific or aspecific low back pain with or without radiculopathy were included. LBP was considered chronic if pain had lasted more than 6 weeks. Data from 47 articles (9007 patients: mean age: 52.62 ± 7.0 years; mean BMI: 28.26 ± 2.8; mean follow-up: 3.23 ± 3.2 months) were obtained.

EXPERT OPINION

According to published level I evidence, only baclofen, duloxetine, NSAIDs, and opiates showed to improve pain and disability levels in patients with LBP. However, the patients' demographics are heterogeneous, and the results must be interpreted with caution and in the light of possible adverse events connected to the use of these drugs.

A Review of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Central and Peripheral Effects of Diclofenac

Diclofenac is widely used to manage chronic inflammatory and degenerative joint diseases such as osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis, and extra-articular rheumatism. Its various mechanisms of action make it particularly effective in treating nociceptive pain, but it is also an alternative for treating spinal and chronic central pain. Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are the most frequently encountered arthritic conditions in adults. The management of nociceptive pain requires a sequential hierarchical approach, with the initial NSAID treatment being characterized by the replacement of one drug with another, or complete discontinuation usually because of insufficient pain control. OA- and RA-related pain is complex and multifactorial, and due to physiological interactions between the signaling of the central and peripheral nervous systems. The mechanisms of action of diclofenac make it particularly effective in treating both nociceptive pain and chronic central pain. This review underlines the mechanisms of diclofenac involved in chronic and acute joint pain, the most relevant adverse events.

Alternatives to Opioids in the Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Narrative Review of Randomized, Controlled, and Blinded Clinical Trials

Chronic pain exerts a tremendous burden on individuals and societies. If one views chronic pain as a single disease entity, then it is the most common and costly medical condition. At present, medical professionals who treat patients in chronic pain are recommended to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatments, which may include pharmacotherapy. Many providers use nonopioid medications to treat chronic pain; however, for some patients, opioid analgesics are the exclusive treatment of chronic pain. However, there is currently an epidemic of opioid use in the United States, and recent guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have recommended that the use of opioids for nonmalignant chronic pain be used only in certain circumstances. The goal of this review was to report the current body of evidence-based medicine gained from prospective, randomized-controlled, blinded studies on the use of nonopioid analgesics for the most common noncancer chronic pain conditions. A total of 9566 studies were obtained during literature searches, and 271 of these met inclusion for this review. Overall, while many nonopioid analgesics have been found to be effective in reducing pain for many chronic pain conditions, it is evident that the number of high-quality studies is lacking, and the effect sizes noted in many studies are not considered to be clinically significant despite statistical significance. More research is needed to determine effective and mechanism-based treatments for the chronic pain syndromes discussed in this review. Utilization of rigorous and homogeneous research methodology would likely allow for better consistency and reproducibility, which is of utmost importance in guiding evidence-based care.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -3.30 (95% CI -5.33 to -1.27) on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a median follow-up of 56 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 91 days). Four studies measured disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo on disability, with a mean difference from baseline of -0.85 (95% CI -1.30 to -0.40) on a scale from 0 to 24 with a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 42 to 105 days). All six placebo controlled studies also reported adverse events, and suggested that adverse events are not statistically significant more frequent in participants using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Due to the relatively small sample size and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, it is likely that the proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event is underestimated.Two studies compared different types of non-selective NSAIDs, namely ibuprofen versus diclofenac and piroxicam versus indomethacin. The trials did not find any differences between these NSAID types, but both trials had small sample sizes. One trial reported no differences in pain intensity between treatment groups that used selective or non-selective NSAIDs. One other trial compared diflunisal with paracetamol and showed no difference in improvement from baseline on pain intensity score. One trial showed a better global improvement in favour of celecoxib versus tramadol.One included trial compared NSAIDs with 'home-based exercise'. Disability improved more in participants who did exercises versus participants receiving NSAIDs, but pain scores were similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Six of the 13 included RCTs showed that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo regarding pain intensity. NSAIDs are slightly more effective than placebo regarding disability. However, the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low. When we only included RCTs at low risk of bias, differences in effect between NSAIDs and placebo were reduced. We identified no difference in efficacy between different NSAID types, including selective versus non-selective NSAIDs. Due to inclusion of RCTs only, the relatively small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, we cannot make firm statements about the occurrence of adverse events or whether NSAIDs are safe for long-term use.

Changes in gait kinematics and lower back muscle activity post-radiofrequency denervation of the zygapophysial joint: a case study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Using diagnostic anesthetic blocks, the lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint has been shown to be the primary cause of pain in approximately 15% of patients with chronic low back pain. Radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) of the lumbar medial branch innervating the zygapophysial joint has been shown to provide a significant decrease in pain in patients selected by dual comparative anesthetic blocks, but quantitative improvements in mobility have not been fully elucidated. A theoretical concern with RFN is that the multifidus muscle, a stabilizing paraspinal muscle, is also denervated during this procedure, which may have adverse effects on mobility and spine stability.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine gait kinematics and muscle activity of the low back during treadmill walking both before and after RFN.

STUDY DESIGN

Case study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One 33-year-old female, with 15 years of chronic left low back pain and a diagnosis of L4/L5 lumbar zygapophysial joint pain by dual comparative anesthetic blocks was studied.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported measures of perceived pain and effort; in addition to physiologic measures of heart rate, gait kinematics and surface electromyography (EMG) activity of the multifidus and erector spinae muscles were collected before and after the procedure.

METHODS

The participant walked for 15 consecutive minutes on a treadmill. The first and last 5-minute intervals were at a self-selected pace, and the middle 5-minute interval was at a 50% increase of the self-selected pace. Gait kinematics and lumbar paraspinal surface EMG activity were recorded during the last minute of each walking interval. Heart rate, perceived effort, and perceived pain were also collected at the end of each walking interval. Data were collected both 7 and 1 days before RFN, and on the following days post-RFN: 0, 8, 14, 28, and 58.

RESULTS

Perceived effort did not change despite an increase in treadmill speed and heart rate. Pain decreased by 60% in the first two weeks and by 92% by 4 weeks post-RFN. There were also gradual positive changes in gait kinematics across all post-sessions and an immediate and sustained decrease in surface EMG activity over the left multifidus and erector spinae muscles following RFN.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pilot study are the first to show quantitative positive changes in gait and muscle activity post-RFN, suggesting that the relationship between this procedure and mobility warrant further investigation.

Are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effective for the management of neck pain and associated disorders, whiplash-associated disorders, or non-specific low back pain? A systematic review of systematic reviews by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the management of neck pain and associated disorders (NAD), whiplash-associated disorders, and non-specific low back pain (LBP) with or without radiculopathy.

METHODS

We systematically searched six databases from 2000 to 2014. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible systematic reviews using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We included systematic reviews with a low risk of bias in our best evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

We screened 706 citations and 14 systematic reviews were eligible for critical appraisal. Eight systematic reviews had a low risk of bias. For recent-onset NAD, evidence suggests that intramuscular NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes as combined manipulation and soft tissue therapy. For NAD (duration not specified), oral NSAIDs may be more effective than placebo. For recent-onset LBP, evidence suggests that: (1) oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes to placebo or a muscle relaxant; and (2) oral NSAIDs with bed rest lead to similar outcomes as placebo with bed rest. For persistent LBP, evidence suggests that: (1) oral NSAIDs are more effective than placebo; and (2) oral NSAIDs may be more effective than acetaminophen. For recent-onset LBP with radiculopathy, there is inconsistent evidence on the effectiveness of oral NSAIDs versus placebo. Finally, different oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes for neck and LBP with or without radiculopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

For NAD, oral NSAIDs may be more effective than placebo. Oral NSAIDs are more effective than placebo for persistent LBP, but not for recent-onset LBP. Different oral NSAIDs lead to similar outcomes for neck pain and LBP.

A review of the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of COX-2 inhibitors for Africa and the Middle East region

Despite an increasingly sophisticated understanding of pain mechanisms, acute and chronic pain remain undertreated throughout the world. This situation reflects the large gap that exists between evidence and practice in pain management and is typified by inappropriate use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The scientific evidence around these drugs continues to expand at a high rate, yet physicians are often unaware of best practice. To address this gap among physicians in Africa and the Middle East, an Expert Panel meeting was convened with representatives from the region. The principal objective of the meeting was to review the latest guidelines on the management of acute and chronic pain and to review the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in these settings. The main outcome of this review process was a number of consensus statements concerning the definitions of acute and chronic pain, and the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of traditional nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) and selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs). The panel agreed that nsNSAIDs and coxibs are effective analgesics with similar efficacy for acute pain; for chronic musculoskeletal pain, NSAIDs are significantly more effective than either placebo or paracetamol. Coxibs offer important safety advantages over nsNSAIDs, including gastrointestinal safety and preservation of platelet function; notably, the cardiovascular safety of coxibs has been the subject of much recent debate. Furthermore, the panel agreed there is substantial evidence to indicate that cost savings can be achieved by using celecoxib in patients at moderate to high risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, even in countries with moderate healthcare expenditures.

Pharmacologic management of chronic low back pain: synthesis of the evidence

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature with subgroup analysis for heterogeneous treatment effects.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize prior Cochrane reports regarding the safety and effectiveness of opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antidepressants for treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) and to evaluate whether certain subpopulations respond more favorably to pharmacological management.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While medications are a mainstay of LBP management, there is uncertainty as to the optimal use of commonly prescribed medications such as opioids, antidepressants, and NSAIDS.

METHODS

To summarize the overall treatment effect and safety for each of the three pharmacological drug classes (opioids, NSAIDs, or antidepressants), we summarized existing Cochrane reviews. To evaluate whether the effects of treatment varied by specific subgroups of patients, we sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating one of the three pharmacological drug classes versus an alternative management for chronic LBP.

RESULTS

Based on the Cochrane reviews, opioids are more effective than placebo with respect to pain and disability, with a much greater effect size for pain than disability. When compared with NSAIDs, opioids did not confer a greater benefit with regard to pain and disability. The rate of side effects from opioids is significantly greater than placebo with differences ranging between 2% and 9%. The systematic review of RCTs showed that antidepressants are not more effective than placebo with respect to pain, functional status, or depression. Certain subgroup treatment effects were identified, supporting our hypothesis that chronic LBP should be considered a heterogeneous set of disorders. As such, chronic LBP subgroups should be considered both when making clinical treatment decisions and when designing future research trials.

CONCLUSION

Opioids and NSAIDs are effective for chronic LBP, while antidepressants have no meaningful clinical benefit. Based on the significant rate of side effects with opioids and the lack of convincing superiority over NSAIDs, opioids are not recommended as a treatment for chronic LBP. Attention to subgroups of patients will likely help guide treatment, and will likely help increase the clinical impact of future research.

CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: NSAIDs should be considered as a treatment of chronic LBP (Strength: Strong). There is evidence demonstrating favorable effectiveness, but also significant side effects that may have meaningful clinical consequences. Recommendation 2: Opioids may be considered in the treatment of chronic LBP but should be avoided if possible (Strength: Weak). There is evidence demonstrating favorable effectiveness compared to placebo, similar effectiveness compared to NSAIDs, and with significant side effects including decreasing effectiveness related to habituation when used long-term. Recommendation 3: Antidepressants should not be routinely used for the treatment of chronic LBP (Strength: Strong). There is evidence that they are not more effective than placebo with respect to pain, functional status, or depression. Based on the hypothesis that chronic LBP is a symptom reflective of a heterogeneous group of disorders, categorization of certain patient specific subgroups may be helpful in guiding future treatment decision making. It is likely that inclusion of subgroup factors in future RCTs will provide information needed to improve the strength and specificity of future clinical recommendations.

Do COX-2 inhibitors raise blood pressure more than nonselective NSAIDs and placebo? An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both COX-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) and nonselective (ns)-NSAIDs elevate blood pressure (BP) and this may contribute to excess cardiovascular (CV) events. A number of recent large-scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing coxibs (including newer agents, lumiracoxib and etoricoxib) to both ns-NSAIDs and placebo have been reported, permitting an update to earlier BP analyses of these agents.

DATA SOURCES/SYNTHESIS

Our search yielded 51 RCTs involving coxibs published before April 2008 with a total of 130 541 participants in which BP data were available. The Der Simonian and Laird random effects method for dichotomous variables was used to produce risk ratios (RR) for development of hypertension.

RESULTS

For coxibs versus placebo, there was a RR of 1.49 (1.18-1.88, P = 0.04) in the development of new hypertension. For coxibs versus ns-NSAIDs, the RR was 1.12 (0.93-1.35, P = 0.23). These results were mainly driven by rofecoxib, with a RR of 1.87 (1.63-2.14, P = 0.08) versus placebo, and etoricoxib, with a RR of 1.52 (1.39-1.66, P = 0.01) versus ns-NSAID.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of this updated meta-analysis, coxibs appear to produce greater hypertension than either ns-NSAIDs or placebo. However, this response was heterogeneous, with markedly raised BP associated with rofecoxib and etoricoxib, whereas celecoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib appeared to have little BP effect. The relationship of this increased risk of hypertension to subsequent adverse CV outcomes requires further investigation and prospective RCTs.

Analgesic efficacy and tolerability of flupirtine vs. tramadol in patients with subacute low back pain: a double-blind multicentre trial*

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of flupirtine in comparison with tramadol for the treatment of moderate to severe subacute low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN AND METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, 209 LBP patients, aged 18-65 years, were orally treated with flupirtine 100 mg (n = 105) vs. tramadol 50 mg (n = 104), both three times daily for 5-7 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient assessment of pain intensity after 5-7 days (primary); physicians' global assessment of improvement in pain and functional capacity; adverse events.

RESULTS

Flupirtine showed an overall pain-relieving efficacy comparable to tramadol. Mean LBP intensity after end of treatment dropped from 6.8 (95% CI: 6.5-7.0) to 2.8 (95% CI: 2.3-3.1) for flupirtine and from 6.9 (95% CI: 6.6-7.1) to 3.0 (95% CI: 2.6-3.4) for tramadol, corresponding to pain relief rates of 57% (95% CI: 51-63%) and 56% (95% CI: 50-62%) respectively (p = 0.796), indicating non-inferiority of flupirtine. All other efficacy endpoints supported equivalent efficacy. Adverse events (AEs) occurred significantly less in patients after flupirtine (33%) vs. tramadol (49%) (p = 0.02) and both the respective severity grading and the AE-related dropout rates were significantly lower after flupirtine than after tramadol (1% vs. 15%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Flupirtine 100 mg three times daily was associated with a reduction in pain and improvements in functional capacity equivalent to that observed with tramadol 50 mg three times daily, and was better tolerated, when administered to patients with subacute back pain for one week. The limitations of this study were the lack of a placebo control and the short (7-day) duration of the study.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: an updated Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

NSAIDs are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch, or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials. Randomized trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in nonspecific low back pain with or without sciatica were included.

RESULTS

In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favor of NSAIDs compared with placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side effects than traditional NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID, which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared with traditional NSAIDs in the randomized controlled trials included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.

A prospective cohort study comparing the VAS spine score and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire in patients with a type A traumatic thoracolumbar spinal fracture

The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24) and the VAS spine score have been regularly used to measure functional outcome in patients with back pain. The RMDQ-24 is primarily used in degenerative disease of the spine and the VAS Spine is used in trauma patients. The aim of this study is to compare these scores and to see if there is a correlation in patients with a traumatic thoracolumbar spinal fracture. Prospective cohort study comparing the RMDQ-24 and the VAS spine score in patients with a traumatic type A fracture thoracolumbar spine fracture. Fifteen non-operatively patients (group one) completed 118 questionnaires and 17 operatively treated patients (group two) completed 140 questionnaires. Group one scored an average of 6.6 and 65.9 for the RMDQ-24 and VAS Spine, in group two this was 5.1 and 82.9. Spearman's correlation test showed a significant correlation, in group one 0.83 and for the second group 0.87. RMDQ-24 and VAS Spine have a strong positive correlation in measuring disability in a group of patients with back pain because of a spinal fracture. In both non-operatively and operatively treated groups this correlation is significant.

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. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the effects of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors 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 Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 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 sciatica were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. All studies were also assessed on clinical relevance, from which no further interpretations or conclusions were drawn. If data were considered clinically homogeneous, a meta-analysis was performed. If data were lacking for clinically homogeneous trials, a qualitative analysis was performed using a rating system with four levels of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, no evidence).

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low-back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low-back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low-back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side-effects than traditional NSAIDs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low-back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared to traditional NSAIDs in the RCTs included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.

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.

Clinical use and pharmacological properties of selective COX-2 inhibitors

Selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) are approved for the relief of acute pain and symptoms of chronic inflammatory conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They have similar pharmacological properties but a slightly improved gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile if compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). However, long-term use of coxibs can be associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) adverse events (AEs). For this reason, two coxibs were withdrawn from the market. Currently celecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib are used. These three coxibs differ in their chemical structure and selectivity for COX-2, which might explain some of their pharmacological features. Following oral administration, the less lipophilic celecoxib has a lower bioavailability (20-40%) than the other two coxibs (74-100%). All are eliminated by hepatic metabolism involving mainly CYP2C9 (celecoxib, lumiracoxib) and CYP3A4 (etoricoxib). Elimination half-life varies from 5 to 8 h (lumiracoxib), 11 to 16 h (celecoxib) and 19 to 32 h (etoricoxib). In patients with liver disease, plasma levels of celecoxib and etoricoxib are increased about two-fold. Clinical efficacies of the coxibs are comparable to tNSAIDs. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the slightly better GI tolerability (which is lost if acetylsalicylic acid is coadministered) of the coxibs is offset by their elevated risks for CV AEs (also seen with tNSAIDs other than naproxen), which apparently increase with dose and duration of exposure. In addition, the higher costs for coxibs (if compared to tNSAIDs, even when a "gastroprotective" proton pump inhibitor is coadministered) should be taken into consideration, if a coxib will be selected for certain patients with a high risk for GI complications. For such treatment, the lowest effective dose should be used for a limited time. Monitoring of kidney function and blood pressure appears advisable. It is hoped that further controlled studies can better define the therapeutic place of the coxibs.