Anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gabapentinoids for the treatment of stroke

ABSTRACT

Gabapentinoid drugs (pregabalin and gabapentin) have been successfully used in the treatment of neuropathic pain and in focal seizure prevention. Recent research has demonstrated their potent activities in modulating neurotransmitter release in neuronal tissue, oxidative stress, and inflammation, which matches the mechanism of action via voltage-gated calcium channels. In this review, we briefly elaborate on the medicinal history and ligand-binding sites of gabapentinoids. We systematically summarize the preclinical and clinical research on gabapentinoids in stroke, including ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, seizures after stroke, cortical spreading depolarization after stroke, pain after stroke, and nerve regeneration after stroke. This review also discusses the potential targets of gabapentinoids in stroke; however, the existing results are still uncertain regarding the effect of gabapentinoids on stroke and related diseases. Further preclinical and clinical trials are needed to test the therapeutic potential of gabapentinoids in stroke. Therefore, gabapentinoids have both opportunities and challenges in the treatment of stroke.

Current advances in the pain treatment and mechanisms of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), as a unique medical model in China, has been shown to be effective in the treatment of many diseases. It has been proven that TCM can increase the pain threshold, increase the level of endorphins and enkephalins in the body, and reduce the body's response to adverse stimuli. In recent years, TCM scholars have made valuable explorations in the field of pain treatment, using methods such as internal and external application of TCM and acupuncture to carry out research on pain treatment and have achieved more satisfactory results. TCM treats pain in a variety of ways, and with the discovery of a variety of potential bioactive substances for pain treatment. With the new progress in the research of other TCM treatment methods for pain, TCM will have greater potential in the clinical application of pain.

Chronic pain for rheumatological disorders: Pathophysiology, therapeutics and evidence

Pain is the leading reason people seek orthopedic and rheumatological care. By definition, most pain can be classified as nociceptive, or pain resulting from non-neural tissue injury or potential injury, with between 15% and 50% of individuals suffering from concomitant neuropathic pain or the newest category of pain, nociplastic pain, defined as "pain arising from altered nociception despite no clear evidence of actual or threatened tissue damage, or of a disease or lesion affecting the somatosensory system." Pain classification is important because it affects treatment decisions at all levels of care. Although several instruments can assist with classifying treatment, physician designation is the reference standard. The appropriate treatment of pain should ideally involve multidisciplinary care including physical therapy, psychotherapy and integrative therapies when appropriate, and pharmacotherapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute, mechanical pain, membrane stabilizers for neuropathic and nociplastic pain, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants for all types of pain. For nonsurgical interventions, there is evidence to support a small effect for epidural steroid injections for an intermediate-term duration, and conflicting evidence for radiofrequency ablation to provide at least 6months of benefit for facet joint pain, knee osteoarthritis, and sacroiliac joint pain. Since pain and disability represent the top reason for elective surgery, it should be reserved for patients who fail conservative interventions. Risk factors for procedural failure are the same as risk factors for conservative treatment failure and include greater disease burden, psychopathology, opioid use, central sensitization and multiple comorbid pain conditions, poorly controlled preoperative and postoperative pain, and secondary gain.

Secular trends in gabapentinoid dispensing by compensated workers with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The increase in gabapentinoid prescribing is paralleling the increase in serious harms. To describe the low back pain workers compensation population whose management included a gabapentinoid between 2010 and 2017, and determine secular trends in, and factors associated with gabapentinoid use.

METHODS

We analysed claim-level and service-level data from the Victorian workers' compensation programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 for workers with an accepted claim for a low back pain injury and who had programme-funded gabapentinoid dispensing. Secular trends were calculated as a proportion of gabapentinoid dispensings per year. Poisson, negative binomial and Cox hazards models were used to examine changes over time in incidence and time to first dispensing.

RESULTS

Of the 17 689 low back pain claimants, one in seven (14.7%) were dispensed at least one gabapentinoid during the first 2 years (n=2608). The proportion of workers who were dispensed a gabapentinoid significantly increased over time (7.9% in 2010 to 18.7% in 2017), despite a reduction in the number of claimants dispensed pain-related medicines. Gabapentinoid dispensing was significantly associated with an opioid analgesic or anti-depressant dispensing claim, but not claimant-level characteristics. The time to first gabapentinoid dispensing significantly decreased over time from 311.9 days (SD 200.7) in 2010 to 148.2 days (SD 183.1) in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of claimants dispensed a gabapentinoid more than doubled in the period 2010-2017; and the time to first dispensing halved during this period.

Neurologic Approach to Radiculopathy, Back Pain, and Neck Pain

Back pain and neck pain are common in clinical practice, but significant challenges and pitfalls exist in their diagnosis, treatment, and management. From the neurologic standpoint, cervical radiculopathy and lumbosacral radiculopathy are characterized by neck pain or back pain accompanied by sensory and motor symptoms in an arm or leg. The basic neurologic examination is vital, but testing like electromyography and MRI is often needed especially in cases that fail conservative management. Oral medications, injection-based therapies, physical therapy, and surgical evaluation all have a place in the comprehensive neurologic management of back and neck pain and associated radiculopathy.

Optimizing Healthcare Expenditure for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Italy: The Value of Battery Longevity Improvement and a Direct-to-Implant Approach

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a treatment for chronic intractable pain powered by an implantable pulse generator that may be rechargeable or not rechargeable (NR). It is performed in 2 stages (a trialing phase followed by permanent device implantation) and necessitates 2 hospitalizations, which may increase infection risk. Objective: This analysis explores the cost impact of improvements in battery longevity and the adoption of 1-step (direct-to-implant [DTI]) SCS implantation. Methods: Since 2019, 3 leading NR-SCS devices have been launched: Device A (2019), Device B (2020), and Device C (2021). The battery longevity of the newest Device C was estimated at comparable stimulation settings for Devices A and B. A Markov model simulated individual patient pathways across 2 scenarios: Device A vs Device C and Device B vs Device C (both with the DTI approach and 2-step approach). Costs considered were the initial device implantation procedure, device replacements, and serious adverse event (SAE) management. Italian diagnosis-related group (DRG) tariffs were applied for costs, and a 15-year time horizon was used. Results: Over 15 years, using a DTI approach, the undiscounted total costs for Device A vs Device C were €26 860 and €22 633, respectively, and €25 111 and €22 399 for Device B vs Device C, respectively. Compared with Devices A and B, Device C offered savings of €4227 and €2712, respectively; similar savings were predicted with a 2-step implant approach. Discussion: The battery longevity of NR-SCS devices directly impacts long-term costs to a payer. The longer the device lasts, the lower mean total cumulative costs the patient will have, especially with regard to device replacement costs. With novel devices and specific programming settings, the lifetime cost per patient to a payer can be decreased without compromising the patient's safety and positive clinical outcome. Conclusions: Extended SCS battery longevity can translate into tangible cost savings for payers. The DTI approach for SCS supports National Healthcare System cost efficiencies and offers the additional benefits of optimizing operating room time while having only one recovery period for the patient.

Gabapentinoid prescriptions for neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain in Lebanon

Aim: The purpose of this study is to analyze the different characteristics of gabapentinoids prescription by Lebanese orthopedics surgeons. Methods: This is an observational, cross-sectional study using a survey which was carried out in collaboration with the Lebanese Orthopedic Society over a 3-month period. Results: Forty-two orthopedic surgeons responded, most of them prescribing gabapentinoids in their daily practice with only half of the patients feeling relief after taking them. Furthermore, most of the surgeons prescribed these drugs for patients above 18 years old and for both acute and chronic pain. Conclusion: Even though almost half of the patients do not experience relief after taking gabapentinoids, these drugs are becoming more and more prescribed.

Nociceptive pain assessed by the PainDETECT questionnaire may predict response to opioid treatment for chronic low back pain

Introduction

The pharmacological management of chronic low back pain (LBP) is complex. The World Health Organisation recommends a laddered approach to pain medication usage. The PainDETECT questionnaire distinguishes between neuropathic pain (NeP), nociceptive pain (NoP), and ambiguous pain. By elucidating the difference in medication efficacy between these groups, clinicians can provide a tailored treatment plan to manage patient's pain. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between pharmacological treatments, pain categorizations, and medication efficacy as reported by patients.

Methods

A secondary retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted involving 318 consecutively recruited patients, aged 18 years and above, who completed PainDETECT, medication history and patient reported medication efficacy questionnaires. Medication history was categorized into four lines of treatment: first line (paracetamol ± non-prescribed anti-inflammatories), second line (prescribed anti-inflammatories), third line (anticonvulsants/neuromodulators) and fourth line (opioids). Medication efficacy was measured using a three-point Likert scale: effective (+2), somewhat effective (+1), no effect (0).

Findings

The study included 120, 50, 54 and 94 patients on first line, second line, third line and fourth line treatment, respectively. The NeP group had higher mean numerical rating scale (NRS) compared to NoP group in all four lines of treatment (8.10 ± 1.59 vs. 5.47± 2.27, p < 0.001, 8.64± 1.43 vs. 5.52± 1.86, p < 0.001, 8.00± 1.07 vs. 6.37± 2.39, p < 0.01, and 8.05± 1.73 vs. 7.2± 1.29, p < 0.05). When confounding for severity of LBP as measured by NRS, the distribution of medication efficacy significantly differed amongst the NeP, ambiguous and NoP groups in patients undergoing fourth line pharmacological treatment (r2 = 8.623, p < 0.05). The NoP group exhibited significantly higher medication efficacy compared to the NeP group (U = 14.038, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in medication efficacy across the pain classifications for first, second- and third-line treatment.

Interpretation

Opioids was the only line of treatment more effective in targeting NoP, as determined by the PainDETECT questionnaire, compared to NeP. This pioneering study illustrates the complex nature of pharmacological management for chronic LBP. It underscores the importance of tailoring pharmacological treatment plans to fit individual pain profiles and expectations instead of adopting a blanket approach to pain management.

What a pain in the … back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient's condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.

Characterizing Gabapentinoid Use Among Patients With Isolated Low Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Gabapentinoids have been increasingly studied as a non-narcotic option for neuropathic and postoperative pain. However, there is evidence suggesting that off-label use of these medications for the treatment of isolated LBP is not effective. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate prescription patterns for gabapentinoids among patients with isolated low back pain.

METHODS

Adult patients with LBP were abstracted from the 2019 M91Ortho PearlDiver dataset using International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) code M54.5. Patients were excluded if they had a diagnosis of neurologic symptoms, history of spinal surgery, spinal fracture, or conditions for which gabapentinoids are FDA approved. Gabapentinoid and narcotic prescriptions within one year of LBP diagnosis were identified. Patient characteristics and prescriber specialty were extracted from the dataset and predictors of gabapentinoid prescriptions were determined using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 1,158,875 isolated LBP patients, gabapentinoids were prescribed for 11%, narcotics for 8%, and both for 3%. The most common prescriber specialties included: primary care physicians (45%), nurse practitioners (15%), and pain management physicians (5%). Independent predictors of gabapentinoid prescriptions included: female sex, region of the country, and insurance type (P-values <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Of nearly 1.2 million patients with isolated LBP, 14.2% were prescribed gabapentinoids within one year of their LBP diagnosis. Patient characteristics predictive of receiving gabapentinoids were predominantly non-clinical factors.

Central Sensitization and Pain: Pathophysiologic and Clinical Insights

Central sensitization is an increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system to their normal or subthreshold afferent input.

AIM

To explain how the notion of central sensitization has changed our understanding of pain conditions, discuss how this knowledge can be used to improve the management of pain, and highlight knowledge gaps that future research needs to address.

METHODS

Overview of definitions, assessment methods, and clinical implications.

RESULTS

Human pain models, and functional and molecular imaging have provided converging evidence that central sensitization occurs and is clinically relevant. Measures to assess central sensitization in patients are available; however, their ability to discriminate sensitization of central from peripheral neurons is unclear. Treatments that attenuate central sensitization are available, but the limited understanding of molecular and functional mechanisms hampers the development of target-specific treatments. The origin of central sensitization in human pain conditions that are not associated with tissue damage remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of central sensitization has revolutionized our neurobiological understanding of pain. Despite the limitations of clinical assessment in identifying central sensitization, it is appropriate to use the available tools to guide clinical decisions towards treatments that attenuate central sensitization. Future research that elucidates the causes, molecular and functional mechanisms of central sensitization would provide crucial progress towards the development of treatments that target specific mechanisms of central sensitization.

Gabapentinoids: a therapeutic review

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration's approved indications for prescription of gabapentinoids are refractory focal epilepsy and neuropathic pain. Use of gabapentinoids outside of the approved indications is common, but evidence for this is limited, especially for chronic nonspecific back pain and nonradicular leg pain. Some effects of gabapentinoids encourage their nonmedical use (e.g. euphoria, sedation, disinhibition). Widespread nonmedical use has increased the incidence of accidental and deliberate poisonings. Dependence may develop with chronic use of gabapentinoids and abrupt cessation may induce withdrawal symptoms. If the indication for continued use is unclear, gradual dose tapering as a means of deprescribing is recommended. Clinicians should consider the indication, patient characteristics and harm-benefit profile when prescribing gabapentinoids. Some people, such as those with kidney disease, have an increased risk of harm when using these drugs.

Systematic Review to Identify Predictors of Treatment Response to Neuromodulation in Patients With Neuropathic Pain-Protocol

OBJECTIVES

Patients who suffer from long-term, neuropathic pain that proves refractory to conventional medical management are high consumers of health care resources and experience poorer physical and mental health than people with other forms of pain. Pharmacologic treatments have adverse effects; nonpharmacologic interventions have limitations. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for neuropathic pain, although 30% to 40% of patients fail to achieve acceptable levels of pain relief. There are currently no objective methods to predict the success of SCS to treat neuropathic pain, and therefore, it is important to understand which patient factors may be predictive of a lack of response to SCS, to inform future patient treatment options. This study proposes a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to examine these predictive factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Several bibliographic databases will be searched to identify relevant studies published since 2012 that provide data on patient characteristics (eg, age, gender, pain severity) as predictors of SCS outcomes of pain, function, and health-related quality of life. Two independent reviewers will screen citations; data will be extracted after full-text screening. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool.

RESULTS

A formal quantitative synthesis is planned in which data from studies with the same predictive factors are available; this will be considered for pooling into separate meta-analyses. In cases of high heterogeneity or inconsistency in the data, subgroup analysis will be conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

This study seeks to provide a contemporary review of patient predictors of success of neuromodulation for neuropathic pain. We anticipate that findings may guide the use of neuromodulation in patient subgroups and the design and reporting of future clinical studies in this field.

General practitioners' decision-making process to prescribe pain medicines for low back pain: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Pain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with in-depth interviews.

SETTING

Australian primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes.

DATA ANALYSIS

We summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making.

RESULTS

GPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

[The role of structure-modifying agents in the treatment of back pain]

BACKGROUND

Back pain is currently one of the most urgent problems within pain syndromes. Inadequate treatment of nonspecific back pain, even with a relatively favorable prognosis, leads to its chronicity and decreases the patient's quality of life. The most common cause of vertebrogenic dorsopathies is spinal osteochondrosis. The etiopathogenetic basis of spinal osteochondrosis is degenerative and dystrophic changes in the intervertebral discs involving adjacent vertebrae, joints, and ligaments. Considering the experience of many years of using chondroprotective therapy in clinical practice, we performed an observational study using Ambene Bio to assess the change of pain severity over time in patients with osteochondrosis and back pain.

AIM

To study the change in the severity of pain and its components in patients with back pain during therapy with Ambene Bio combined with standard therapy (NSAIDs and muscle relaxants).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients with chronic lower back pain lasting more than 3 months were included in the study.

CONCLUSION

The study results confirmed the high efficacy of Ambene Bio in patients with dorsopathies with an alternating treatment regimen (10 IM injections 2 mL every other day).

Deprescribing interventions for gabapentinoids in adults: A scoping review

The emerging issue of rising gabapentinoid misuse is being recognized alongside the lack of current evidence supporting the safe and effective deprescribing of gabapentinoids. This scoping review aimed to assess the extent and nature of gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, either in reducing dosages, or prescribing of, gabapentinoids. Electronic databases were searched on 23 February 2022 without restrictions. Eligible studies included randomized, non-randomized and observational studies that assessed an intervention aimed at reducing/ceasing the prescription/use of a gabapentinoid in adults for any indication in a clinical setting. The research outcomes investigated the type of intervention, prescribing rates, cessations, patient outcomes and adverse events. Extracted outcome data were categorized as either short (≤3 months), intermediate (>3 but <12 months) or long (≥12 months) term. A narrative synthesis was conducted. The four included studies were conducted in primary and acute care settings. Interventions were of dose-reducing protocols, education and/or pharmacological-based approaches. In the randomized trials, gabapentinoid use could be ceased in at least one third of participants. In the two observational trials, gabapentinoid prescribing rates decreased by 9%. Serious adverse events and adverse events specifically related to gabapentinoids were reported in one trial. No study included patient-focused psychological interventions in the deprescribing process, nor provided any long-term follow-up. This review highlights the lack of existing evidence in this area. Due to limited available data, our review was unable to make any firm judgements on the most effective gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, highlighting the need for more research in this area.

"We were all looking for the magic pill": A qualitative study of patient experiences using gabapentinoids for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Gabapentinoid medications are increasingly being used in chronic pain management, yet very little is known about the experiences of those using them. The aim of this study was to address this gap in the literature by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences of patients using gabapentinoids for chronic pain.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 adults prescribed a gabapentinoid medication - either pregabalin or gabapentin - for chronic pain in Australia. Interviews were conducted in May 2022 via telephone or online video chat. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The Medication Adherence Model was used as a framework for synthesising the data and organising themes.

RESULTS

For participants in this study, the initial decision to use gabapentinoids for chronic pain was driven by a level of desperation for pain relief, a perceived lack of pain management alternatives, and a belief that the medication was safer and easier to access than opioids. However, once using gabapentinoids, experiences varied considerably with some viewing the medication as effective and safe, and others viewing it as useless or harmful. Some participants expressed concern that they were not adequately informed by their prescribers about the risks of gabapentinoid use.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasise the importance of patient-provider communication and taking a patient-centred approach to gabapentinoid prescribing and de-prescribing. Future qualitative research in this area should involve primary care providers to gain a better understanding of factors driving increased gabapentinoid prescribing in chronic pain management as well as barriers to patient education.

Recommendations for terminology and the identification of neuropathic pain in people with spine-related leg pain. Outcomes from the NeuPSIG working group

ABSTRACT

Pain radiating from the spine into the leg is commonly referred to as "sciatica," "Sciatica" may include various conditions such as radicular pain or painful radiculopathy. It may be associated with significant consequences for the person living with the condition, imposing a reduced quality of life and substantial direct and indirect costs. The main challenges associated with a diagnosis of "sciatica" include those related to the inconsistent use of terminology for the diagnostic labels and the identification of neuropathic pain. These challenges hinder collective clinical and scientific understanding regarding these conditions. In this position paper, we describe the outcome of a working group commissioned by the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) which was tasked with the following objectives: (1) to revise the use of terminology for classifying spine-related leg pain and (2) to propose a way forward on the identification of neuropathic pain in the context of spine-related leg pain. The panel recommended discouraging the term "sciatica" for use in clinical practice and research without further specification of what it entails. The term "spine-related leg pain" is proposed as an umbrella term to include the case definitions of somatic referred pain and radicular pain with and without radiculopathy. The panel proposed an adaptation of the neuropathic pain grading system in the context of spine-related leg pain to facilitate the identification of neuropathic pain and initiation of specific management in this patient population.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and gabapentin prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: retrospective cohort study using US data

OBJECTIVES

Radicular low back pain (rLBP) is often treated off-label with gabapentin or by chiropractors using chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT). To date, no studies have examined the association between these interventions. We hypothesised that adults under 50 years of age receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP would have reduced odds of receiving a gabapentin prescription over 1 year-follow-up.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

US network including linked medical records, medical claims and pharmacy claims of >122 million patients attending large healthcare organisations (TriNetX), queried 15 June 2023, yielding data from 2017 to 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18-49 were included at their first occurrence of rLBP diagnosis. Exclusions were severe pathology, other spinal conditions, on-label gabapentin indications and gabapentin contraindications. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with gabapentin use and receipt of prescription medication over the preceding year.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were divided into CSMT or usual medical care cohorts based on the care received on the index date of rLBP diagnosis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

OR for gabapentin prescription.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, there were 1635 patients per cohort (mean age 36.3±8.6 years, 60% women). Gabapentin prescription over 1-year follow-up was significantly lower in the CSMT cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an OR (95% CI) of 0.53 (0.40 to 0.71; p<0.0001). Sensitivity analyses revealed early divergence in cumulative incidence of prescription; and no significant between-cohort difference in a negative control outcome (gastrointestinal medication) suggesting adequate control for pharmacological care preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that US adults receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP have significantly reduced odds of receiving a gabapentin prescription over 1-year follow-up compared with those receiving usual medical care. Results may not be generalisable and should be replicated in other healthcare settings and corroborated by a prospective study to reduce confounding.

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.

Digital Therapeutics (DTx) Expand Multimodal Treatment Options for Chronic Low Back Pain: The Nexus of Precision Medicine, Patient Education, and Public Health

Digital therapeutics (DTx, software as a medical device) provide personalized treatments for chronic diseases and expand precision medicine beyond pharmacogenomics-based pharmacotherapies. In this perspective article, we describe how DTx for chronic low back pain (CLBP) can be integrated with pharmaceutical drugs (e.g., NSAIDs, opioids), physical therapy (PT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and patient empowerment. An example of an FDA-authorized DTx for CLBP is RelieVRx, a prescription virtual reality (VR) app that reduces pain severity as an adjunct treatment for moderate to severe low back pain. RelieVRx is an immersive VR system that delivers at-home pain management modalities, including relaxation, self-awareness, pain distraction, guided breathing, and patient education. The mechanism of action of DTx is aligned with recommendations from the American College of Physicians to use non-pharmacological modalities as the first-line therapy for CLBP. Herein, we discuss how DTx can provide multimodal therapy options integrating conventional treatments with exposome-responsive, just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAI). Given the flexibility of software-based therapies to accommodate diverse digital content, we also suggest that music-induced analgesia can increase the clinical effectiveness of digital interventions for chronic pain. DTx offers opportunities to simultaneously address the chronic pain crisis and opioid epidemic while supporting patients and healthcare providers to improve therapy outcomes.

CT-guided Pulsed Radiofrequency Combined with Steroid Injection for Sciatica from Herniated Disk: A Randomized Trial

Background Evidence regarding effective nonsurgical management of sciatica remains limited. Purpose To determine a difference in effectiveness between combined pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) treatment versus TFESI alone for sciatic pain due to lumbar disk herniation. Materials and Methods This prospective multicenter double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted between February 2017 and September 2019 in participants with sciatica due to lumbar disk herniation lasting 12 weeks or longer that was not responsive to conservative treatment. Study participants were randomly assigned to undergo one CT-guided treatment with combined PRF and TFESI (n = 174) or TFESI alone (n = 177). The primary outcome was leg pain severity, as assessed with the numeric rating scale (NRS) (range, 0-10) at weeks 1 and 52 after treatment. Secondary outcomes included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score (range, 0-24) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (range, 0-100). Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle via linear regression. Results Mean age of the 351 participants (223 men) was 55 years ± 16 (SD). At baseline, NRS was 8.1 ± 1.1 in the PRF and TFESI group and 7.9 ± 1.1 in the TFESI group. NRS was 3.2 ± 0.2 in the PRF and TFESI group and 5.4 ± 0.2 in the TFESI group (average treatment effect, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.8; P < .001) at week 1 and 1.0 ± 0.2 and 3.9 ± 0.2 (average treatment effect, 3.0; 95% CI: 2.4, 3.5; P < .001), respectively, at week 52. At week 52, the average treatment effect was 11.0 (95% CI: 6.4, 15.6; P < .001) for ODI and 2.9 (95% CI: 1.6, 4.3; P < .001) for RMDQ, favoring the combined PRF and TFSEI group. Adverse events were reported in 6% (10 of 167) of participants in the PRF and TFESI group and in 3% (six of 176) of participants in the TFESI group (eight participants did not complete follow-up questionnaires). No severe adverse events occurred. Conclusion In the treatment of sciatica caused by lumbar disk herniation, pulsed radiofrequency combined with transforaminal epidural steroid injection is more effective for pain relief and disability improvement than steroid injection alone. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Jennings in this issue.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Australian emergency department care for older adults diagnosed with low back pain of lumbar spine origin: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record system data (2016-2019)

BACKGROUND

In Australian emergency departments, 30% of all back pain presentations are for older adults. Relatively little is known about the care that this population receives during an emergency department stay, including admission to hospital. The aim of this study is to describe emergency department management of older adults diagnosed with a lumbar spine condition and to determine predictors of healthcare use in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data of adults aged ≥ 65 years with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis. Demographic, clinical care (date and time of presentation and discharge, length of stay in the emergency department, mode of arrival, triage category, re-presentations to the emergency department (within 48 h), discharge mode, the administration of pain-relieving medicines, lumbar imaging, and laboratory tests) and costs data were extracted from the electronic medical record system. Descriptive analyses and multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed.

RESULTS

Over the period January 2016 to December 2019 there were 4,093 presentations to emergency departments by older adults with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis (82.0% were non-specific low back pain). Most were female (58.3%), 39.9% had some form of lumbar imaging, and 34.1% were admitted to hospital. The most administered pain medicines were opioid analgesics (67.1%), followed by paracetamol (63.9%) and NSAIDs (33.0%). Predictors of healthcare use and hospital inpatient admission were receiving a laboratory test and receiving any opioid. For the financial period 2019-20, the mean (SD) total cost of care per presentation was $5,629 ($11,982).

CONCLUSION

In the emergency department, more than two thirds of older adults with a lumbar spine condition received opioid analgesics. They often received imaging and laboratory tests, had high costs and were admitted to hospital. Alternative pathways of care are needed to support older adults with low back pain, to receive guideline-concordant emergency department care and have good health outcomes.

How effective are physiotherapy interventions in treating people with sciatica? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).

RESULTS

Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I² = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I²= 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I²= 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I² = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I² = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I² = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

CONCLUSION

Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain in England From 2010 to 2020: A Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized intervention for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. The United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence has recommended SCS as a management option for chronic neuropathic pain since 2008. The aim of this study is to undertake an assessment of SCS uptake across the National Health Service in England up to 2020.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hospital Episode Statistics were obtained for patients with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS and patients receiving an SCS-related procedure. Data were retrieved nationally and per region from the years 2010-2011 to 2019-2020.

RESULTS

There were 50,288 adults in England attending secondary care with neuropathic pain in 2010-2011, increasing to 66,376 in 2019-2020. The number of patients with neuropathic pain with an SCS procedure increased on a year-to-year basis until 2018-2019. However, less than 1% of people with neuropathic pain received an SCS device with no evidence of an increase over time when considering the background increase in neuropathic pain prevalence.

CONCLUSION

Only a small proportion of patients in England with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS receives this intervention. The recommendation for routine use of SCS for management of neuropathic pain has not resulted in an uptake of SCS over the last decade.

Gabapentin-Friend or foe?

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is a recommended first-line agent for treating neuropathic pain; however, its efficacy rate is reportedly low, and the risk of adverse events is high. A plausible explanation for this lies with its wide range of actions, the entirety of which have yet to be fully elucidated.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted on gabapentin's known and proposed analgesic mechanisms of action, as well as potentially opposing or detrimental actions.

RESULTS

Gabapentin's classical analgesic mechanisms involve direct attenuation of excitatory neurotransmission in the spinal cord via inhibition of neuronal ion channels, while indirect mechanisms include descending inhibition and block of injury-evoked synaptogenesis. Glial effects have also been reported; however, whether they are neuroprotective or detrimental is unknown. Furthermore, data from animal models do not reflect clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin's clinical use should be reconsidered according to the net effects of its numerous assumed actions, including the tripartite synapse and oligodendrocyte effects. Whether it is doing more harm than good, especially in the scenarios of incomplete or loss of response, warrants consideration when prescribing gabapentin.

Management of patients with low back pain admitted to hospital: An observational study of usual care

BACKGROUND

Knowledge gaps exist around diagnostic and treatment approaches for patients admitted to hospital with low back pain.

METHODS

Medical record review of patients admitted to three Sydney teaching hospitals with a provisional emergency department diagnosis of non-serious low back pain, from 2016 to 2020. Data on demographic variables, hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), diagnostic imaging and analgesic administration were extracted. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of longer hospital stay, advanced imaging, and concomitant use of sedating medicines.

RESULTS

Median inpatient LOS for non-specific low back pain was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7), and for radicular low back pain was 4 days (IQR 3-10). Older patients with non-serious low back pain were more likely to stay longer, as were arrivals by ambulance. Plain lumbar radiography was used in 8.3% of admissions, whereas 37.6% of patients received advanced lumbar imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging). Opioids were administered in ~80% of admissions; 49% of patients with radicular low back pain were given an antiepileptic in addition to an opioid. In all, 18.4% of admissions resulted in at least one hospital-acquired complication, such as an accidental fall (3.1%) or a medication-related adverse effect (13.3%). Physiotherapists saw 82.6% of low back pain admissions. Costs of inpatient care were estimated at a mean of AU$ 14 000 per admission.

CONCLUSIONS

We noted relatively high rates of concomitant use of sedating pain medicines and referrals for advanced lumbar imaging and laboratory tests. Strategies to address these issues in inpatient care of low back pain are needed.

Choosing the appropriate pharmacotherapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore daily activities and improve the quality of life. No magic bullet exists for NCLBP; interventions to reduce pain and disability are available, but long-term results are unpredictable. Education in this regard needs to improve. This is often hard to accept for clinicians and patients, and provides a fertile soil to quacks, faith healers, and gurus to promote miraculous non-evidence-based solutions. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. 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 a dedicated therapy. In this editorial, we provide an evidenced-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

Early Drug Prescription Patterns as Predictors of Final Workers Compensation Claim Costs and Closure: An Updated Analysis on an Expanded Cohort

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to determine the associations of workers' compensation claim costs and return to work with drugs prescribed for early symptom management.

METHODS

Claims filed from 1998 to 2007 were followed for 10 years from the injury date. Drugs analyzed included gabapentin, pregabalin, antipsychotics, antidepressants, sedatives, benzodiazepines, carisoprodol, and opioids, controlling for initial reserve, sex, age, physical therapy, attorney involvement, and surgery.

RESULTS

Gabapentin, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and sedatives used in the first 3 months after injury were significantly associated with higher claim cost (≥$100,000). All opioid morphine equivalent doses greater than or equal to 5 mg/d for the first 6 months was significantly associated with higher cost (≥$100,000) and not being released to work at end of third year after injury with dose-response relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription patterns in the first 3 months or first 6 months of workers' compensation claim development may be used as predictors of claim outcomes.

Project rebuild the evidence base (REB): A method to interpret randomised clinical trials and their meta-analysis to present solid benefit-risk assessments to patients

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of shared-decision making in healthcare today. The public deserves clear, transparent and trust-worthy information on drug efficacy. Yet today, many drugs are prescribed and used without solid evidence of efficacy. Clinical trials and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the best method to evaluate drug efficacy and side effects. In a shared medical decision-making approach, general practitioners need drug assessment based on patient-important outcomes. The aim of project rebuild the evidence base (REB) is to bridge the gap between the data needed in clinical practice and the data available from clinical research. The drugs will be assessed on clinical patient important outcomes and for a population. Using the Cochrane tools, we propose to analyse for each population and outcome: 1) a meta-analysis based on RCTs with a low risk of bias overall; 2) an evaluation of results of confirmatory RCTs; 3) a statistical analysis of heterrogeneity between RCTs and 4) an analysis of publication bias. Depending on the results of these analyses, the evidence will be categorized in 4 different levels: firm evidence, evidence (to be confirmed), signal or absence of evidence. Project REB proposes a method for reading and interpreting RCTs and their meta-analysis to produce quality data for general practitioners to focus on risk-benefit assessment in the interest of patients. If this data does not exist, it could enable clinical research to better its aim.

Back to the Future: A Report From the 16th International Forum for Back and Neck Pain Research in Primary Care and Updated Research Agenda

STUDY DESIGN

The 16th meeting of the International Forum for Back and Neck Pain Research in Primary Care was held in Québec City in July 2019 under the theme of innovation. This paper addresses the state of research in the field.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the evolution of knowledge and clinical application in back and neck pain and identify shifting research priorities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a brief presentation of the Forum and its history, the current state of the field was depicted from the scientific program and the recordings of the plenary and parallel oral and poster communications of Forum XVI. Research agendas established in 1995 and 1997 were updated from a survey of a multidisciplinary group of experts in the field. A discussion of the progress made and challenges ahead follows.

RESULTS

While much progress has been made at improving knowledge at managing back pain in the past 25 years, most research priorities from earlier decades are still pertinent. The need for integration of physical and psychological interventions represents a key challenge, as is the need to better understand the biological mechanisms underlying back and neck pain to develop more effective interventions. Stemming the tide of back and neck pain in low and middle-income countries and avoiding the adoption of low-value interventions appear particularly important. The Lancet Low Back Pain Series initiative, arising from the previous fora, and thoughts on implementing best practices were extensively discussed, recognizing the challenges to evidence-based knowledge and practice given competing interests and incentives.

CONCLUSION

With the quantity and quality of research on back and neck pain increasing over the years, an update of research priorities helped to identify key issues in primary care.

Prevalence and changes of low-value care at acute care hospitals: a multicentre observational study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the use and factors associated with the provision of low-value care in Japan.

DESIGN

A multicentre observational study.

SETTING

Routinely collected claims data that include all inpatient and outpatient visits in 242 large acute care hospitals (accounting for approximately 11% of all acute hospitalisations in Japan).

PARTICIPANTS

345 564 patients (median age (IQR): 62 (40-75) years; 182 938 (52.9%) women) seeking care at least once in the hospitals in the fiscal year 2019.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We identified 33 low-value services, as defined by clinical evidence, and developed two versions of claims-based measures of low-value services with different sensitivity and specificity (broader and narrower definitions). We examined the number of low-value services, the proportion of patients receiving these services and the proportion of total healthcare spending incurred by these services in 2019. We also evaluated the 2015-2019 trends in the number of low-value services.

RESULTS

Services identified by broader low-value care definition occurred in 7.5% of patients and accounted for 0.5% of overall annual healthcare spending. Services identified by narrower low-value care definition occurred in 4.9% of patients and constituted 0.2% of overall annual healthcare spending. Overall, there was no clear trend in the prevalence of low-value services between 2015 and 2019. When focusing on each of the 17 services accounting for more than 99% of all low-value services identified (narrower definition), 6 showed decreasing trends from 2015 to 2019, while 4 showed increasing trends. Hospital size and patients' age, sex and comorbidities were associated with the probability of receiving low-value service.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients received low-value care in Japan. Several low-value services with high frequency, especially with increasing trends, require further investigation and policy interventions for better resource allocation.

DANTE Study: The First Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo and Active-Controlled, Parallel Arm Group Study Evaluating the Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of Dexketoprofen TrometAmol aNd Tramadol Hydrochloride Oral FixEd Dose Combination on Moderate to Severe Acute Pain in Patients with Acute Low Back Pain-Rationale and Design

INTRODUCTION

Despite a wide range of treatment approaches and the availability of treatment recommendations or guidelines, no consensus on the most effective pharmacological therapy of low back pain (LBP) has been reached yet. Therefore, additional clinical evidence, particularly if built upon a rigorous clinical trial design, an evidence-based medication choice, and broader inclusion criteria better acknowledging the heterogeneity and intrinsic variability of LBP is needed. The DANTE study has been designed to comprehensively assess the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of dexketoprofen/tramadol (DKP/TRAM) 75/25 mg in a large cohort of patients with moderate to severe acute LBP.

METHODS

The DANTE study is a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, placebo, and active controlled study. The DANTE study encompasses a single-dose phase (day 1, t0-t8h) and a multiple-dose phase (from t8h to 8 h after intake of last dose at day 5). The DANTE study population includes patients naïve to LBP or patients with previous history of LBP experiencing a new episode of moderate to severe intensity with or without radiculopathy. The clinical phase of the DANTE study started in September 2020 and the anticipated completion date is April 2022.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The primary endpoint is the time to first achieve a numeric rating scale-pain intensity (NRS-PI) score of < 4 or a pain intensity reduction ≥ 30% from drug intake up to 8 h after the first dose (t8h). Secondary objectives aim are: (1) to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg versus TRAM 100 mg after the first dose; (2) to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg versus TRAM 100 mg after the multiple doses (from t8h until day 5, multiple dose); and (3) to assess the safety and tolerability of the TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg fixed combination after single and multiple doses.

DANTE STUDY REGISTRATION

EudraCT number: 2019-003656-37.

Trends in Prescriptions for Non-opioid Pain Medications Among U.S. Adults With Moderate or Severe Pain, 2014-2018

As opioid prescribing has declined, it is unclear how the landscape of prescription pain treatment across the U.S. has changed. We used nationally-representative data from the Medical Expenditure Health Survey, 2014 to 2018 to examine trends in prescriptions for opioid and non-opioid pain medications, including acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, and antidepressants among U.S. adults with self-reported pain. Overall, from 2014 to 2018, the percentage of participants receiving a prescription for opioids declined, (38.8% vs 32.8%), remained stable for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (26.8% vs 27.7%), and increased for acetaminophen (1.6% vs 2.3%), antidepressants (9.6% vs 12.0%) and gabapentinoids (13.2% vs 19.0%). In this period, the adjusted odds of receiving an opioid prescription decreased (aOR = .93, 95% CI = .90-.96), while the adjusted odds of receiving antidepressant, gabapentinoid and acetaminophen prescriptions increased (antidepressants: aOR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03-1.13 gabapentinoids: aOR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.06-1.17; acetaminophen: aOR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.02-1.20). Secondary analyses stratifiying within the 2014 to 2016 and 2016 to 2018 periods revealed particular increases in prescriptions for gabapentinoids (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.05-1.21) and antidepressants (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.12-1.35) since 2016. PERSPECTIVE: These data demonstrate that physicians are increasingly turning to CDC-recommended non-opioid medications for pain management, particularly antidepressants and gabapentinoids. However, evidence for these medications' efficacy in treating numerous common pain conditions, including low back pain, remains limited.

Management of chronic non-cancer pain: a framework

Aim: Since publication of the CDC 2016 Guideline, opioid-related mortality in the USA has doubled and a crisis has developed among the 15-20 million Americans with chronic, moderate-to-severe, noncancer pain. Our aim was to develop a comprehensive alternative approach to management of chronic pain. Methods: Analytic review of the clinical literature. Results: Published science provides a solid framework for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, detailed here, even as it leaves many knowledge gaps, which we fill with insights from clinical experience. Conclusion: There is a sufficient basis in science and in clinical experience to achieve adequate control of chronic pain in nearly all patients in a way that adequately balances benefits and potential harms.

The Effect of Preoperative Neuropathic Pain and Nociceptive Pain on Postoperative Pain Intensity in Patients with the Lumbar Degenerative Disease Following Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze whether the type of preoperative pain affects the improvement in postoperative pain intensity in patients with a lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 93 patients who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) without direct decompression. All patients were evaluated using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for low back pain (NRS_LBP), leg pain (NRS_LP), and leg numbness (NRS_LN) and imaging data before and after LLIF surgery. Based on the Japanese version of the painDETECT scores, patients were classified into 3 groups: a neuropathic pain (NeP) group, a nociceptive pain (NocP) group, and an intermediate mixed pain group.

RESULTS

The Japanese version of the painDETECT identified NeP in 20.4% of patients with LDD prior to LLIF. Preoperative NRS_LBP, NRS_LP, and NRS_LN scores were higher in the NeP group than those in the NocP group. All types of pain improved after LLIF surgery. The NRS_LBP score 12 months after surgery was higher in the NeP group (3.8 ± 2.8) than that in the NocP group (1.9 ± 2.2) (P = 0.008). Similar results were obtained with NRS_LP (NeP group = 3.1 ± 2.8, NocP group = 1.5 ± 2.0, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Although LLIF was useful for relieving all types of preoperative pain in LDD patients, the NRS scores for preoperative pain were higher in the NeP group than those in the NocP group, and the postoperative NRS_LBP and NRS_LP score was significantly higher in the NeP group. Thus, controlling preoperative NeP may improve therapeutic efficacy.

Analgesic Efficacy of Gabapentin and Pregabalin in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgeries: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis investigated the effect of oral gabapentinoids (i.e., pregabalin and gabapentin) on analgesic consumption (i.e., primary outcome) and pain relief (i.e., secondary outcome) in patients following bariatric surgery. Analysis of five eligible trials published between 2010 and 2019 including 363 participants receiving gabapentinoids revealed a significantly lower morphine consumption [mean difference (MD) =  - 15.1 mg, p = 0.004; evidence certainty: low] and risk of nausea/vomiting [risk ratio (RR) = 0.49, p = 0.002; evidence certainty: high] at postoperative 6-24 h. There was also a lower pain score at postoperative 0-4 h (MD =  - 1.41, p < 0.00001; evidence certainty: low) and 6-12 h (MD =  - 0.9, p = 0.007; evidence certainty: low) compared with controls, while pain severity at postoperative 24 h was comparable between two groups. In summary, preoperative oral gabapentinoids optimized postoperative pain outcomes and reduced risk of nausea/vomiting following bariatric surgery.

Trajectories of pregabalin use and their association with longitudinal changes in opioid and benzodiazepine use

ABSTRACT

Concomitant use of pregabalin with opioids and/or benzodiazepines is common, despite the increased risks. However, clinical trials suggest pregabalin can have an opioid-sparing effect when treating acute postoperative pain. We explored how opioid and benzodiazepine use changed over time in people initiating pregabalin, using dispensing claims data for a 10% sample of Australians (2013-19). Among 142,776 people initiating pregabalin (median age = 61 years, 57% female), we used group-based trajectory modelling to identify 6 pregabalin dose trajectories in the first year postinitiation. Two trajectories involved discontinuation: after one dispensing (49%), and after 6 months of treatment (14%). Four trajectories involved persistent use with variable estimated median daily doses of 39 mg (16%), 127 mg (14%), 276 mg (5%), and 541 mg (2%). We quantified opioid and benzodiazepine use in the year before and after pregabalin initiation using generalised linear models. Over the study period, 71% were dispensed opioids and 34% benzodiazepines, with people on the highest pregabalin dose having highest rates of use. Opioid use increased postpregabalin initiation. Among people using both opioids and pregabalin, the geometric mean daily dose in oral morphine equivalents increased after pregabalin initiation in all trajectories, ranging from +5.9% (99% confidence interval 4.8%-7.0%) to +39.8% (99% confidence interval 38.3%-41.5%) in people on the highest daily pregabalin dose. Among people using both pregabalin and benzodiazepines, the dose remained constant over time for people in all trajectories. Notwithstanding its reputation as opioid-sparing, in this outpatient setting, we observed that people using opioids tended to use higher opioid daily doses after pregabalin initiation, especially those on high pregabalin doses.

Fatalities associated with gabapentinoids in England (2004-2020)

The gabapentinoids were reclassified as Schedule II medications and Class C drugs in the UK in 2019 due to their potential misuse. In this study we examined deaths following gabapentinoid use in England reported to the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths.

A total of 3051 deaths were reported (gabapentin: 913 cases; pregabalin: 2322 cases [both detected in 184 cases]). Prescribed and illicitly obtained gabapentinoids accounted for similar proportions of deaths (gabapentin illicit 38.0%, prescribed 37.1%; pregabalin illicit 41.0%, prescribed 34.6%). Opioids were co‐detected in most cases (92.0%), and co‐prescribed in a quarter (25.3%). Postmortem blood gabapentinoid concentrations were commonly (sub)therapeutic (65.0% of gabapentin cases; 50.8% of pregabalin cases). In only two cases was gabapentinoid toxicity alone attributed in causing death.

Gabapentinoids alone rarely cause death. Clinically relevant doses can, however, prove fatal, possibly by reducing tolerance to opioids. Doctors and patients should be aware of this interaction.

Gabapentinoid–opioid co‐prescribing needs urgent revision.

Chemometrically Assisted Optimization of Pregabalin Fluorescent Derivatization Reaction with a Novel Xanthone Analogue and Validation of the Method for the Determination of Pregabalin in Bulk via a Plate Reader

Quantitation of chromophore-free analytes is always a challenge. To this purpose, derivatization of the analyte constitutes a common strategy, leading to a product with a strong signal. In the current study, a novel xanthone analogue was utilized for the first time for the derivatization of pregabalin, a model analyte with a primary amine moiety that lacks a chromophore. The fact that only the xanthene-based derivative, formed after the derivatization reaction fluoresces, enables avoiding its chromatographic separation from the reagent and thus reducing the analysis time of a series of samples in 1–2 min via a plate reader. The reaction conditions were optimized via a central composite design (CCD), with fluorescence signal as the measure of the yield. The following factors that affect the derivatization reaction were chosen: (a) temperature, (b) reaction time, and (c) triethylamine solution volume used to drive the reaction to completion. After the identification of the optimal conditions, the method was validated according to ICH guidelines, using a fluorescence plate reader for signal measurement (λex = 540, λem = 615 nm). Finally, the newly developed high-throughput method was applied to the determination of drug content in pregabalin bulk.

What Is New in the Clinical Management of Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition associated with disability. Treating patients with LBP becomes further complicated by the potential presence of underlying conditions, such as cancer or traumatic injury, or biopsychosocial aspects. LBP usually has a neuropathic component that must be assessed and treated appropriately. Pharmacological management of LBP requires a thorough knowledge of the available agents and the mechanisms of the LBP. Although there are effective pharmacological treatments for LBP, it is important to consider safety issues. Fixed-dose combination products may be helpful, as they can reduce opioid consumption without sacrificing analgesic benefits. Neuromodulation is an important and sometimes overlooked treatment option for LBP and may be appropriate for chronic LBP requiring long-term treatment. Imaging studies support neuroplastic changes in the brain as a result of neuromodulation. Interventional approaches to chronic LBP are numerous and must be appropriately selected based on the individual patient. Evidence in support of epidural injections for LBP is strong for short-term pain control but moderate to limited for long-term relief. Rehabilitation for LBP can be an important element of long-term care, and new forms of rehabilitation programs are being developed using telemedicine. A variety of new and established treatments are available for patients with LBP, and clinicians and patients may benefit from emerging new treatment modalities.

Self-Reported Pain and Emotional Reactivity in Bipolar Disorder: A Prospective FACE-BD Study

In patients with bipolar disorder (BD), pain prevalence is close to 30%. It is important to determine whether pain influences BD course and to identify factors associated with pain in BD in order to guide BD management. This naturalistic, prospective study used data on 880 patients with BD from the French FACE-BD cohort who were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of pain. Multivariate models were used to test whether pain was associated with affective states and personality traits while controlling for confounders. Then, multivariate models were used to test whether pain at baseline predicted global life functioning and depressive symptomatology at one year. At baseline, 22% of patients self-reported pain. The pain was associated with depressive symptomatology, levels of emotional reactivity in a quadratic relationship, and a composite variable of personality traits (affective lability, affective intensity, hostility/anger, and impulsivity). At one year, the pain was predictive of depression and lower global life functioning. Pain worsens mental health and well-being in patients with BD. The role of emotions, depression, and personality traits in pain has to be elucidated to better understand the high prevalence of pain in BD and to promote specific therapeutic strategies for patients experiencing pain.