Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event).

RESULTS

49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/.

Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders

OBJECTIVE

This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders.

METHODS

Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders.

RESULTS

Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Treatment methods for post-traumatic elbow stiffness caused by heterotopic ossification

HYPOTHESIS

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a common complication of surgically treated elbow fractures that can inhibit range of motion and impair quality of life. Although there are many treatment methods for HO, there is a lack of consensus as to the best option. We hypothesized that contracture release combined with Botox injection would lead to improved functional outcome scores when compared with current treatment methods.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of patients who presented to a single surgeon with HO secondary to elbow fracture between 2005 and 2018. A total of 59 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria. Data were classified into 3 groups: contracture release (control - CR), Botox injection with CR (Botox + CR), and radiation therapy with CR (CR + RT). Range of motion measurements were obtained, including flexion, extension, pronation, and supination.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients (30 of 59, 50.8%) received CR, 6 (6 of 59, 9.2%) were treated with CR + RT, and 23 (23 of 59, 40.0%) had CR + Botox. There was a significant difference between pre- and postoperative arc of motion for both CR + RT (P < .01) and CR + Botox (P < .01). In addition, there was a significant difference in pre- and postoperative extension for patients who received intraoperative Botox injections (P < .05). There was no significant difference between pre- and postoperative motion nor extension in the CR group.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative Botox injection with CR is an effective method in the treatment of post-traumatic elbow stiffness caused by HO.

Low Back Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides an overview of evaluating and treating low back pain in the outpatient setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

As most cases of acute low back pain have a favorable prognosis, current guidelines on imaging studies recommend conservative treatment for 6 weeks prior to obtaining an MRI if no red flags are present. Of these red flags, a prior history of cancer is the strongest risk factor for a malignant etiology and requires urgent evaluation with MRI. Management of acute low back pain is mainly conservative with oral non-narcotic analgesics and mobilization as the initial recommendations. For patients with radiculopathy, epidural steroids may result in short-term pain relief, but long-term effects are still unclear.

SUMMARY

A systematic, evidence-based approach to the patient with low back pain is key to providing safe and cost-efficient care.

Are paraspinous intramuscular injections of botulinum toxin a (BoNT-A) efficient in the treatment of chronic low-back pain? A randomised, double-blinded crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment for patients with chronic low-back pain (LBP) is a public health issue. Intramuscular injections of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) have shown an analgesic effect on LBP in two previous randomized controlled studies. The objective of the study was to verify the efficacy of paravertebral injections of BoNT-A in patients with LBP.

METHODS

Patients were included in this phase 3 randomized double-blinded trial comparing the efficacy of BoNT-A versus placebo in a crossover study on LBP. Both groups received 200 units of BoNT-A in paravertebral muscles or a placebo, and vice versa at Day 120. The main judgment criterion was LBP intensity 1 month after the injections, evaluated by using a visual pain scale (VAS). Secondary assessment criteria included: LBP intensity 90 and 120 days after injection day; number of days when an allowed antalgic oral treatment was needed in between each evaluation; functional disability measured by the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale; quality of life; inability to work; patient satisfaction in relation to the treatment's effect; spinal mobility; and strength of spinal muscles, measured by isokinetic technique.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients completed the study. There was no significant difference between the groups' average LBP during the last 8 days at Day30 (p = 0.97). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the secondary assessment criteria (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Injections of BoNT-A in the paravertebral muscles were not found to be effective to relieve chronic LBP. The limits of the study are that the dose of BoNT-A used was lower than in other studies, and that the limited number of patients included may explain the negative results.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Identifiers: NCT03181802 . Unique Protocol ID: CHUBX2003.

Treatment for chronic low back pain: the focus should change to multimodal management that reflects the underlying pain mechanisms

Chronic low back pain: Chronic pain is the most common cause for people to utilize healthcare resources and has a considerable impact upon patients' lives. The most prevalent chronic pain condition is chronic low back pain (CLBP). CLBP may be nociceptive or neuropathic, or may incorporate both components. The presence of a neuropathic component is associated with more intense pain of longer duration, and a higher prevalence of co-morbidities. However, many physicians' knowledge of chronic pain mechanisms is currently limited and there are no universally accepted treatment guidelines, so the condition is not particularly well managed.

DIAGNOSIS

Diagnosis should begin with a focused medical history and physical examination, to exclude serious spinal pathology that may require evaluation by an appropriate specialist. Most patients have non-specific CLBP, which cannot be attributed to a particular cause. It is important to try and establish whether a neuropathic component is present, by combining the findings of physical and neurological examinations with the patient's history. This may prove difficult, however, even when using screening instruments. Multimodal management: The multifactorial nature of CLBP indicates that the most logical treatment approach is multimodal: i.e. integrated multidisciplinary therapy with co-ordinated somatic and psychotherapeutic elements. As both nociceptive and neuropathic components may be present, combining analgesic agents with different mechanisms of action is a rational treatment modality. Individually tailored combination therapy can improve analgesia whilst reducing the doses of constituent agents, thereby lessening the incidence of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper outlines the development of CLBP and the underlying mechanisms involved, as well as providing information on diagnosis and the use of a wide range of pharmaceutical agents in managing the condition (including NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, opioids and anticonvulsants), supplemented by appropriate non-pharmacological measures such as exercise programs, manual therapies, behavioral therapies, interventional pain management and traction. Surgery may be appropriate in carefully selected patients.

Abobotulinum Toxin A in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

Chronic low back pain is a debilitating condition with a complex and multifactorial pathophysiology. Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) have strong analgesic effects, as shown in both animal models of pain and in human beings. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel format study to investigate the efficacy of abobotulinum toxin A (aboA) in chronic low back pain was conducted. The study cohort consisted of 18 patients who received 100 units of aboA into each of the five lumbar extensor spinae muscles unilaterally or bilaterally (total dose 500 to 1000 units), and 19 who received normal saline of the same volume. The level of pain and quality of life were assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and three questionnaires including the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OLBPDQ). Patients’ perception of improvement was recorded via patient global impression of change (PGIC). The primary outcome measure, the proportion of responders with VAS of <4 at 6 weeks, was not met, but the data was significantly in favor of aboA at 4 weeks (p = 0.008). The total Oswestry score representing quality of life improved in the aboA group compared to the placebo group (p = 0.0448). Moreover, significantly more patients reported their low back pain as “much improved” in the abobotulinum toxin A group (0.0293).