Paracetamol for low back pain

A Study of 60 Patients with Low Back Pain to Compare Outcomes Following Magnetotherapy, Ultrasound, Laser, and Electrotherapy with and without Lumbosacral Kinesiotherapy

BACKGROUND This study of 60 patients with low back pain (LBP) aimed to compare outcomes following magnetotherapy, ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, and electrotherapy, with and without lumbosacral kinesiotherapy, and used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OLBPDQ). This was a randomized actively controlled intervention trial of adding kinesiotherapy to a standard physiotherapy for LBP. MATERIAL AND METHODS The research included 60 participants with a diagnosis of chronic non-specific lumbar pain syndrome (CNSLPS) (mean±SD age 58.3±15.4 years, 37 women) LBP randomly assigned (1: 1) to 2 treatment groups. In Group 1, 30 patients were treated with magnetotherapy, ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, and electrotherapy. In Group 2, 30 patients received the same treatments as in Group 1, and also performed kinesiotherapy exercises affecting the lumbosacral spine and adjacent muscles. At baseline and at the end of the study, all participants completed the RMDQ and the OLBPDQ. RESULTS Both groups had significant improvement after therapy. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that at the end of treatment there was significantly greater progress and symptom reduction (P<0.001) in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 had a pain reduction of 52.5%, while Group 1 had 25.4% pain reduction (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS For treatment of disability caused by CNSLPS, physical therapy combined with kinesiotherapy should be a treatment of choice.

Use of metamizole and other non-opioid analgesics in Switzerland between 2014 and 2019: an observational study using a large health insurance claims database

OBJECTIVE

To investigate claims patterns for metamizole and other non-opioid analgesics in Switzerland. To characterise users of these non-opioid analgesics regarding sex, age, comedications and canton of residence.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective descriptive study using administrative claims data of outpatient prescribed non-opioid analgesics of the Swiss health insurance company Helsana between January 2014 and December 2019. First, we evaluated the number of claims and defined daily doses  per year of metamizole, ibuprofen, diclofenac and paracetamol in adults aged 18 years or over. Second, we characterised new users of these non-opioid analgesics in terms of sex, age, claimed comedications and canton of residence.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, among the investigated non-opioid analgesics, metamizole showed the highest increase in claims (+9545 claims, +50%) and defined daily doses (+86,869 defined daily doses, +84%) per 100,000 adults. Metamizole users had the highest median age (62 years [IQR: 44-77]) compared to ibuprofen (47 years [IQR: 33-62]), diclofenac (57 years [IQR: 43-71]) and paracetamol (58 years [IQR: 39-75]) users. Metamizole users also more frequently claimed proton pump inhibitors, anticoagulants, platelet aggregation inhibitors and antihypertensive drugs than users of other non-opioid analgesics. While metamizole was most frequently claimed in German-speaking regions of Switzerland, ibuprofen and paracetamol were most frequently claimed in the French-speaking regions and diclofenac in German- and Italian-speaking regions.

CONCLUSION

In Switzerland, metamizole was increasingly claimed between 2014 and 2019. Metamizole was most frequently claimed by older adults and patients with comedications suggestive of underlying conditions, which can be worsened or caused by use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The lack of studies regarding the effectiveness and safety of metamizole in this population warrants further investigation.

Emergency Department Management of Low Back Pain: A Comparative Review of Guidelines and Practices

This narrative review examines the current best practices and guidelines for integrating pharmacologic interventions, imaging, and physiotherapy in the management of low back pain. The review also explores how patient factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, and prevalent pathologies/diagnoses influence the choice and effectiveness of these treatment approaches.

What are Brazilian orthopaedists' views on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain? A qualitative investigation

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedists are often the first point of contact for patients who present with low back pain (LBP) and chronic LBP in Brazil.

AIM

To explore the views of orthopaedists on therapeutic approaches for chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) with a view to gain insights into aspects of clinical practice considered important to them.

METHODS

A qualitative design underpinned by interpretivism was employed. Participants were (n = 13) orthopaedists with experience in treating patients with CNLBP. Following the pilot interviews, semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed and de-identified. Interview data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified. (1) Biophysical aspects are important and predominate, but sometimes their relevance can be unclear; (2) Psychosocial aspects and lifestyle factors influence the therapeutic approach; (3) Treatment of CNLBP - including medication, physical activity, surgery and other invasive procedures and other therapeutic modalities; and (4) Nuances of clinical practice - "it goes beyond medicine".

CONCLUSION

Brazilian orthopaedists value identifying the biophysical cause(s) of chronic low back pain. Psychological factors were often discussed secondary to biophysical aspects, whereas social aspects were rarely mentioned. Orthopaedists highlighted their difficulties in navigating patients' emotions and reassuring patients without referrals to imaging tests. Orthopaedists may benefit from training that targets communication and other relational aspects of care in order to work with people who present with CNLBP.

Effect of acupuncture on pain and substance P levels in middle-aged women with chronic neck pain

Chronic neck pain is a leading health issue affecting a significant proportion of the global population. Multiple treatment options for chronic neck pain include anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics. Acupuncture has been widely used for the treatment of chronic pain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of acupuncture for female patients with chronic neck pain. Twenty-three participants were enrolled in the study, and participants waited 4 weeks without acupuncture treatment and then received 4 weeks of treatment. One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to determine differences in the visual analogue scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI), and substance P (SP) over time. The subjects' pain intensity and degree of disability due to neck pain were measured as primary outcomes. SP in the blood was also analyzed as a secondary outcome. There was no significant difference between the VAS score and NDI value of baseline and after 4 weeks waiting. However, there was an improvement in both VAS and NDI after 4 weeks treatment. SP level was decreased after 4 weeks treatment. We could conclude that acupuncture is effective in alleviating chronic neck pain. Moreover, our findings revealed the efficacy of acupuncture on chronic pain with potential underlying biological mechanisms.

The effect of patient-led goal setting approach combined with pain neuroscience education or manual therapy in patients with chronic low back pain: protocol for a parallel-group randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial disorder associated with a high range of physical and psychological burden on the society. Patient-led goal-setting approach has shown potential effects for improving chronic LBP. However, there are few studies investigating its benefits when combined with a supplementary intervention. This paper, therefore, presents a protocol for a randomized control trial (RCT) to study the effect of a patient-led goal-setting approach combined with pain neuroscience education (PNE) or manual therapy (MT) among patients with chronic LBP.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients suffering from chronic LBP will be recruited via flyers displayed in hospitals and universities, and those meeting the study's criteria will randomly be allocated into a patient-led goal-setting approach with the PNE group, and/or with the MT program group, and/or a control group. The primary outcomes will be the pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, depression, anxiety and stress, fear avoidance beliefs, kinesophobia, pain self-efficacy, catastrophic pain, neurophysiology of pain, and central sensitivity. All the outcomes will be recorded at 2 months after receiving the treatment as post-test sessions and after 4 and 12 months as follow-up sessions. The Ethics Committee in Research at Sport Sciences Research Institute of Iran approved the protocol of this trial (IR.SSRC.REC.1400.084). Written, informed consent to participate will be obtained from all participants. All methods will be conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations and send them to the participants.

DISCUSSION

This trial will demonstrate which supplementary intervention can better improve the impact of a patient-led goal-setting approach to treat LBP. If successful, the results will potentially have implications for athletic trainers, physiotherapists, and health care practitioners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT20210927052616N1. Registered on November 03, 2021.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Critical Appraisal of Current Acute LBP Management and the Role of a Multimodal Analgesia: A Narrative Review

Acute low back pain (LBP) stands as a leading cause of activity limitation and work absenteeism, and its associated healthcare expenditures are expected to become substantial when acute LBP develops into a chronic and even refractory condition. Therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent progression to chronic pain, for which the management is particularly challenging and the most effective pharmacological therapy is still controversial. Current guideline treatment recommendations vary and are mostly driven by expertise with opinion differing across different interventions. Thus, it is difficult to formulate evidence-based guidance when the relatively few randomized clinical trials have explored the diagnosis and management of LBP while employing different selection criteria, statistical analyses, and outcome measurements. This narrative review aims to provide a critical appraisal of current acute LBP management by discussing the unmet needs and areas of improvement from bench-to-bedside, and proposes multimodal analgesia as the way forward to attain an effective and prolonged pain relief and functional recovery in patients with acute LBP.

The effects of immersion in 42℃ radon, natrium, calcium, bicarbonate content thermal-mineral water on chronic low back pain. Controlled, follow-up study

In our minimized follow-up trial with 137 participants with chronic low back pain, one group of participants received regular outpatient care, and the other group received balneotherapy by immersion in 42℃ thermal-mineral water in addition to regular outpatient care on 15 occasions for 3 weeks. Pain on movement and at rest on the 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry index, the number of participants evaluating the symptoms clinically acceptable (Patient Acceptable Symptom State, PASS) and the EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) quality of life questionnaire were assessed at basal time (at week 0) and after balneotherapy (at weeks 3 and 12). The VAS pain scores, the Oswestry index, the EQ-5D-5L index and the EQ-VAS significantly improved in the balneotherapy group after treatment at week 3 (p < 0.001) and week 12 (p < 0.001) compared to baseline, with a significant between group difference at week 3 (p < 0.001) and week 12 (p < 0.001). The pain VAS score on movement was 66.82 ± 11.48, 26.69 ± 21.49, and 20.09 ± 23.29 in the balneotherapy group, and 63.67 ± 14.77, 67.35 ± 15.44, and 70.23 ± 18.26 in the control group at the consecutive visits. The PASS increased in both groups at week 3 and week 12 compared to the baseline, with a significant between-group difference at week 3 and week 12 for the balneotherapy group. Our results suggest the therapeutic efficacy of immersion in 42℃ thermal mineral water on chronic low back pain.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05342051.

Assessment and nonsurgical management of low back pain: a narrative review

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition that affects people of all ages and income levels worldwide. The etiology of LBP may be mechanical, neuropathic, systemic, referred visceral, or secondary to other causes. Despite numerous studies, the diagnosis and management of LBP remain challenging due to the complex biomechanics of the spine and confounding factors, such as trivial degenerative imaging findings irrelevant to symptoms and psychological and emotional factors. However, it is imperative to identify the crucial signs ("red flags") indicating a serious underlying condition. While many recent guidelines emphasize non-pharmacologic management approaches, such as education, reassurance, and physical and psychological care, as the first option, LBP patients in many countries, including South Korea, are prescribed medications. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation combined with prudent use of medications is required in patients unresponsive to first-line therapy. The development of practical guidelines apposite for South Korea is needed with multidisciplinary discussion.

Content analysis of the online information available about back pain

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is growing health concern that affects millions of people around the globe, and there are many misconceptions regarding causes, imaging, and appropriate treatment choices. Common people usually search Google seeking information regarding LBP from different websites. However, the content of these widely accessible websites have not be evaluated in the light of evidence. The present study aims to analyze the information presented by these websites, summarize the content, and evaluate it against the published literature.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of Google using search terms “low back pain,” “back pain,” “backache. NVivo software was used to capture the content from the internet. Content analysis (CA) was used to analyze online consumer information concerning LBP on the included websites.

Results

A total of 53 websites were included in the study by screening the search pages. There were erroneous information present on majority of the websites. Almost all of the websites consisted of nocebic terms. The causes were more oriented towards biomedical model. Treatment options mentioned did not concur with the recent clinical practice guidelines.

Conclusion

The Online information retrieved from a Google search lacks representation of the current best research. The findings of the study suggest that future development of websites must include information that is more accurate, and evidence driven. Online LBP information should be based on criteria that are more sensitive to the psychosocial factors that contribute to pain.

Positive lifestyle behaviours and emotional health factors are associated with low back pain resilience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relationship between lifestyle behaviours, emotional health factors, and low back pain (LBP) resilience.

METHODS

This retrospective longitudinal study utilised 1,065 twins with a recent history of LBP from the Washington State Twin Registry. A lifestyle behaviour score was built using variables of body mass index, physical activity engagement, sleep quality, smoking status, and alcohol consumption. An emotional health score was built using variables of the absence of depressed mood, perceived stress, and active coping. The main outcome was LBP resilience, assessed as recovery ("bouncing back"), and sustainability (maintaining high levels of function despite LBP).

RESULTS

After adjusting for covariates, there was no relationship between the lifestyle behaviour score (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.15, p = 0.218) and the emotional health score (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.98-1.19, p = 0.142) with the likelihood of recovering from LBP. There was however, evidence of a positive association between the lifestyle behaviour score (β 0.20, 95% CI 0.04-0.36, p = 0.013), the emotional health score (β 0.22, 95% CI 0.00-0.43, p = 0.049), and greater levels of sustainability. These results were confirmed by a within-pair analysis (lifestyle behaviour score: β 1.79, 95% CI 0.05-3.53, p = 0.043) and (emotional health score: β 0.52, 95% CI 0.09-0.96, p = 0.021) adjusting for genetic and early shared environmental confounding.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study suggest that people who adopt optimal lifestyle behaviours and positive emotional factors are more likely to be resilient and maintain high levels of function despite suffering from LBP.

Individualized Exercise in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Exercise Alone or in Combination with Psychological Interventions on Pain and Disability

This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression investigated the effects of individualized interventions, based on exercise alone or combined with psychological treatment, on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low-back-pain. Databases were searched up to January 31, 2022 to retrieve respective randomized controlled trials of individualized and/or personalized and/or stratified exercise interventions with or without psychological treatment compared to any control. Fifty-eight studies (n = 10084) were included. At short-term follow-up (12 weeks), low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (SMD -0.28 [95%CI -0.42 to -0.14]) and very low-certainty evidence for disability (-0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]) indicates effects of individualized versus active exercises, and very low-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.40; [-0.58 to -0.22])), but not (low-certainty evidence) for disability (-0.18; [-0.22 to 0.01]) compared to passive controls. At long-term follow-up (1 year), moderate-certainty evidence for pain intensity (-0.14 [-0.22 to -0.07]) and disability (-0.20 [-0.30 to -0.10]) indicates effects versus passive controls. Sensitivity analyses indicates that the effects on pain, but not on disability (always short-term and versus active treatments) were robust. Pain reduction caused by individualized exercise treatments in combination with psychological interventions (in particular behavioral-cognitive therapies) (-0.28 [-0.42 to -0.14], low certainty) is of clinical importance. Certainty of evidence was downgraded mainly due to evidence of risk of bias, publication bias and inconsistency that could not be explained. Individualized exercise can treat pain and disability in chronic non-specific low-back-pain. The effects at short term are of clinical importance (relative differences versus active 38% and versus passive interventions 77%), especially in regard to the little extra effort to individualize exercise. Sub-group analysis suggests a combination of individualized exercise (especially motor-control based treatments) with behavioral therapy interventions to booster effects. PERSPECTIVE: The relative benefit of individualized exercise therapy on chronic low back pain compared to other active treatments is approximately 38% which is of clinical importance. Still, sustainability of effects (> 12 months) is doubtable. As individualization in exercise therapies is easy to implement, its use should be considered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021247331.

Acetaminophen changes the RNA m6A levels and m6A-related proteins expression in IL-1β-treated chondrocyte cells

Background

Acetaminophen is commonly recommended for the early analgesia of osteoarthritis. However, the molecular mechanism by which it acts remains unknown. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of acetaminophen on inflammation and extracellular matrix degradation in human chondrocytes, and the possible molecular mechanisms involved in its effect.

Methods

The normal chondrocyte cell line C28/I2 was treated with interleukin-1β to mimic the inflammatory state. Acetaminophen and the methylation inhibitor (cycloleucine) were used to treat interleukin-1β-induced C28/I2 cells. The expression of RNA N⁶-methyladenosine -related proteins was detected by RT-qPCR and western blot. The total RNA N⁶-methyladenosine level was measured by dot blot analysis and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. The levels of interleukin-6, interleukin-8 and anti-tumor necrosis factor-α were measured by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. The extracellular matrix synthesis and degradation were examined by western blot.

Results

After interleukin-1β stimulated C28/I2 cells, the intracellular RNA N⁶-methyladenosine level increased, and the expression of regulatory proteins also changed, mainly including the increased expression of methyltransferase like 3 and the downregulated expression of AlkB family member 5. The use of cycloleucine inhibited interleukin-1β-induced inflammation and extracellular matrix degradation by inhibiting RNA N⁶-methyladenosine modification. In contrast, acetaminophen treatment counteracted interleukin-1β-induced changes in RNA N⁶-methyladenosine levels and regulatory protein expression. Furthermore, acetaminophen treatment of interleukin-1β-induced C28/I2 cells inhibited the secretion of interleukin-6, interleukin-8 and anti-tumor necrosis factor-α, down-regulated the expression of matrix metalloproteinase-13 and Collagen X, and up-regulated the expression of collagen II and aggrecan. In addition, AlkB family member 5 overexpression activated interleukin-1β-induced chondrocyte viability and suppressed inflammation and extracellular matrix degradation.

Conclusion

Acetaminophen affects inflammatory factors secretion and extracellular matrix synthesis of human chondrocytes by regulating RNA N⁶-methyladenosine level and N⁶-methyladenosine-related protein expression.

Graphical abstract

Stimulation of the normal chondrocyte cell line C28/I2 with the cytokine IL-1β (10 μM) mimics the inflammatory state in vitro. Acetaminophen (Ace, 50 μg/mL) changes the m⁶A related proteins expression and the total RNA m⁶A levels in IL-1β-treated chondrocyte cells. Furthermore, regulation of RNA m⁶A levels (by methylation inhibitor Cyc and/or Ace) affects IL-1β-induced inflammatory cytokines secretion and extracellular matrix synthesis in C28/I2 cells.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12860-022-00444-3.

Paracetamol Use in Patients With Osteoarthritis and Lower Back Pain: Infodemiology Study and Observational Analysis of Electronic Medical Record Data

Background

Lower back pain (LBP) and osteoarthritis (OA) are common musculoskeletal disorders and account for around 17.0% of years lived with disability worldwide; however, there is a lack of real-world data on these conditions. Paracetamol brands are frequently prescribed in France for musculoskeletal pain and include Doliprane, Dafalgan, and Ixprim (tramadol-paracetamol).

Objective

The objective of this retrospective study was to understand the journey of patients with LBP or OA when treated with paracetamol.

Methods

Three studies were undertaken. Two studies analyzed electronic medical records from general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists of patients with OA or LBP, who had received at least one paracetamol prescription between 2013 and 2018 in France. Data were extracted, anonymized, and stratified by gender, age, and provider specialty. The third study, an infodemiology study, analyzed associations between terms used on public medical forums and Twitter in France and the United States for OA only.

Results

In the first 2 studies, among patients with LBP (98,998), most (n=92,068, 93.0%) saw a GP, and Doliprane was a first-line therapy for 87.0% (n=86,128) of patients (71.0% [n=61,151] in combination with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] or opioids). Among patients with OA (99,997), most (n=84,997, 85.0%) saw a GP, and Doliprane was a first-line therapy for 83.0% (n=82,998) of patients (62.0% [n=51,459] in combination). Overall, paracetamol monotherapy prescriptions decreased as episodes increased. In the third study, in line with available literature, the data confirmed that the prevalence of OA increases with age (91.5% [212,875/232,650] above 41 years), OA is more predominant in females (46,530/232,650, 20.0%), and paracetamol use varies between GPs and rheumatologists.

Conclusions

This health surveillance analysis provides a better understanding of the journey for patients with LBP or OA. These data confirmed that although paracetamol remains the most common first-line analgesic for patients with LBP and OA, usage varies among patients and health care specialists, and there are concerns over efficacy.

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.

The Specifics of Non-specific Low Back Pain: Re-evaluating the Current Paradigm to Improve Patient Outcomes

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of pain and debility worldwide and the most frequent reason for work-related disability. Global expenditures related to LBP are staggering and amount to billions of dollars each year in the United States alone. Yet, despite the considerable healthcare resources consumed, the care provided to patients with LBP has regularly been cited as both ineffective and exorbitant. Among the myriad reasons for this suboptimal care, the current approach to evaluation and management of patients with LBP is a likely contributor and is hitherto un-investigated. Following the current methodology, over 90% of patients with LBP are provided with no specific diagnosis, are managed inconsistently, and receive no express preventative care. We believed that this approach added costs and promoted chronic unresolved pain and disability. This narrative review highlights problems with the current methodology, proposes a novel concept for categorizing patients with LBP, and recommends strategies for improvement. Stratifying patients according to the etiology, in lieu of the prospects for morbidity, the strategy proposed in this article may help ascertain the cause of patient's LBP early, consolidate treatments, permit timely preventative measures, and, as a result, may improve patient outcomes.

efficacy of the therapeutic exercises on Evminov board with use of the Glisson loop in patients with degenerative spine diseases

.

Paracetamol use during pregnancy - a call for precautionary action

Paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (APAP), otherwise known as acetaminophen) is the active ingredient in more than 600 medications used to relieve mild to moderate pain and reduce fever. APAP is widely used by pregnant women as governmental agencies, including the FDA and EMA, have long considered APAP appropriate for use during pregnancy when used as directed. However, increasing experimental and epidemiological research suggests that prenatal exposure to APAP might alter fetal development, which could increase the risks of some neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders. Here we summarize this evidence and call for precautionary action through a focused research effort and by increasing awareness among health professionals and pregnant women. APAP is an important medication and alternatives for treatment of high fever and severe pain are limited. We recommend that pregnant women should be cautioned at the beginning of pregnancy to: forego APAP unless its use is medically indicated; consult with a physician or pharmacist if they are uncertain whether use is indicated and before using on a long-term basis; and minimize exposure by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time. We suggest specific actions to implement these recommendations. This Consensus Statement reflects our concerns and is currently supported by 91 scientists, clinicians and public health professionals from across the globe.

Systematic Review of Systemic and Neuraxial Effects of Acetaminophen in Preclinical Models of Nociceptive Processing

Acetaminophen (APAP) in humans has robust effects with a high therapeutic index in altering postoperative and inflammatory pain states in clinical and experimental pain paradigms with no known abuse potential. This review considers the literature reflecting the preclinical actions of acetaminophen in a variety of pain models. Significant observations arising from this review are as follows: 1) acetaminophen has little effect upon acute nociceptive thresholds; 2) acetaminophen robustly reduces facilitated states as generated by mechanical and thermal hyperalgesic end points in mouse and rat models of carrageenan and complete Freund’s adjuvant evoked inflammation; 3) an antihyperalgesic effect is observed in models of facilitated processing with minimal inflammation (eg, phase II intraplantar formalin); and 4) potent anti-hyperpathic effects on the thermal hyperalgesia, mechanical and cold allodynia, allodynic thresholds in rat and mouse models of polyneuropathy and mononeuropathies and bone cancer pain. These results reflect a surprisingly robust drug effect upon a variety of facilitated states that clearly translate into a wide range of efficacy in preclinical models and to important end points in human therapy. The specific systems upon which acetaminophen may act based on targeted delivery suggest both a spinal and a supraspinal action. Review of current targets for this molecule excludes a role of cyclooxygenase inhibitor but includes effects that may be mediated through metabolites acting on the TRPV1 channel, or by effect upon cannabinoid and serotonin signaling. These findings suggest that the mode of action of acetaminophen, a drug with a long therapeutic history of utilization, has surprisingly robust effects on a variety of pain states in clinical patients and in preclinical models with a good therapeutic index, but in spite of its extensive use, its mechanisms of action are yet poorly understood.

Machine learning approaches applied in spinal pain research

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a critical reflection of how analytical machine learning approaches could provide the platform to harness variability of patient presentation to enhance clinical prediction. The review includes a summary of current knowledge on the physiological adaptations present in people with spinal pain. We discuss how contemporary evidence highlights the importance of not relying on single features when characterizing patients given the variability of physiological adaptations present in people with spinal pain. The advantages and disadvantages of current analytical strategies in contemporary basic science and epidemiological research are reviewed and we consider how analytical machine learning approaches could provide the platform to harness the variability of patient presentations to enhance clinical prediction of pain persistence or recurrence. We propose that machine learning techniques can be leveraged to translate a potentially heterogeneous set of variables into clinically useful information with the potential to enhance patient management.

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

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

Paracetamol: A Review of Guideline Recommendations

Musculoskeletal pain conditions are age-related, leading contributors to chronic pain and pain-related disability, which are expected to rise with the rapid global population aging. Current medical treatments provide only partial relief. Furthermore, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are effective in young and otherwise healthy individuals but are often contraindicated in elderly and frail patients. As a result of its favorable safety and tolerability record, paracetamol has long been the most common drug for treating pain. Strikingly, recent reports questioned its therapeutic value and safety. This review aims to present guideline recommendations. Paracetamol has been assessed in different conditions and demonstrated therapeutic efficacy on both acute and chronic pain. It is active as a single agent and is additive or synergistic with NSAIDs and opioids, improving their efficacy and safety. However, a lack of significant efficacy and hepatic toxicity have also been reported. Fast dissolving formulations of paracetamol provide superior and more extended pain relief that is similar to intravenous paracetamol. A dose reduction is recommended in patients with liver disease or malnourished. Genotyping may improve efficacy and safety. Within the current trend toward the minimization of opioid analgesia, it is consistently included in multimodal, non-opioid, or opioid-sparing therapies. Paracetamol is being recommended by guidelines as a first or second-line drug for acute pain and chronic pain, especially for patients with limited therapeutic options and for the elderly.

The prevalence of and exact indications for daily opioid use among aged home care clients with and without dementia

Background

The increasing trend of opioid use for non-malignant pain among older people has raised concerns about whether opioids are used for appropriate indications. On the other hand, pain in patients with dementia may be undertreated.

Aims

To examine the prevalence of and indications for daily opioid use among home care clients, and to determine opioid use differs between those with and without dementia.

Methods

All home care clients aged ≥ 65 years using opioids daily (n = 282) were identified based on their first Resident Assessment Instrument–Home Care assessment in 2014. Exact indications for opioid use, the opioid substance used, the median duration of use, and changes in opioid medication within 12 months from study entry were obtained from the electronic medical records.

Results

The prevalence of daily opioid use was 9.3%, and the median duration of use before the study entry was 357 days (interquartile range 126–719 days). The majority of clients continued to use opioids daily during the follow-up year. Vertebral osteoporotic fractures (21.6%), degenerative spinal disorders (20.9%), and osteoarthritis (20.6%) were the most common indications for opioid use. Buprenorphine was used more frequently in persons with dementia, but otherwise there were no differences between those with and without dementia.

Discussion and conclusions

Home care clients use opioids for long periods of time for pain related mostly to musculoskeletal disorders, although the effectiveness of long-term opioid use is not clear. The lack of effective or suitable options for management of pain might explain the situation.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes.

Design

A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute).

Results

Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) −1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.41 to –0.40), heat wrap (SMD −1.38; 95% CI −2.60 to –0.17), opioids (SMD −0.86; 95% CI −1.62 to –0.10), manual therapy (SMD −0.72; 95% CI −1.40 to –0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD −0.53; 95% CI −0.97 to –0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms.

Conclusion

With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm–benefit balance.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches to chronic lumbar back pain

Low back pain is a common and important cause of disability. Chronic pain increases disability and cost. In this review, we discuss pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches for chronic low back pain in the light of current data and guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and management of low back pain: A systematic review of quantity and quality

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent in the general population and is responsible for increased health-care costs, pain, impairment of activity, and if chronic, is associated with a range of comorbidities.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of LBP in adults.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Guidelines International Network were systematically searched from 2008 to 2018 to identify LBP CPGs. Eligible CPGs were assessed in duplicate using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument across 6 domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.

RESULTS

Of 181 unique search results, 22 CPGs for the treatment and/or management of LBP were eligible. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were: scope and purpose (90.0%), clarity of presentation (84.0%), stakeholder involvement (54.0%), rigour of development (51.2%), editorial independence (39.6%) and applicability (28.5%). Quality varied within and across CPGs.

CONCLUSIONS

CPGs varied in quality, with most scoring the highest in the scope and purpose and clarity of presentation domains. CPGs achieved variable and lower scores in the stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, applicability, and editorial independence domains. CPGs with higher AGREE II scores can serve as suitable evidence-based resources for clinicians involved in LBP care; CPGs with lower scores could be improved in future updates using the AGREE II instrument, among other guideline development resources, as a guide.

Cannabis Use and Low-Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Introduction: The potential use of cannabis and cannabinoid products for the treatment of low-back pain is an important area for investigation. As one of the leading reasons to visit a primary care provider, low-back pain results in a significant burden of disease in both the United States' economic and health care systems. Given the current opioid epidemic, it is important to seek novel analgesics and understand their efficacy for myriad pain conditions, including low-back pain. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed using multiple online databases to assess the association of cannabis use and low-back pain in the literature. Results: A total of 124 articles were produced via our search methods, 73 abstracts in total were screened, 16 articles underwent full-text review, and 6 articles were included in qualitative synthesis. Discussion: This systematic literature review reveals a lack of primary research investigating cannabis as a potential treatment of low-back pain and highlights the need for further investigation with well-designed clinical trials. There remain substantial political and legal barriers to performing such research. Conclusion: Although there is a considerable body of work on the usage of cannabinoid products for many medical conditions, including the treatment of chronic pain, more directed clinical research into their utility as an analgesic for low-back pain and related symptoms needs to be addressed.

Inhibition of the P53/P21 Pathway Attenuates the Effects of Senescent Nucleus Pulposus Cell-Derived Exosomes on the Senescence of Nucleus Pulposus Cells

Objective

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of senescent nucleus pulposus cell (NPC)‐derived exosomes (SNPC‐Exo) and the roles of the P53/P21 pathway on the senescence of NPC.

Methods

The senescent phenotypes of NPC were induced by interleukin‐1β treatment. SNPC‐Exo was extracted from the culture medium of senescent NPC and purified by differential centrifugation. The structure of SNPC‐Exo was identified by transmission electron microscopy and western blot analysis was used to determine the exosomal marker proteins CD63 and Tsg101. Western blot analysis was performed to determine the relative expression levels of P16, P21, and P53 in NPC. Senescence‐associated β‐galactosidase (SA‐β‐gal) staining was used to stain the senescent NPC and a phase contrast microscope was used to observe and count the SA‐β‐gal staining of NPC. The proliferation of SNPC‐Exo‐treated NPC was assessed using growth curve analysis and the colony formation assay. The cell cycle of SNPC‐Exo‐treated NPC was determined by flow cytometry. NPC were transfected with siRNA to knock down P53 and P21 expression.

Results

Interleukin‐1β‐treated NPC had a higher percentage of SA‐β‐gal positive cells (45%) than the control group (20%) and showed an increase in the relative expression of P16, P21, and P53 (P < 0.05). SNPC‐Exo were positive for exosomal marker protein CD63 and Tsg 101 and negative for calnexin, and successfully internalized as previously described. SNPC‐Exo‐treated NPC showed an increase in the relative expression of P21 and P53 (P < 0.05). Compared with the control group, the SNPC‐Exo‐treated NPC showed a lower growth rate (3 times lower on the 5th day and 2 times lower on the 7th day), fewer colony‐forming units (12.0%), and a higher percentage of SA‐β‐gal‐positive NPC (50.0%). The SNPC‐Exo‐treated NPC contained more G1 phase cells (68.0%) and fewer S phase (15.5%) cells than the control group (53.0% in G1 phase, 33.5% in S phase). The expression of P21 and P53 significantly decreased in SNPC‐exo‐treated NPC after siRNA transfection (P < 0.05), followed by a higher growth rate (2 times higher on the 5th day and 1.5 times higher on the 7th day) and lower percentage of SA‐β‐gal‐positive NPC (22.5%). Moreover, the inhibition of the P53/P21 pathway promoted the SNPC‐Exo‐treated NPC to enter the S phase (from 15.5% to 25.3%).

Conclusion

The inhibition of the P53/P21 pathway attenuated the senescence of NPC induced by SNPC‐Exo.

Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain.

METHODS

We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology.

DISCUSSION

This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Pain management in hidradenitis suppurativa and a proposed treatment algorithm

Pain contributes substantially to reduced quality of life in individuals living with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Although improved understanding of HS pathogenesis and treatment has resulted in improved evidence-based HS management guidelines, comprehensive pain management guidelines have yet to be developed. Few HS-specific data exist to guide pharmacologic analgesia; however, recognizing HS pain as either acute or chronic and predominantly nociceptive (aching and gnawing pain due to tissue damage) versus neuropathic (burning-type pain due to somatosensory nervous system dysfunction) provides a conceptual framework for applying outside pain management practices to HS management. This article incorporates the best available evidence from the HS and pain literature to propose an HS pain algorithm that integrates psychological, pharmacologic, and complementary and alternative treatment modalities.

The role of the pharmacist in low back pain management: a narrative review of practice guidelines on paracetamol vs non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly condition and a leading cause of disabilities across the globe. In Australia and other countries, there has been changes in LBP management guidelines and evidence in recent years, including the use of pharmacotherapy. Inadequately treated LBP is a burden with significant health and economic impacts. Although there is some variability, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have largely replaced paracetamol as the first-choice analgesic for non-specific LBP in many international clinical guidelines, including the current Australian Therapeutic Guidelines. More recent clinical evidence also supports that targeting LBP with the use of NSAIDs can provide superior and more effective relief of LBP symptoms compared with paracetamol. Community pharmacists are one of the most accessible and frequently visited health professionals that offer vital primary healthcare services aimed to provide enhanced clinical outcomes for patients. The position of a community pharmacist is pivotal in LBP assessment and management, from both a pharmacological and non-pharmacological standpoint, including the use of clinical guidelines, yet their roles are often not fully utilized in LBP therapy. Studies investigating the community pharmacist’s views, practices, knowledge, and roles, specifically in LBP management in Australia are variable and limited. This narrative review will briefly cover the impacts of LBP, and to provide a summary on recent evidence, updates and a comparison of the Australian and international low back pain management guidelines on paracetamol vs NSAIDs in LBP, as well as pharmacists’ roles and interventions in a primary healthcare setting in this context.

Effects of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain is associated with pain and disability, but symptoms are often self-healing. The effectiveness of exercise therapy for acute low back pain remains uncertain with conflicting evidence from systematic reviews. The aim of this systematic review of systematic reviews was to assess the overall certainty of evidence for the effects of exercise therapy, compared with other interventions, on pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects in adult patients with acute low back pain.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, PEDro, Open Grey, Web of Science, and PROSPERO were searched for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors using AMSTAR. Meta-analyses were performed if possible, using data from the original studies. Data for pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects were analyzed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

The searches retrieved 2602 records, of which 134 publications were selected for full-text screening. Twenty-four reviews were included, in which 21 randomized controlled trials (n = 2685) presented data for an acute population, related to 69 comparisons. Overlap was high, 76%, with a corrected covered area of 0.14. Methodological quality varied from low to high. Exercise therapy was categorized into general exercise therapy, stabilization exercise, and McKenzie therapy. No important difference in pain or disability was evident when exercise therapy was compared with sham ultrasound, nor for the comparators usual care, spinal manipulative therapy, advice to stay active, and educational booklet. Neither McKenzie therapy nor stabilization exercise yielded any important difference in effects compared with other types of exercise therapy. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest very low to moderate certainty of evidence that exercise therapy may result in little or no important difference in pain or disability, compared with other interventions, in adult patients with acute low back pain. A limitation of this systematic review is that some included reviews were of low quality. When implementing findings of this systematic review in clinical practice, patients' preferences and the clinician's expertise also should be considered, to determine if and when exercise therapy should be the intervention of choice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD46146, available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=46146 .

Influences of Sex, Education, and Country of Birth on Clinical Presentations and Overall Outcomes of Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation in Chronic Pain Patients: A Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP)

This study investigates the effects of sex, education, and country of birth on clinical presentations and outcomes of interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation programs (IMMRPs). A multivariate improvement score (MIS) and two retrospective estimations of changes in pain and ability to handle life situations were used as the three overall outcomes of IMMRPs. The study population consisted of chronic pain patients within specialist care in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP) between 2008 and 2016 at baseline (n = 39,916), and for the subset participating in IMMRPs (n = 14,666). A cluster analysis based on sex, education, and country of origin revealed significant differences in the following aspects: best baseline clinical situation was for European women with university educations and the worst baseline clinical situation was for all patients born outside Europe of both sexes and different educations (i.e., moderate-large effect sizes). In addition, European women with university educations also had the most favorable overall outcomes in response to IMMRPs (small effect sizes). These results raise important questions concerning fairness and equality and need to be considered when optimizing assessments and content and delivery of IMMRPs for patients with chronic pain.

When ESKD complicates the management of pain

Pain is one of the most common symptoms reported by patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and negatively impacts their health-related quality of life (HRQOL), dialysis adherence, healthcare utilization, and mortality. There are a number of patient-related and health system-related barriers that make it very challenging to treat pain in these patients. Moreover, the limited availability of efficacious and safe nonopiate analgesic options has led to over-use of opioids in this population. We propose a framework for pain assessment and tailored treatment using nonpharmacological and pharmacological approaches to optimize pain management and opioid use. Additionally, we recommend system-level changes to improve care coordination and pain management in ESKD patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.

Postpartum pubic symphysis diastasis-conservative and surgical treatment methods, incidence of complications: Two case reports and a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Widening of the pubic joint of more than 10 mm is diagnostic and defined as pubic symphysis diastasis and is considered a complication of vaginal childbirth or pregnancy. As it is a rare pathology (ranging from 1 in 300 to 1 in 30000 pregnancies), no gold standard treatment has been defined.

CASE SUMMARY

This study examines two cases, a 27-year-old woman (gravida 1, para 1) and a 32-year-old woman (gravida 2, para 2), who presented to the clinic after uneventful vaginal deliveries. A normal pregnancy with no complications was observed in both patients. Severe pain in the pubic region occurred after labour and was accompanied by complicated locomotion. Pubic symphysis diastasis was confirmed radiologically and bed rest with lateral decubitus positioning was recommended. Oral non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs were administered to relieve pain exacerbations. The symptoms decreased after treatment. Post-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the first case showed a reduction in symphyseal separation with no signs of osteitis. Three years later the symptoms recurred; MRI examination showed no further symphyseal widening or signs of osteitis. A relapse of symphyseal separation was diagnosed and conservative treatment was re-administered resulting in successful recovery. In the second case, pain recurred when the patient conceived for the second time. This time no benefit following conservative treatment was observed. Persistent pain and complicated locomotion led to scoliotic deformation of the lumbar part of the spine and leg length discrepancy, thus surgical treatment was chosen and internal pubic synthesis was performed.

CONCLUSION

Overall, surgical treatment resulting from insufficient conservative treatment showed a high risk of postoperative complications following the treatment of postpartum pubic symphysis diastasis.

VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain

DESCRIPTION

In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved the joint Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for Diagnosis and Management of Low Back Pain. This CPG was intended to provide healthcare providers a framework by which to evaluate, treat, and manage patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature through September 2016, developed an algorithm, and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. A patient focus group was also convened to ensure patient values and perspectives were considered when formulating preferences and shared decision making in the guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The VA/DOD LBP CPG provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostic approach, education and self-care, non-pharmacologic and non-invasive therapy, pharmacologic therapy, dietary supplements, non-surgical invasive therapy, and team approach to treatment of low back pain.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and sub-acute mechanical non-specific low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Acute LBP usually has a good prognosis, with rapid improvement within the first 6 weeks. However, the majority of patients develop chronic LBP and suffer from recurrences. For clinical management, a plethora of treatments is currently available but evidence of the most effective options is lacking. The objective of this study will be to identify the most effective interventions to relieve pain and reduce disability in acute and sub-acute non-specific LBP.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) from inception onwards. The eligible population will be individuals with non-specific LBP older than 18 years, both males and females, who experience pain less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute). Eligible interventions and comparators will include all conservative rehabilitation or pharmacological treatments provided by any health professional; the only eligible study design will be a randomized controlled trial. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and back-specific functional status. Secondary outcomes will be any adverse events. Studies published in languages other than English will also potentially be included. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts retrieved from a literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. General characteristics, potential effect modifiers, and outcome data will be extracted from the included studies, and the risk of bias will be appraised. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussions. After describing the results of the review, if appropriate, a random effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis will be conducted in a frequentist setting, assuming equal heterogeneity across all treatment comparisons and accounting for correlations induced by multi-arm studies using a multivariate normal model.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review will address the uncertainties in the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments, and their relative efficacy, for acute and subacute LBP. These findings will be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018102527.

Moderate and Stable Pain Reductions as a Result of Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation-A Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP)

Few studies have investigated the real-life outcomes of interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation programs (IMMRP) for chronic pain. This study has four aims: investigate effect sizes (ES); analyse correlation patterns of outcome changes; define a multivariate outcome measure; and investigate whether the clinical self-reported presentation pre-IMMRP predicts the multivariate outcome. To this end, this study analysed chronic pain patients in specialist care included in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation for 22 outcomes (pain, psychological distress, participation, and health) on three occasions: pre-IMMRP, post-IMMRP, and 12-month follow-up. Moderate stable ES were demonstrated for pain intensity, interference in daily life, vitality, and health; most other outcomes showed small ES. Using a Multivariate Improvement Score (MIS), we identified three clusters. Cluster 1 had marked positive MIS and was associated with the overall worst situation pre-IMMRP. However, the pre-IMMRP situation could only predict 8% of the variation in MIS. Specialist care IMPRPs showed moderate ES for pain, interference, vitality, and health. Outcomes were best for patients with the worst clinical presentation pre-IMMRP. It was not possible to predict who would clinically benefit most from IMMRP.

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

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

The importance of emotional distress, cognitive behavioural factors and pain for life impact at baseline and for outcomes after rehabilitation – a SQRP study of more than 20,000 chronic pain patients

Background and aims

Although literature concerning chronic pain patients indicates that cognitive behavioural variables, specifically acceptance and fear of movement/(re)injury, are related to life impact, the relative roles of these factors in relation to pain characteristics (e.g. intensity and spreading) and emotional distress are unclear. Moreover, how these variables affect rehabilitation outcomes in different subgroups is insufficiently understood. This study has two aims: (1) to investigate how pain, cognitive behavioural, and emotional distress variables intercorrelate and whether these variables can regress aspects of life impact and (2) to analyse whether these variables can be used to identify clinically meaningful subgroups at baseline and which subgroups benefit most from multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRP) immediately after and at 12-month follow-up.

Methods

Pain aspects, background variables, psychological distress, cognitive behavioural variables, and two life impact variables were obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP) for chronic pain patients. These data were analysed mainly using advanced multivariate methods.

Results

The study includes 22,406 chronic pain patients. Many variables, including acceptance variables, showed important contributions to the variation in clinical presentations and in life impacts. Based on the statistically important variables considering the clinical presentation, three clusters/subgroups of patients were identified at baseline; from the worst clinical situation to the relatively good situation. These clusters showed significant differences in outcomes after participating in MMRP; the subgroup with the worst situation at baseline showed the most significant improvements.

Conclusions

Pain intensity/severity, emotional distress, acceptance, and life impacts were important for the clinical presentation and were used to identify three clusters with marked differences at baseline (i.e. before MMRP). Life impacts showed complex relationships with acceptance, pain intensity/severity, and emotional distress. The most significant improvements after MMRP were seen in the subgroup with the lowest level of functioning before treatment, indicating that patients with complex problems should be offered MMRP.

Implications

This study emphasizes the need to adopt a biopsychosocial perspective when assessing patients with chronic pain. Patients with chronic pain referred to specialist clinics are not homogenous in their clinical presentation. Instead we identified three distinct subgroups of patients. The outcomes of MMRP appears to be related to the clinical presentation. Thus, patients with the most severe clinical presentation show the most prominent improvements. However, even though this group of patients improve they still after MMRP show a complex situation and there is thus a need for optimizing the content of MMRP for these patients. The subgroup of patients with a relatively good situation with respect to pain, psychological distress, coping and life impact only showed minor improvements after MMRP. Hence, there is a need to develop other complex interventions for them.

Tapentadol in the treatment of osteoarthritis: pharmacological rationale and clinical evidence

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent joint disease in older people worldwide. Pain owing to OA is considered one of the most frequent causes of chronic pain; however, current pharmacological approaches have some limitations in terms of efficacy and safety. Of note, descending inhibitory pain pathways are often disrupted in chronic OA pain, and pharmacotherapies targeting those pathways – eg, those that block norepinephrine reuptake may be more appropriate for managing chronic pain than pure μ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists. Tapentadol is an analgesic molecule, which combines two synergistic mechanisms of action, MOR, and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. This narrative review will briefly discuss the mechanisms contributing to the onset and maintenance of pain in OA patients; clinical data on the use of tapentadol in this setting will then be presented and commented.

Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews of exercise therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain using the AMSTAR 2 tool.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro and CINAHL was searched up to February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that investigated exercise therapy in patients with low back pain. AMSTAR 2 assessment was performed by pairs of reviewers, and the overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews were rated as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' and 'Critically low'. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the characteristics of included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2 and the overall confidence in the results were tabulated.

RESULTS

The search identified 38 systematic reviews. Most of the reviews included a median of 10 clinical trials and total sample size of 813 participants per review. Five of 38 (13%) reviews were Cochrane reviews, and 8 (21%) systematic reviews had a protocol published or registered prospectively. The overall confidence in the results of 28 reviews (74%) was rated as 'Critically low', 6 (16%) as 'Low', 1 (2%) as Moderate, while 3 of 38 reviews (8%) were rated as 'High'.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate very low confidence in the results of most systematic reviews of exercise in chronic non-specific low back pain. Clinicians are more likely to deliver the most efficacious interventions to patients by critically appraising systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 before making their decisions.

What decreases low back pain? A qualitative study of patient perspectives

Background and aims

This study aimed to determine, from the perspective of individuals living with the condition, what decreases their low back pain (LBP). LBP affects most people at some point during their life. The condition has a meaningful effect on people’s lives including pain, reduced physical and social function, mood fluctuations, and a reduced ability to work. Despite a considerable amount of research on the topic, few strategies to reduce LBP are considered successful, and there has been little investigation into what individuals with the condition believe reduce it. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by investigating what individuals with the condition believe reduces their LBP.

Methods

We employed a descriptive qualitative design using a custom-built online survey. Participants were 130 adults in Australia who self-identified as having current or having had previous LBP with or without co-morbidities. Data from the survey responses were analysed using content analysis to determine which management approaches participants considered to be effective in reducing their LBP.

Results

Participants most commonly said that they believed their LBP was reduced by: heat/cold (86, 66%), medication (84, 64.1%), and rest (78, 60%). Next most common was activity/exercise (73, 55.7%). Other factors such as consulting a health professional (52, 39.7%), stretching/therapeutic exercise (50, 38.1%), resting from aggravating activities (45, 34.3%), and psychological changes (41, 31.3%) were mentioned, but considerably less often.

Conclusions

Current literature points to the inefficacy of many of the factors participants reported as helping to reduce the effects of their condition, including the treatments that were most commonly listed by the participants in this study, namely: heat/cold, medication and rest. A possible cause of this discrepancy might be that individuals with LBP consider temporary relief (on a scale of hours) to be an acceptable outcome, whereas clinical trials tend to consider efficacy by long term outcomes (on a scale of weeks, months or years).

Implications

There are several implications of this research. From one perspective, there is the implication that public education about efficacious treatments may need to be enhanced as there is a discrepancy between research findings and the perspectives of individuals living with LBP. On the other hand, these findings also suggest that it is timely to re-examine the focus of LBP research to consider outcomes that are valuable to people living with the condition, which this study implies should include short term or temporary effects. The findings may also help clinicians tailor management to suit the individual patients by increasing the awareness that patient and research perspectives may at times diverge.

Paracetamol and Pain Modulation by TRPV1, UGT2B15, SULT1A1 Genotypes: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Healthy Volunteers

Background

The influence of the genetic polymorphism of enzymes and receptors involved in paracetamol metabolism and mechanism of action has not been investigated. This trial in healthy volunteers investigated the link between paracetamol pain relief and the genetic polymorphism of 23 enzymes and receptors.

Design

This randomized double-blind crossover controlled pilot study took place in the Clinical Pharmacology Department, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Forty-seven Caucasian volunteers were recruited. The trial consisted of two randomized sessions one week apart with oral paracetamol or placebo, and pain changes were evaluated with mechanical pain stimuli. The genetic polymorphism of 23 enzymes and receptors was studied, and correlations were made with pain relief. All tests are two-sided with a type I error at 0.05.

Results

Paracetamol was antinociceptive compared with placebo (222 ± 482 kPaxmin vs 23 ± 431 kPaxmin; P = 0.0047), and the study showed 30 paracetamol responders and 17 paracetamol nonresponders. Responders were characterized by TRPV1rs224534 A allele, UGT2B15rs1902023 TT genotype, and SULT1A1rs9282861 GG genotype (P &lt; 0.05 for all). These findings confirm for the first time the involvement of a specific TRPV1 rs224534 variant in paracetamol antinociception. They also reveal a new antinociceptive role for specific variants of hepatic phase II enzymes associated with paracetamol metabolism.

Conclusions

The study warrants larger clinical trials on these potential genomic markers of paracetamol analgesia in patients. Confirmation of the present findings would open the way to effective individualized pain treatment with paracetamol, the most commonly used analgesic worldwide.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Amitriptyline for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Antidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out.

INTERVENTION

Low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.

Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress

Functional somatic syndromes (FSS), like irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia and other symptoms reflecting bodily distress, are common in practically all areas of medicine worldwide. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to these symptoms and syndromes vary substantially across and within medical specialties from biomedicine to psychiatry. Patients may become frustrated with the lack of effective treatment, doctors may experience these disorders as difficult to treat, and this type of health problem forms an important component of the global burden of disease. This review intends to develop a unifying perspective on the understanding and management of FSS and bodily distress. Firstly, we present the clinical problem and review current concepts for classification. Secondly, we propose an integrated etiological model which encompasses a wide range of biopsychosocial vulnerability and triggering factors and considers consecutive aggravating and maintaining factors. Thirdly, we systematically scrutinize the current evidence base in terms of an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 and give recommendations for treatment for all levels of care, concentrating on developments over the last 10 years. We conclude that activating, patient-involving, and centrally acting therapies appear to be more effective than passive ones that primarily act on peripheral physiology, and we recommend stepped care approaches that translate a truly biopsychosocial approach into actual management of the patient.