Efficacy and harms of orally, intramuscularly or intravenously administered glucocorticoids for sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy of naproxen in patients with sciatica: multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

ABSTRACT

This trial assessed the efficacy of naproxen in patients with sciatica in outpatient clinics across 4 Norwegian hospitals. A total of 123 adults with radiating pain below the knee (≥4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale) and signs consistent with nerve root involvement were included. Participants were randomized to receive either naproxen 500 mg or a placebo twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome, daily leg pain intensity measured on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale throughout the treatment period, revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of naproxen, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.5 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.1, P = 0.015). In the naproxen group, the treatment effect was significantly related to time, and over the whole 10-day period, the average adjusted difference was -0.6 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.5). Mean numbers needed to treat for 30% and 50% improvement were 9.9 (95% CI 4.7-15.0) and 20.7 (8.7-32.7), respectively. The adjusted mean difference for back pain was -0.4 (95% CI -0.8 to 0.0), and for Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, it was -1.5 (95% CI -3.0 to 0.0). No differences were found for sciatica bothersomeness or consumption of rescue medication or opioids. Participants in the naproxen group exhibited an adjusted odds ratio of 4.7 (95% CI 1.3-16.2) for improvement by 1 level on the global perceived change scale. In conclusion, naproxen treatment showed small, likely clinically unimportant benefits compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe sciatica.

Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.

A mixed-methods systematic review of post-viral fatigue interventions: Are there lessons for long Covid?

OBJECTIVES

Fatigue syndromes have been widely observed following post-viral infection and are being recognised because of Covid19. Interventions used to treat and manage fatigue have been widely researched and this study aims to synthesise the literature associated with fatigue interventions to investigate the outcomes that may be applicable to 'long Covid'.

METHOD

The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020214209) in October 2020 and five electronic databases were searched. Papers were screened, critically appraised and data extracted from studies that reported outcomes of fatigue interventions for post-viral syndromes. The narrative synthesis includes statistical analysis associated with effectiveness and then identifies the characteristics of the interventions, including identification of transferable learning for the treatment of fatigue in long Covid. An expert panel supported critical appraisal and data synthesis.

RESULTS

Over 7,000 research papers revealed a diverse range of interventions and fatigue outcome measures. Forty papers were selected for data extraction after final screening. The effectiveness of all interventions was assessed according to mean differences (MD) in measured fatigue severity between each experimental group and a control following the intervention, as well as standardised mean differences as an overall measure of effect size. Analyses identified a range of effects-from most effective MD -39.0 [95% CI -51.8 to -26.2] to least effective MD 42.28 [95% CI 33.23 to 51.34]-across a range of interventions implemented with people suffering varying levels of fatigue severity. Interventions were multimodal with a range of supportive therapeutic methods and varied in intensity and requirements of the participants. Those in western medical systems tended to be based on self- management and education principles (i.e., group cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that the research is highly focussed on a narrow participant demographic and relatively few methods are effective in managing fatigue symptoms. Selected literature reported complex interventions using self-rating fatigue scales that report effect. Synthesis suggests that long Covid fatigue management may be beneficial when a) physical and psychological support, is delivered in groups where people can plan their functional response to fatigue; and b) where strengthening rather than endurance is used to prevent deconditioning; and c) where fatigue is regarded in the context of an individual's lifestyle and home-based activities are used.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.

RESULTS

33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.

CONCLUSION

Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

OASIS-a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of oral glucocorticoids for leg pain in patients with acute sciatica: trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sciatica is a lower spine condition characterised by radiating leg pain below the knee. It may be accompanied by motor and sensory loss in the distribution of a spinal nerve. There are few effective treatments for sciatica. Orally administered glucocorticoids have shown some promise, however, any beneficial effects need to be confirmed and weighed against drug safety and cost-effectiveness, in a high-quality, definitive trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Oral Steroids In Sciatica (OASIS) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that will evaluate a tapering regimen of oral prednisolone in 200 participants with acute sciatica. Participants will be recruited on presentation to general practice, specialist outpatient clinics or hospital emergency departments and randomised to receive orally administered prednisolone 50 mg per day, up to 3 days then tapering to cessation over 10 days, or placebo, for a maximum of 13 days, in addition to guideline advice. Participants will be followed for 1 year. The primary endpoint will be leg pain intensity at 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include back pain intensity, disability, time to recovery, quality of life and treatment success rate. Adverse events will be assessed and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted from the Human Research Ethics Committee, The University of Sydney. Trial results will be disseminated by publications and conference presentations and via the media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619001716156.