Etoricoxib reduced pain and disability and improved quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain: a 3 month, randomized, controlled trial

Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on pain and physical function in patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Non-specific low back pain is a common and clinically significant condition with substantial socioeconomic implications. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy has shown benefits in pain reduction and improvement of physical function in patients with pain-associated disorders like osteoarthritis. However, studies had heterogeneous settings. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of PEMF on pain and function on patients with non-specific low back pain.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro was performed (from inception until 15/5/2023). Outcome measures assessed pain and function.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials with 420 participants (n = 420) were included. The studies compared PEMF vs. placebo-PEMF, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. conventional physical therapy alone, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. placebo-PEMF and conventional physical therapy, PEMF vs. high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) vs. conventional physical therapy, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and PEMF vs. PEMF alone vs. placebo-PEMF vs. OMT alone. Five of the nine included studies showed statistically significant pain reduction and improvement in physical function in comparison to their control groups (p < 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity among the groups of the study, with a wide range of duration (10-30 min), treatments per week (2-7/week), applied frequencies (3-50 Hz), and intensities (2mT-150mT). No serious adverse event had been reported in any study. The included studies showed solid methodological quality, with an overall score of 7.2 points according to the PEDro scale.

CONCLUSION

PEMF therapy seems to be a safe and beneficial treatment option for non-specific low back pain, particularly if used as an addition to conventional physical therapy modalities. Future research should focus on standardized settings including assessment methods, treatment regimens, frequencies, and intensities.

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

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

Mawangdui-Guidance Qigong Exercise for patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Worldwide, there is a high frequency of chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP), which is a significant public health concern. The etiology is complicated and diverse, and it includes a number of risk factors such as diminished stability and weak core muscles. Mawangdui-Guidance Qigong has been employed extensively to bolster the body in China for countless years. However, the effectiveness of treating CNLBP has not been assessed by a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In order to verify the results of the Mawangdui-Guidance Qigong Exercise and examine its biomechanical mechanism, we intend to perform a randomized controlled trial.

Methods and analysis

Over the course of 4 weeks, 84 individuals with CNLBP will be randomly assigned to receive either Mawangdui-Guidance Qigong Exercise, motor control exercise, or medication (celecoxib). Electromyographic data, including muscle activation time, iEMGs, root mean square value (RMS) and median frequency (MF), will be the main outcomes. The Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) Score, the Mcgill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), beta-endorphin, and substance P are examples of secondary outcomes. At the start of treatment and 4 weeks later, all outcomes will be evaluated. SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) will be used for all of the analysis.

Discussion

The prospective findings are anticipated to offer an alternative treatment for CNLBP and provide a possible explanation of the mechanism of Mawangdui-Guidance Qigong Exercise on CNLBP.

Ethics and dissemination

The Sichuan Regional Ethics Review Committee on Traditional Chinese Medicine has given the study approval (Approval No. 2020KL-067). It has also registered at the website of China Clinical Trial Center Registration. The application adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki’s tenets (Version Edinburgh 2000). Peer-reviewed papers will be used to publicize the trial’s findings.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier ChiCTR2000041080.

Results of ELBRUS clinical non-interventional study

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

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

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

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

Prevention of taxane-associated acute pain syndrome with etoricoxib for patients with breast cancer: A phase II randomised trial

BACKGROUND

For patients with breast cancer who receive docetaxel chemotherapy, taxane-associated acute pain syndrome (T-APS), considered a form of neural pathology, is a significant clinical problem. We evaluated the effect of prophylactic etoricoxib on T-APS in patients with breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a phase II randomised trial including 144 patients with breast cancer receiving four cycles of docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomised in the ratio 1:1 to receive prophylactic etoricoxib (60 mg, Day 1 to Day 8) or no prophylactic treatment. The primary end-point was the overall incidence of T-APS across all cycles. Secondary end-points included the incidence of severe pain (greater than 5 on a scale 0-10); severity and duration of T-APS; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast subscale; chronic sensory and motor neurotoxicity and adverse events.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of T-APS across all cycles of chemotherapy in the etoricoxib group was 57.1%, while that in the control group was 91.5% (P < 0.001). The incidences of severe T-APS were 11.4% and 54.9% for the etoricoxib and control groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast subscale score of the etoricoxib group (103.79-107.24) was significantly higher than that of the control group (93.88-96.71) (P = 0.001 at cycle 1 and P < 0.001 at cycles 2-4). After four cycles of docetaxel chemotherapy, the etoricoxib group demonstrated a significantly higher mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment Neurotoxicity subscale score than the control group (38.46, 95% CI: 37.63-39.29; 34.59, 95% CI: 33.73-35.45, respectively; P < 0.001). Electromyography showed that most peripheral sensory nerves in the etoricoxib group had significantly improved action potential amplitudes and conduction velocities compared with those in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of etoricoxib could significantly reduce the incidence and severity of docetaxel-induced acute pain syndrome and potentially decrease docetaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04565600.

Is Targeting Nerve Growth Factor Antagonist a New Option for Pharmacologic Treatment of Low Back Pain? A Supplemental Network Meta-Analysis of the American College of Physicians Guidelines

Objective: It has been found that targeting nerve growth factor antagonists (ANGF) have excellent effects in the treatment of chronic pain, and the current pharmacologic treatments have very limited effects on low back pain (LBP). Thus we conducted this network meta-analysis (NMA) to study the efficacy and safety of ANGF for the treatment of LBP, and to guide for clinical practice and further research.

Method: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1980 to March 2021. A frequentist framework network meta-analysis with a random-effect model was performed. Ranking effects were calculated by surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA) and clusterank analysis.

Results: This NMA identified 30 studies, involving 9,508 patients with LBP. ANGF reported both superior effect on pain relief {SUCRA 82.1%, SMD 0.89, 95% CI [(0.26,1.51)]} and function improvement {SUCRA 77.3%, SMD 0.93, 95% CI [(0.27,1.58)]} than placebo, and did not showed any higher risk of treatment-emergent adverse effects {RR 1.11, 95% CI [(0.97,1.27)]} or serious adverse effects {RR 1.03, 95% CI [(0.54,1.97)]}, but it was associate with a special risk of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis. ANGF displayed the greatest potential to be the most effective and safest treatment (cluster-rank value for function improvement and safety: 4266.96, for pain relief and safety: 4531.92).

Conclusion: ANGF could relieve pain and improve function effectively and are superior to other traditional drugs recommended by guidelines. Although no significant difference in tolerability and safety between ANGFs and placebo was found, the rapid progression of original osteoarthritis which may be related to the use of ANGFs still needs special attention and furtherly verification by clinical trials.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42021258033].

Applications of Functionalized Hydrogels in the Regeneration of the Intervertebral Disc

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is caused by genetics, aging, and environmental factors and is one of the leading causes of low back pain. The treatment of IDD presents many challenges. Hydrogels are biomaterials that possess properties similar to those of the natural extracellular matrix and have significant potential in the field of regenerative medicine. Hydrogels with various functional qualities have recently been used to repair and regenerate diseased intervertebral discs. Here, we review the mechanisms of intervertebral disc homeostasis and degeneration and then discuss the applications of hydrogel-mediated repair and intervertebral disc regeneration. The classification of artificial hydrogels and natural hydrogels is then briefly introduced, followed by an update on the development of functional hydrogels, which include noncellular therapeutic hydrogels, cellular therapeutic hydrogel scaffolds, responsive hydrogels, and multifunctional hydrogels. The challenges faced and future developments of the hydrogels used in IDD are discussed as they further promote their clinical translation.

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.

Measuring the impact of chronic low back pain on everyday functioning: content validity of the Roland Morris disability questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Robust outcome measures are needed to assess and monitor the impact of chronic low back pain (CLBP) on physical functioning. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is a well-established measure designed to capture the impacts of back pain on everyday functioning, with a particular emphasis on physical functioning. It has documented evaluation of psychometric properties. However, there is no documented qualitative evidence to confirm the content validity of the tool, nor have changes made for electronic administration been debriefed in participants with CLBP.

METHODS

In-depth, semi-structured, concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 23 US participants with confirmed CLBP. Interviews allowed participants to describe the impact of CLBP on their day-to-day functioning and discuss comprehension and suitability of the RMDQ. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing revealed the substantial burden associated with CLBP, highlighting 15 key areas of functional impact. These were grouped into overarching themes of mobility (walking, stairs, sitting/standing, bending/kneeling, lifting, lying down), activities (chores/housework, dressing, washing, driving, work) and other (relationships/socializing, mood, sleep, appetite), which are consistent with those evaluated within the RMDQ. All participants found the RMDQ to be relevant with most reporting that the instructions, recall period, and response options were suitable. A few suggested minor changes, however, none were consistent or necessary to support content validity. Updates to the measure for electronic administration and to clarify the response options were well received.

CONCLUSION

The qualitative data from individuals with CLBP confirmed that the RMDQ has content validity and, alongside documented psychometric evidence, supports the use of the RMDQ as a reliable and valid tool to assess the impact of CLBP on physical functioning.

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx.

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Etoricoxib Facilitates the Application of Individualized Exercise Programs in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis

Background and objectives: The main objective of this study is to highlight the efficiency of different therapeutic means in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, resulting in the improvement of their quality of life. Materials and Methods: We conducted a randomized, longitudinal, controlled trial on 92 patients with ankylosing spondylitis over a period of 6 years. Disease activity was assessed using the BASDAI (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index) score. The assessment of functional disabilities was performed using BASFI (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index). We assessed the quality of life using the HAQ questionnaire (Health Assessment Questionnaire). Based on the HAQ, we calculated the minimum number of patients to be treated for 52 weeks to prevent a decrease in the quality of life for at least one of them (the number needed to treat (NNT)). Results: For the combination therapy group, the result we obtained was 2, lower than the other therapies compared (the medication group and the group with physical exercise). We point out a correlation between the improvement of the functional status (BASFI) and the increase of the quality of life (HAQ), estimated as moderately high (0.8). The superiority of the effects of the combined treatment, in which we combined a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (etoricoxib) to the exercise program, is reflected by the model of the significant improvements (p < 0.05) obtained for the functional status and quality of life scores (BASFI and HAQ). Conclusions: The nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, in our case, etoricoxib, facilitate the application of individualized exercise programs in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

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

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

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While it is now clear that paracetamol is ineffective for spinal pain, there is not consensus on the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for this condition. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for spinal pain.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and LILACS for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs with placebo for spinal pain. Reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A between-group difference of 10 points (on a 0-100 scale) was used for pain and disability as the smallest worthwhile effect, as well as to calculate numbers needed to treat. Random-effects models were used to calculate mean differences or risk ratios with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

We included 35 randomised placebo-controlled trials. NSAIDs reduced pain and disability, but provided clinically unimportant effects over placebo. Six participants (95% CI 4 to 10) needed to be treated with NSAIDs, rather than placebo, for one additional participant to achieve clinically important pain reduction. When looking at different types of spinal pain, outcomes or time points, in only 3 of the 14 analyses were the pooled treatment effects marginally above our threshold for clinical importance. NSAIDs increased the risk of gastrointestinal reactions by 2.5 times (95% CI 1.2 to 5.2), although the median duration of included trials was 7 days.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs are effective for spinal pain, but the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between the intervention and placebo groups is not clinically important. At present, there are no simple analgesics that provide clinically important effects for spinal pain over placebo. There is an urgent need to develop new drug therapies for this condition.

Efficacy of Pulsed Electromagnetic Therapy for Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial studied the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic therapy (PEMT) in patients with chronic lower back pain. Active PEMT ( n = 17) or placebo treatment ( n = 19) was performed three times a week for 3 weeks. Patients were assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS) and revised Oswestry disability scores for 4 weeks after therapy. PEMT produced significant pain reduction throughout the observation period compared with baseline values. The percentage change in the NRS score from baseline was significantly greater in the PEMT group than the placebo group at all three time-points measured. The mean revised Oswestry disability percentage after 4 weeks was significantly improved from the baseline value in the PEMT group, whereas there were no significant differences in the placebo group. In conclusion, PEMT reduced pain and disability and appears to be a potentially useful therapeutic tool for the conservative management of chronic lower back pain.

Paracetamol for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of physical therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis

Background

Physical therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE) often comprises movement therapies, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ECSWT), low level laser therapy (LLLT), low frequency electrical stimulation or pulsed electromagnetic fields. Still, only ECSWT and LLLT have been meta-analytically researched.

Methods

PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methodological quality of each study was rated with an adapted version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist. Pain reduction (the difference between treatment and control groups at the end of trials) and pain relief (the change in pain from baseline to the end of trials) were calculated with mean differences (MD) and 95 %-Confidence intervals (95 % CI).

Results

One thousand one hundred thirty eight studies were identified. One thousand seventy of those did not meet inclusion criteria. After full articles were retrieved 16 studies met inclusion criteria and 12 studies reported comparable outcome variables. Analyses were conducted for overall pain relief, pain relief during maximum handgrip strength tests, and maximum handgrip strength. There were not enough studies to conduct an analysis of physical function or other outcome variables.

Conclusions

Differences between treatment and control groups were larger than differences between treatments. Control group gains were 50 to 66 % as high as treatment group gains. Still, only treatment groups with their combination of therapy specific and non-therapy specific factors reliably met criteria for clinical relevance. Results are discussed with respect to stability and their potential meaning for the use of non-therapy specific agents to optimize patients’ gain.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0665-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Biocompatibility and intradiscal application of a thermoreversible celecoxib-loaded poly-N-isopropylacrylamide MgFe-layered double hydroxide hydrogel in a canine model

Introduction

Chronic low back pain due to intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is associated with increased levels of inflammatory mediators. Current medical treatment consists of oral anti-inflammatory drugs to alleviate pain. In this study, the efficacy and safety of a novel thermoreversible poly-N-isopropylacrylamide MgFe-layered double hydroxide (pNIPAAM MgFe-LDH) hydrogel was evaluated for intradiscal controlled delivery of the selective cyclooxygenase (COX) 2 inhibitor and anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib (CXB).

Methods

Degradation, release behavior, and the ability of a CXB-loaded pNIPAAM MgFe-LDH hydrogel to suppress prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) levels in a controlled manner in the presence of a proinflammatory stimulus (TNF-α) were evaluated in vitro. Biocompatibility was evaluated histologically after subcutaneous injection in mice. Safety of intradiscal application of the loaded and unloaded hydrogels was studied in a canine model of spontaneous mild IVD degeneration by histological, biomolecular, and biochemical evaluation. After the hydrogel was shown to be biocompatible and safe, an in vivo dose–response study was performed in order to determine safety and efficacy of the pNIPAAM MgFe-LDH hydrogel for intradiscal controlled delivery of CXB.

Results

CXB release correlated to hydrogel degradation in vitro. Furthermore, controlled release from CXB-loaded hydrogels was demonstrated to suppress PGE₂ levels in the presence of TNF-α. The hydrogel was shown to exhibit a good biocompatibility upon subcutaneous injection in mice. Upon intradiscal injection in a canine model, the hydrogel exhibited excellent biocompatibility based on histological evaluation of the treated IVDs. Gene expression and biochemical analyses supported the finding that no substantial negative effects of the hydrogel were observed. Safety of application was further confirmed by the absence of clinical symptoms, IVD herniation or progression of degeneration. Controlled release of CXB resulted in a nonsignificant maximal inhibition (approximately 35 %) of PGE₂ levels in the mildly degenerated canine IVDs.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study showed biocompatibility and safe intradiscal application of an MgFe LDH-pNIPAAM hydrogel. Controlled release of CXB resulted in only limited inhibition of PGE₂ in this model with mild IVD degeneration, and further studies should concentrate on application of controlled release from this type of hydrogel in animal models with more severe IVD degeneration.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0727-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Deep tissue massage and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether chronic low back pain therapy with deep tissue massage (DTM) gives similar results to combined therapy consisting of DTM and non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID).

DESIGN

Prospective controlled randomized single blinded trial.

SETTINGS

Ambulatory care of rehabilitation.

PARTICIPANTS

59 patients, age 51.8 ± 9.0 years, with chronic low back pain. Interventions. 2 weeks of DTM in the treatment group (TG) versus 2 weeks of DTM combined with NSAID in the control group (CG).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analogue scale, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Roland-Morris questionnaire (RM).

RESULTS

In both the TG and the CG, a significant pain reduction and function improvement were observed. VAS decreased from 58.3 ± 18.2 to 42.2 ± 21.1 (TG) and from 51.8 ± 18.8 to 30.6 ± 21.9 (CG). RM value decreased from 9.8 ± 5.1 to 6.4 ± 4.4 (TG), and from 9.3 ± 5.5 to 6.1 ± 4.6 (CG). ODI value decreased from 29.2 ± 17.3 to 21.4 ± 15.1 (TG) and from 21.4 ± 9.4 to 16.6 ± 9.4 (CG). All pre-post-treatment differences were significant; however, there was no significant difference between the TG and the CG.

CONCLUSION

DTM had a positive effect on reducing pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Concurrent use of DTM and NSAID contributed to low back pain reduction in a similar degree that the DTM did.

Predicting transition to chronic pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most individuals who develop pain following an inciting event will return to a healthy state as the injury heals. However, a small percentage continue to suffer, that is, transition to chronic pain. Chronic pain may persist for years and is accompanied by cognitive abnormalities, as well as diminished quality of life. In animals, persistent pain is characterized by peripheral and spinal cord reorganization, and recent evidence in humans also indicates cortical reorganization. Yet, despite more than 30 years of research, there is little agreement on the neural mechanisms that mediate the transition from acute to chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a longitudinal brain-imaging study, individuals who developed an intense back pain episode were followed over a 1-year period, during which pain and brain parameters were collected repeatedly. A smaller number of healthy individuals and chronic back pain patients were also studied concomitantly, as positive and negative controls. At the time of entry into the study, strength of synchrony between the medial prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens (i.e. functional connectivity) was predictive (>80% accuracy) of individuals who subsequently transition to chronicity 1 year later.

SUMMARY

Properties of the brain's emotional learning circuitry predict the transition to chronic pain. The involvement of this circuitry in pain remains mostly unexplored. Future human and animal model studies are necessary to unravel underlying mechanisms driving pain chronicity, with the potential of advancing novel therapeutics for preventing pain chronification.

Efficacy of duloxetine versus alternative oral therapies: an indirect comparison of randomised clinical trials in chronic low back pain

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to obtain parameter estimates for the efficacy of duloxetine versus alternative oral therapies for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Studies reporting pain intensity, with parallel-group design of oral treatments with length of treatment of more than 8 weeks were included. A Bayesian approach to indirect comparisons was applied, using standardised mean difference as a measure of relative treatment effect.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified comparing duloxetine with the following oral drug classes: non-scheduled opioids, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, scheduled opioids, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and 'other' (i.e. glucosamine). The primary analysis found scheduled opioids to be more effective than duloxetine for the fixed effects model. However, the estimate of the treatment difference reflected a less than small magnitude of effect (|standardised mean difference| <0.2), and there was no difference for the random effects model. No differences were found in sensitivity analyses involving the subset of patients not receiving concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence shows that there does not seem to be any difference in efficacy between duloxetine and other oral pharmacological therapies, providing a valuable alternative for this disabling condition.

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a Quebec societal perspective

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness model from a Quebec societal perspective using meta-analyses of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared with other post-first-line oral medications.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Duloxetine has recently received a CLBP indication in Canada. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine and other oral medications has not previously been evaluated for CLBP.

METHODS

A Markov model was created on the basis of the economic model documented in the 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Treatment-specific utilities were estimated via a meta-analysis of CLBP clinical trials and a transfer-to-utility regression estimated from duloxetine CLBP trial data. Adverse event rates of comparator treatments were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated by a meta-analysis of clinical trials in osteoarthritis using a maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were developed primarily from Quebec and Ontario public sources as well as the published literature and expert opinion. The 6 comparators were celecoxib, naproxen, amitriptyline, pregabalin, hydromorphone, and oxycodone. Subgroup analyses and 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case, naproxen, celecoxib, and duloxetine were on the cost-effectiveness frontier, with naproxen the least expensive medication, celecoxib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,881, and duloxetine with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $43,437. Other comparators were dominated. Key drivers included the rates of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events and proton pump inhibitor usage. In subgroup analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for duloxetine fell to $21,567 for a population 65 years or older and to $18,726 for a population at higher risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The model estimates that duloxetine is a moderately cost-effective treatment for CLBP, becoming more cost-effective for populations older than 65 years or at greater risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

An examination of the observed placebo effect associated with the treatment of low back pain - a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the nonspecific effects that occur following the use of sham interventions to treat nonspecific low back pain (LBP) are large enough to be considered clinically meaningful.

DESIGN

Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomized placebo-controlled trials of interventions for LBP that used sham ultrasound, sham laser or sham drug therapy as the placebo control. Study selection was accomplished via independent evaluation of scientific admissibility by three reviewers and final decisions of inclusion were based on consensus.

RESULTS

None of the studies using sham ultrasound as the placebo control in the treatment of LBP were acceptable for inclusion. Twelve studies were included in the present evaluation of the placebo effect - eight trials that met the strict inclusion criteria for best evidence (three using sham laser placebo and five using sham medication placebo) and four sham medication studies that 'just missed' the inclusion criteria for best evidence. Although the evidence from studies using sham laser was inconclusive, the present review did find a clinically meaningful change in LBP scores following the use of sham oral medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present best-evidence review found a clinically meaningful change in pain scores following the use of sham oral medications for the treatment of nonspecific LBP. This finding suggests that further clinical research is warranted to identify which patient subgroups could benefit most from such treatment and to distinguish the true contribution of the placebo effect from other nonspecific effects.

Towards a theory of chronic pain

In this review, we integrate recent human and animal studies from the viewpoint of chronic pain. First, we briefly review the impact of chronic pain on society and address current pitfalls of its definition and clinical management. Second, we examine pain mechanisms via nociceptive information transmission cephalad and its impact and interaction with the cortex. Third, we present recent discoveries on the active role of the cortex in chronic pain, with findings indicating that the human cortex continuously reorganizes as it lives in chronic pain. We also introduce data emphasizing that distinct chronic pain conditions impact on the cortex in unique patterns. Fourth, animal studies regarding nociceptive transmission, recent evidence for supraspinal reorganization during pain, the necessity of descending modulation for maintenance of neuropathic behavior, and the impact of cortical manipulations on neuropathic pain is also reviewed. We further expound on the notion that chronic pain can be reformulated within the context of learning and memory, and demonstrate the relevance of the idea in the design of novel pharmacotherapies. Lastly, we integrate the human and animal data into a unified working model outlining the mechanism by which acute pain transitions into a chronic state. It incorporates knowledge of underlying brain structures and their reorganization, and also includes specific variations as a function of pain persistence and injury type, thereby providing mechanistic descriptions of several unique chronic pain conditions within a single model.

Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Estimates of treatment effects reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials are less subject to bias than those estimates provided by other study designs. The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for eligible trials from earliest records to November 2006. Continuous pain outcomes were converted to a common 0-100 scale and pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 76 trials reporting on 34 treatments were included. Fifty percent of the investigated treatments had statistically significant effects, but for most the effects were small or moderate: 47% had point estimates of effects of <10 points on the 100-point scale, 38% had point estimates from 10 to 20 points and 15% had point estimates of >20 points. Treatments reported to have large effects (>20 points) had been investigated only in a single trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that the analgesic effects of many treatments for non-specific low back pain are small and that they do not differ in populations with acute or chronic symptoms.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN AND METHODS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE: Sleepiness, Sleeplessness, and Pain in End-Stage Renal Disease: Distressing Symptoms for Patients

Symptoms are increasingly recognized as problematic for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with dialysis. Sleep disorders are common in ESRD patients treated with dialysis and are associated with patients' perceptions of quality of life, assessed by diverse measures, as well as depressive affect. Sleep disorders appear to be equally prevalent in peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) patients. Treatment for sleep disorders in dialysis patients depends on establishing the diagnosis, often in a sleep laboratory, using polysomnography. Reversing coexistent medical and psychological disorders is important. The sleep apnea syndrome (SAS) can be treated with continuous positive airway pressure in dialysis patients, but conventional hemodialytic techniques have little effect on its severity. In contrast, nocturnal HD and transplantation appear to have important beneficial effects on sleep disordered breathing in ESRD patients. Although pain has been appreciated as a problem for ESRD patients for more than 20 years, few studies exist on this subject. Pain appears to be an underappreciated problem for ESRD patients. More research must be performed on the problem of pain in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

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

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature

The placebo is an important tool to blind patients to treatment allocation and therefore minimise some sources of bias in clinical trials. However, placebos that are improperly designed or implemented may introduce bias into trials. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the adequacy of placebo interventions used in low back pain trials. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomised placebo-controlled trials of conservative interventions for low back pain. Trial selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of 126 trials using over 25 different placebo interventions were included. The strategy most commonly used to enhance blinding was the provision of structurally equivalent placebos. Adequacy of blinding was assessed in only 13% of trials. In 20% of trials the placebo intervention was a potentially genuine treatment. Most trials that assessed patients' expectations showed that the placebo generated lower expectations than the experimental intervention. Taken together, these results demonstrate that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials; a result suggesting that many trials provide potentially biased estimates of treatment efficacy. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials. Implementation of strategies to facilitate blinding and balance expectations in randomised groups need a higher priority in low back pain research.

Correlation of measures of pain, function, and overall response: results pooled from two identical studies of etoricoxib in chronic low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Assessment of correlation of measures of low back pain (LBP) using data pooled from 2 identical studies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative responsiveness of and correlation between various measures of LBP, including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the LBP intensity (LBPI) visual analog scale (VAS), and patient's global assessment of response to therapy (PGART).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Several tools are available to measure pain, functional limitation, and response to therapy for LBP. Studies have shown varying degrees of responsiveness and correlation.

METHODS

This was a pooled subgroup analysis of patients with chronic LBP from 2 identical studies comparing etoricoxib 60 mg, 90 mg, and placebo. LBP was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks as measured by RMDQ, LBPI VAS, and PGART. Correlation was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The correlation (r) between LBPI and RMDQ changes ranged from 0.657 and 0.703; correlations between LBPI and PGART changes ranged from 0.677 and 0.738. Cutpoints separating responders from nonresponders for all 3 measures fell near the 66.7th percentile of response and were consistent with minimal clinically significant changes identified in the literature.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the RMDQ, LBPI VAS, and PGART showed a high degree of correlation in measuring response to therapy in LBP, suggesting clinicians may be able to simplify assessments.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low-back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the effects of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of non-specific low-back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in non-specific low-back pain with or without sciatica were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, and simple analgesics

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing amongst available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Clinical use and pharmacological properties of selective COX-2 inhibitors

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

Effect sizes of non-surgical treatments of non-specific low-back pain

Numerous randomized trials have been published investigating the effectiveness of treatments for non-specific low-back pain (LBP) either by trials comparing interventions with a no-treatment group or comparing different interventions. In trials comparing two interventions, often no differences are found and it raises questions about the basic benefit of each treatment. To estimate the effect sizes of treatments for non-specific LBP compared to no-treatment comparison groups, we searched for randomized controlled trials from systematic reviews of treatment of non-specific LBP in the latest issue of the Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2005 and available databases until December 2005. Extracted data were effect sizes estimated as Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) and Relative Risk (RR) or data enabling calculation of effect sizes. For acute LBP, the effect size of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and manipulation were only modest (ES: 0.51 and 0.40, respectively) and there was no effect of exercise (ES: 0.07). For chronic LBP, acupuncture, behavioral therapy, exercise therapy, and NSAIDs had the largest effect sizes (SMD: 0.61, 0.57, and 0.52, and RR: 0.61, respectively), all with only a modest effect. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation and manipulation had small effect sizes (SMD: 0.22 and 0.35, respectively). As a conclusion, the effect of treatments for LBP is only small to moderate. Therefore, there is a dire need for developing more effective interventions.

Pooled analysis of thrombotic cardiovascular events in clinical trials of the COX-2 selective Inhibitor etoricoxib

BACKGROUND

A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials data was performed to compare the rate of thrombotic cardiovascular events (thrombotic events) in patients taking the COX-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) etoricoxib, a traditional NSAID, or placebo.

METHODS

Data collected during all phase IIb/III etoricoxib clinical trials > or = 4 weeks in duration were evaluated. The pooled data set includes clinical information from approximately 6500 patient-years (PYs) of drug exposure in patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or chronic low back pain (CLBP). Patients were treated with either etoricoxib (> or = 60 mg/day), the traditional NSAIDs naproxen (1000 mg/day), ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), diclofenac (150 mg/day), or placebo. The Relative risks (RRs) based on time to first occurrence of a thrombotic event in the etoricoxib group versus the comparator traditional NSAIDs or versus placebo were determined using patient-level data.

RESULTS

In the pooled dataset, a total of 74 thrombotic events occurred in 69 patients. The RRs for thrombotic events were 1.11 (95%CI: 0.32, 3.81) for etoricoxib (N = 2818) versus placebo (N = 1767); 0.83 (95%CI: 0.26, 2.64) for etoricoxib (N = 1266) versus the combined non-naproxen traditional NSAID group (ibuprofen and diclofenac; N = 718); and 1.70 (95%CI: 0.91, 3.18) for etoricoxib (N = 1960) versus naproxen (N = 1497).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no discernible difference in the incidence of thrombotic events in patients treated with etoricoxib versus non-naproxen traditional NSAIDs in this limited dataset. A trend toward more events with etoricoxib versus naproxen was observed. Despite the limited dataset available for this pooled analysis, these results are consistent with findings for other coxibs.

Do selective COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of cerebrovascular events? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk of cerebrovascular events (CVEs) associated with selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs).

METHOD

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A fixed-effect model was used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for risk of CVE associated with coxibs compared against placebo, non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other coxibs.

RESULTS

Forty trials (88 116 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled OR for CVE for any coxib against placebo was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.50). Comparing individual coxibs against placebo, we found that celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib and lumiracoxib were associated with higher CVE risks and valdecoxib was associated with a lower CVE risk, although there were no significant differences detected. There was also no significant difference in risk of CVE when comparing coxibs against any non-selective NSAIDs; the corresponding pooled OR was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.16).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of a detailed analysis of available RCTs, there does not appear to be any significant difference in risk of CVEs associated with coxibs when compared against placebo or non-selective NSAIDs. It is likely that the increased risk of thrombotic vascular events associated with coxibs is largely attributable to an increased risk of myocardial infarction, rather than CVEs.

Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review

At present, there is an increasing international trend towards evidence-based health care. The field of low back pain (LBP) research in primary care is an excellent example of evidence-based health care because there is a huge body of evidence from randomized trials. These trials have been summarized in a large number of systematic reviews. This paper summarizes the best available evidence from systematic reviews conducted within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group on non-invasive treatments for non-specific LBP. Data were gathered from the latest Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. The Cochrane reviews were updated with additional trials, if available. Traditional NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, and advice to stay active are effective for short-term pain relief in acute LBP. Advice to stay active is also effective for long-term improvement of function in acute LBP. In chronic LBP, various interventions are effective for short-term pain relief, i.e. antidepressants, COX2 inhibitors, back schools, progressive relaxation, cognitive-respondent treatment, exercise therapy, and intensive multidisciplinary treatment. Several treatments are also effective for short-term improvement of function in chronic LBP, namely COX2 inhibitors, back schools, progressive relaxation, exercise therapy, and multidisciplinary treatment. There is no evidence that any of these interventions provides long-term effects on pain and function. Also, many trials showed methodological weaknesses, effects are compared to placebo, no treatment or waiting list controls, and effect sizes are small. Future trials should meet current quality standards and have adequate sample size.

Systematic review: coxibs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or no cyclooxygenase inhibitors in gastroenterological high-risk patients?

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been marketed as alternatives of conventional, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with the purpose of reducing/eliminating the risk of ulcer complications. Unexpectedly, randomized-controlled trials revealed that long-term use of coxibs, such as rofecoxib, significantly increased the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, while the use of valdecoxib was associated with potentially life-threatening skin reactions. Subsequently, rofecoxib and valdecoxib were withdrawn from the market. Although more strict precautions for other coxibs, such as celecoxib, etoricoxib, lumiracoxib and parecoxib, may be accepted/recommended by regulatory agencies, a critical review of published data suggests that their use may not be justified - even in high-risk patients - taking benefits, costs and risks into consideration. Clinicians should, therefore, never prescribe coxibs to patients with cardiovascular risk factors, and should only reluctantly prescribe coxibs to patients with a history of ulcer disease or dyspepsia to overcome persistent pain due to, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Instead, they should consider using conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in combination with a proton pump inhibitor or a prostaglandin analogue, especially for patients with increased cardiovascular risks, i.e. established ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and/or peripheral arterial disease, or alternatively acetaminophen. An evidence-based algorithm for treatment of a chronic arthritis patient with one or more gastrointestinal risk factors is presented.