A double-blind controlled trial of a single dose naproxen and an amino acid medical food theramine for the treatment of low back pain

Predictors of success of pharmacological management in patients with chronic lower back pain: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conservative management is recommended as the first therapeutic step in chronic low back pain (LBP), but there is no available evidence regarding the possible effect of patients' baseline characteristics on the therapeutic outcomes. A systematic review of the literature was performed to investigate this point.

METHODS

In February 2024, all the level I studies investigating the role of pharmacological management for chronic LBP were accessed. Data concerning the patient demographic at baseline were collected: number of patients and related mean BMI and age, duration of the symptoms, duration of the follow-up, percentage of females, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The outcomes at the last follow-up were evaluated through NRS, RMQ, and ODI. A multiple linear model regression diagnostic through the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) was used.

RESULTS

Data from 47 articles (9007 patients) were obtained. The analysis yielded the following significant associations: age at baseline and NRS at follow-up (r = - 0.22; P = 0.04), NRS at baseline with NRS (r = 0.26; P = 0.03) and RMQ (r = - 0.58; P = 0.02) at follow-up, RMQ at baseline and the same at follow-up (r = 0.69; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Older age, higher BMI, presence of comorbidities, higher ODI and a long history of symptoms or surgical treatments do not reduce the efficacy of pharmacological management of chronic LBP. However, pharmacological therapy is not an effective option for patients with high baseline RMQ.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I systematic review of RCTs.

Between guidelines and clinical trials: evidence-based advice on the pharmacological management of non-specific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore patients' daily activities and improve their quality of life. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Pharmacological management should be considered as co-adjuvant to non-pharmacological therapy, and should be guided by the symptoms reported by the patients. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from dedicated therapy. This article provides an evidence-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

Amelioration of the hepatotoxic effects of nonsteroidal drugs using vitamin C and determination of their relationship with the lipid profile

Objective

Despite the various clinical benefits of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, their frequent and prolonged use has led to numerous health risks, including hepatotoxicity. Hepatotoxicity mediated by oxidative stress can affect the lipid profile. The objective was to investigate whether post-treatment with vitamin C can ameliorate the effects of diclofenac and naproxen in the livers of prepubertal rats and to highlight their relationship with lipid profile.

Methods

Forty prepubertal female albino rats were distributed among the control group, the diclofenac-administered group (5 mg/kg/day), and the naproxen-administered group (50 mg/kg/day). This study included two phases. In Phase 1, only five rats from each group were dissected after 21 days of oral administration to assess the hepatotoxic effects of nonsteroidal drugs. In Phase 2, five of the remaining animals in each intervention group were post-treated with 25 mg/kg/day of vitamin C for an additional 21 days. After the administration and post-treatment, serum biochemical parameters and histopathological signs were evaluated.

Results

Extreme elevation in the levels of aspartate and alanine aminotransferases was observed in the diclofenac and naproxen groups compared with those in the control (p < 0.001). In addition, the levels of high- and low-density lipoproteins were significantly impacted in these drug groups (p < 0.01, p < 0.05 respectively). Several pathological signs in the liver histology were observed in both drug groups. After post-treatment with vitamin C, noticeable amelioration of these alterations was observed. There were slightly elevation in the liver enzymes and insignificant increase and decrease in the high and low-density lipoproteins respectively.

Conclusion

Vitamin C post-treatment ameliorated the hepatotoxicity induced by diclofenac sodium and naproxen.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic lumbar pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Several pharmacological therapies have been proposed for the management of chronic low back pain (LBP), but no consensus has been reached yet.

SOURCE OF DATA

Recent published literatures identified accessing PubMed, Google scholar, Embase and Scopus.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Exploring effective conservative alternatives to the surgical intervention is of especial interest.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and gabapentinoids for chronic LBP are debated. Several clinical studies showed controversial results, and the most effective and safe class of drugs has not yet been clarified.

GROWING POINTS

The effects of selective and non-selective NSAIDs and gabapentinoids in chronic LBP are probably over-estimated.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The effect of behavioural changes, including exercise, should be explored, alone or in combination with drugs.

The pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain

INTRODUCTION

Treating chronic low back pain (LBP) can be challenging, and the most effective pharmacological therapy is controversial. The present systematic review investigated the efficacy of various pharmacological compounds to achieve pain relief and improve disability in chronic LBP patients. The present study focused on acetaminophen, amoxicillin, flupirtine, baclofen, tryciclic antidepressants (TCAs), duloxetine, topiramate, gabapentinoids, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids.

AREAS COVERED

All randomized clinical trials comparing two or more drug treatments for chronic low back pain were accessed. Studies reporting outcomes concerning patients with neurologic or mechanic, specific or aspecific low back pain with or without radiculopathy were included. LBP was considered chronic if pain had lasted more than 6 weeks. Data from 47 articles (9007 patients: mean age: 52.62 ± 7.0 years; mean BMI: 28.26 ± 2.8; mean follow-up: 3.23 ± 3.2 months) were obtained.

EXPERT OPINION

According to published level I evidence, only baclofen, duloxetine, NSAIDs, and opiates showed to improve pain and disability levels in patients with LBP. However, the patients' demographics are heterogeneous, and the results must be interpreted with caution and in the light of possible adverse events connected to the use of these drugs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A systematic review and meta-analysis of nutrition interventions for chronic noncancer pain

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact of nutrition interventions on participant reported pain severity and intensity in populations with chronic pain.

METHODS

Eight databases were systematically searched for studies that included adult populations with a chronic pain condition, a nutrition intervention and a measure of pain. Where possible, data were pooled using meta-analysis. Seventy-one studies were included, with 23 being eligible for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Studies were categorised into four groups: (i) altered overall diet with 12 of 16 studies finding a significant reduction in participant reported pain; (ii) altered specific nutrients with two of five studies reporting a significant reduction in participant reported pain; (iii) supplement-based interventions with 11 of 46 studies showing a significant reduction in pain; and (iv) fasting therapy with one of four studies reporting a significant reduction in pain. The meta-analysis found that, overall, nutrition interventions had a significant effect on pain reduction with studies testing an altered overall diet or just one nutrient having the greatest effect.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the importance and effectiveness of nutrition interventions for people who experience chronic pain.

Combination Drug Therapy for the Management of Low Back Pain and Sciatica: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Combining medicines may give greater pain relief and/or improved tolerability. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effects of combination drug therapy in patients with low back pain and/or sciatica on pain, disability, and adverse events. Databases and trial registers were searched from inception to July 27, 2017, for randomized trials of (sub)acute or chronic back pain or sciatica participants that were administered combination drug therapy compared with monotherapy or placebo. Of the 27 studies included, most combinations (21 of 23) consisted of single trials. Most combinations had no or small effect on pain and disability. A clinically important difference was found in one combination, buprenorphine plus pregabalin versus buprenorphine for chronic back pain at immediate (mean difference = -23.30; 95% confidence interval = -27.68 to -18.92) and short (mean difference = -27.60; 95% confidence interval = -31.70 to -23.50) terms; however, the quality of evidence was low. There was no statistically significant increased risk of serious adverse events. When the risk of adverse events was statistically significant, it favored monotherapy or placebo. There is no clear evidence to support any combination drug therapy for the management of low back pain and sciatica due to the limited number of studies and overall low quality of evidence. Perspective: Combining medicines may give greater pain relief and/or improved tolerability compared with single-ingredient medicines. However, the lack of studies and overall low quality of evidence limit the recommendation of combination drug therapy for the management of low back pain and sciatica.

Hepatotoxicity of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most widely used medication in several countries, including Thailand. NSAIDs have been associated with hepatic side effects; however, the frequency of these side effects is uncertain.

AIM OF THE REVIEW

To systematically review published literature on randomized, controlled trials that assessed the risk of clinically significant hepatotoxicity associated with NSAIDs.

METHODS

Searches of bibliographic databases EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were conducted up to July 30, 2016, to identify randomized controlled trials of ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, piroxicam, meloxicam, mefenamic acid, indomethacin, celecoxib, and etoricoxib in adults with any disease that provide information on hepatotoxicity outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 698 studies, 18 studies met the selection criteria. However, only 8 studies regarding three NSAIDs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, and diclofenac) demonstrated clinically significant hepatotoxic evidence based on hepatotoxicity justification criteria. Of all the hepatotoxicity events found from the above-mentioned three NSAIDs, diclofenac had the highest proportion, which ranged from 0.015 to 4.3 (×10^-2), followed by celecoxib, which ranged from 0.13 to 0.38 (×10^-2), and etoricoxib, which ranged from 0.005 to 0.930 (×10^-2).

CONCLUSION

Diclofenac had higher rates of hepatotoxic evidence compared to other NSAIDs. Hepatotoxic evidence is mostly demonstrated as aminotransferase elevation, while liver-related hospitalization or discontinuation was very low.

Reduction in Pain and Inflammation Associated With Chronic Low Back Pain With the Use of the Medical Food Theramine

Management of chronic back pain is a challenge for physicians. Although standard treatments exert a modest effect, they are associated with narcotic addiction and serious side effects from nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents. Moreover, neurotransmitter depletion from both the pain syndrome and therapy may contribute to a poor treatment outcome. Neurotransmitter deficiency may be related both to increased turnover rate and inadequate neurotransmitter precursors from the diet, particularly for essential and semi-essential amino acids. Theramine, an amino acid blend 68405-1 (AAB), is a physician-prescribed only medical food. It contains neurotransmitter precursors and systems for increasing production and preventing attenuation of neurotransmitters. A double-blind controlled study of AAB, low-dose ibuprofen, and the coadministration of the 2 agents were performed. The primary end points included the Roland Morris index and Oswestry disability scale. The cohort included 122 patients aged between 18 and 75 years. The patients were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: AAB alone, ibuprofen alone, and the coadministration of the 2 agents. In addition, C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, and plasma amino acid concentrations were measured at baseline and 28 days time points. After treatment, the Oswestry Disability Index worsened by 4.52% in the ibuprofen group, improved 41.91% in the AAB group, and improved 62.15% in the combination group. The Roland Morris Index worsened by 0.73% in the ibuprofen group, improved by 50.3% in the AAB group, and improved 63.1% in the combination group. C-reactive protein in the ibuprofen group increased by 60.1%, decreased by 47.1% in the AAB group, and decreased by 36% in the combination group. Similar changes were seen in interleukin 6. Arginine, serine, histidine, and tryptophan levels were substantially reduced before treatment in the chronic pain syndrome and increased toward normal during treatment. There was a direct correlation between improvement in amino acid concentration and treatment response. Treatment with amino acid precursors was associated with substantial improvement in chronic back pain, reduction in inflammation, and improvement in back pain correlated with increased amino acid precursors to neurotransmitters in blood.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for sciatica

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for the treatment of sciatica. A previous Cochrane review on the efficacy of NSAIDs summarised findings for acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) and sciatica. This is an update of the original review (2008) focusing on people suffering from sciatica.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in pain reduction, overall improvement, and reported side effects in people with sciatica.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches up to 24 June 2015 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and two trials registers. We searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews on the topics for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (double-blind, single-blind, and open-label) that assessed the efficacy of NSAIDs in sciatica. We included all trials that compared NSAIDs to placebo, to other NSAIDs, or to other medication. Additional interventions were allowed if there was a clear contrast for the treatment with NSAIDs in the trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. Where feasible we calculated pooled results using Review Manager 5.3. We reported pain relief outcomes using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI to report global improvement of treatment, adverse effects, and additional medication. We performed a meta-analysis if possible. We assessed level of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials reported in 9 publications (N = 1651). Only one trial out of 10 was assessed at low risk of bias. Five trials used the currently recommended daily dose for the drug, and two trials used lower daily doses available over the counter. Three trials investigated NSAIDs no longer approved for human use. The follow-up duration was short in all studies but one.Three trials (n = 918) compared the effects of NSAIDs to those of placebo on pain reduction. The pooled mean difference showed comparable pain reduction (visual analogue scale, 0 to 100) in the NSAIDs and placebo groups (MD -4.56, 95% CI -11.11 to 1.99). Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 82%), and the quality of the evidence was very low. When we excluded one trial with a short follow-up of eight hours, the mean difference further decreased (MD -0.09, 95% CI -9.89 to 9.71). Three trials (n = 753) compared NSAIDs to placebo regarding global improvement. We found low-quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo with a risk ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). One trial (n = 214) studied the effect of NSAIDs on disability, finding very low-quality evidence that NSAIDs are no more effective than placebo on disability. Four trials (n = 967) comparing NSAIDs to placebo reported adverse effects, with low-quality evidence that the risk for adverse effects is higher in the NSAID group than in the placebo group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.93). The adverse effects reported in this review are consistent with those previously reported in the literature.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated systematic review including 10 trials evaluating the efficacy of NSAIDs versus placebo or other drugs in people with sciatica reports low- to very low-level evidence using the GRADE criteria. The efficacy of NSAIDs for pain reduction was not significant. NSAIDs showed a better global improvement compared to placebo. These findings must be interpreted with caution, as the level of evidence according to the GRADE classification was very low for the outcome pain reduction and low for global improvement due to small study samples, inconsistent results, imprecision, and a high risk of bias in the included trials. While the trials included in the analysis were not powered to detect potential rare side effects, we found an increased risk for side effects in the short-term NSAIDs use. As NSAIDs are frequently prescribed, the risk-benefit ratio of prescribing the drug needs to be considered.

Administration of an amino Acid-based regimen for the management of autonomic nervous system dysfunction related to combat-induced illness

The etiology and pathophysiology of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains poorly understood. The nutritional deficiencies associated with the altered metabolic processes of PTSD have not previously been studied in detail. This pilot study measured the reduction in symptoms in 21 military veterans reporting moderate to severe symptoms associated with PTSD. Two amino acid–based medical foods specifically formulated with biogenic amines and other nutrients were administered to study subjects targeting specific neurotransmitter deficiencies resulting from altered metabolic activity associated with PTSD. This study included the Physician Checklist – Military (PCL-M), Short Form General Health Survey (SF-36), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale to measure the change in each subject’s score after 30 days of administration. An average decrease of 17 points was seen in the PCL-M, indicating a reduction in PTSD symptoms (P < 0.001). The mental health component of the SF-36 showed an average 57% increase in the subjects’ mental health rating (P < 0.001). The results of this initial study demonstrate that addressing the increased dietary requirements of PTSD can improve symptoms of the disease while eliminating significant side effects. A larger, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is warranted.

Sentra PM (a Medical Food) and Trazodone in the Management of Sleep Disorders

Sleep disorders are a common and poorly treated disease state. This double blind, four arm placebo-controlled, randomized trial compared (1) low dose trazodone, (2) Sentra PM, a neurotransmitter based medical food, (3) the joint administration of trazodone and the medical food Sentra PM and (4) placebo. There were 111 subjects studied in 12 independent sites. Subjects underwent baseline screening, informed consent and an initial sleep questionnaire. After 14 days subjects underwent a second evaluation by questionnaire. At baseline and Day 14 the subjects underwent 24 hour ECG recordings that were analyzed in the frequency domain of heart rate variability. The specific high frequency parasympathetic autonomic nervous system activity was analyzed. The primary endpoints were sleep latency and parasympathetic autonomic nervous system improvement in sleeping hours. The results showed improvement in sleep latency for the Sentra PM and combination of Sentra PM and trazodone (−41 and −56 minutes P < 0.001). There was an improvement in quality of sleep for the amino acid formulation Sentra PM and the combination (3.86 and 6.48 Likert units on a 10 point scale P < 0.001). There was an activation of circadian activity percent at night in the medical food and combination groups while there was no change in parasympathetic activity in either the placebo or trazodone group. These data indicate that Sentra PM can improve the quality of sleep, the response to trazodone as a sleep medication and parasympathetic autonomic nervous system activity.