Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Crossover Trial Evaluating Topical Lidocaine for Mechanical Cervical Pain

BACKGROUND

There are few efficacious treatments for mechanical neck pain, with controlled trials suggesting efficacy for muscle relaxants and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Although studies evaluating topical lidocaine for back pain have been disappointing, the more superficial location of the cervical musculature suggests a possible role for topical local anesthetics.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial performed at four U.S. military, Veterans Administration, academic, and private practice sites, in which 76 patients were randomized to receive either placebo followed by lidocaine patch for 4-week intervals (group 1) or a lidocaine-then-placebo patch sequence. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in average neck pain, with a positive categorical outcome designated as a reduction of at least 2 points in average neck pain coupled with at least a 5-point score of 7 points on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at the 4-week endpoint.

RESULTS

For the primary outcome, the median reduction in average neck pain score was -1.0 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for the lidocaine phase versus -0.5 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for placebo treatment (P = 0.17). During lidocaine treatment, 27.7% of patients experienced a positive outcome versus 14.9% during the placebo phase (P = 0.073). There were no significant differences between treatments for secondary outcomes, although a carryover effect on pain pressure threshold was observed for the lidocaine phase (P = 0.015). A total of 27.5% of patients in the lidocaine group and 20.5% in the placebo group experienced minor reactions, the most common of which was pruritis (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The differences favoring lidocaine were small and nonsignificant, but the trend toward superiority of lidocaine suggests more aggressive phenotyping and applying formulations with greater penetrance may provide clinically meaningful benefit.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Antimicrobial therapies for chronic pain (part 2): the prevention and treatment of chronic pain

The discovery and development of antimicrobial therapies represents one of the most significant advancements in modern medicine. Although the primary therapeutic intent of antimicrobials is to eliminate their target pathogens, several antimicrobials have been shown to provide analgesia as a secondary benefit. Antimicrobials have demonstrated analgesic effects in conditions that involve dysbiosis or potential subclinical infection (e.g ., chronic low back pain with Modic type 1 changes; chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain; irritable bowel syndrome; inflammatory bowel disease; functional gastrointestinal disorders/dyspepsia; myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), and might even prevent the chronification of pain after acute infections that are associated with excessive systemic inflammation (e.g ., post COVID-19 condition/long Covid, rheumatic fever). Clinical studies often assess the analgesic effects of antimicrobial therapies in an observational manner, without the ability to identify causative relationships, and significant gaps in the understanding remain regarding the analgesic potential of antimicrobials. Numerous interrelated patient-specific, antimicrobial-specific, and disease-specific factors altogether contribute to the perception and experience of pain, and each of these requires further study. Given worldwide concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobials must continue to be used judiciously and are unlikely to be repurposed as primary analgesic medications. However, when equipoise exists among several antimicrobial treatment options, the potential analgesic benefits of certain antimicrobial agents might be a valuable aspect to consider in clinical decision-making. This article (the second in a two-part series) aims to comprehensively review the evidence on the prevention and treatment of chronic pain using antimicrobial therapies and suggest a framework for future studies on this topic.

Nonorganic (Behavioral) Signs and Their Association With Epidural Corticosteroid Injection Treatment Outcomes and Psychiatric Comorbidity in Cervical Radiculopathy: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between cervical nonorganic pain signs and epidural corticosteroid injection outcomes and coexisting pain and psychiatric conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with cervical radiculopathy who received epidural corticosteroid injection were observed to determine the effects that nonorganic signs have on treatment outcome. A positive outcome was a decrease of 2 or more points in average arm pain, coupled with a score of 5 on a 7-point Patient Global Impression of Change scale 4 weeks after treatment. Nine tests in 5 categories (abnormal tenderness, regional disturbances deviating from normal anatomy, overreaction, discrepancies in examination findings with distraction, and pain during sham stimulation) were modified from previous studies and standardized. Other variables examined for their association with nonorganic signs and outcomes included disease burden, psychopathology, coexisting pain conditions, and somatization.

RESULTS

Of the 78 patients, 29% (n=23) had no nonorganic signs, 21% (n=16) had signs in 1 category, 10% (n=8) had signs in 2 categories, 21% (n=16) had signs in 3 categories, 10% (n=8) had signs in 4 categories, and 9% (n=7) had signs in 5 categories. The most common nonorganic sign was superficial tenderness (44%; n=34). Mean number of positive nonorganic categories was higher in individuals with negative treatment outcomes (2.5±1.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.1) compared with those with positive outcomes (1.1±1.3; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; P=.0002). Negative treatment outcomes were most strongly associated with regional disturbances and overreaction. Positive associations were noted between nonorganic signs and multiple pain (P=.011) and multiple psychiatric (P=.028) conditions.

CONCLUSION

Cervical nonorganic signs correlate with treatment outcome, pain, and psychiatric comorbidities. Screening for these signs and psychiatric symptoms may improve treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04320836.

Multicenter study evaluating factors associated with treatment outcome for low back pain injections

BACKGROUND

There has been a worldwide surge in interventional procedures for low back pain (LBP), with studies yielding mixed results. These data support the need for identifying outcome predictors based on unique characteristics in a pragmatic setting.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the association between over two dozen demographic, clinical and technical factors on treatment outcomes for three procedures: epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for sciatica, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections and facet interventions for axial LBP. The primary outcome was change in patient-reported average pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (average NRS-PI) using linear regression. For SIJ injections and facet radiofrequency ablation, this was average LBP score at 1 and 3 months postprocedure, respectively. For ESI, it was average leg pain 1- month postinjection. Secondary outcomes included a binary indicator of treatment response (success).

RESULTS

346 patients were enrolled at seven hospitals. All groups experienced a decrease in average NRS-PI (p<0.0001; mean 1.8±2.6). There were no differences in change in average NRS-PI among procedural groups (p=0.50). Lower baseline pain score (adjusted coefficient -0.32, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.16, p<0.0001), depressive symptomatology (adjusted coefficient 0.076, 95% CI 0.039 to 0.113, p<0.0001) and obesity (adjusted coefficient 0.62, 95% CI 0.038 to 1.21, p=0.037) were associated with smaller pain reductions. For procedural outcome, depression (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91, 0.97, p<0.0001) and poorer baseline function (adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36, 0.96, p=0.034) were associated with failure. Smoking, sleep dysfunction and non-organic signs were associated with negative outcomes in univariate but not multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying treatment responders is a critical endeavor for the viability of procedures in LBP. Patients with greater disease burden, depression and obesity are more likely to fail interventions. Steps to address these should be considered before or concurrent with procedures as considerations dictate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02329951.

Waddell (Nonorganic) Signs and Their Association With Interventional Treatment Outcomes for Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

The rising use of injections to treat low back pain (LBP) has led to efforts to improve selection. Nonorganic (Waddell) signs have been shown to portend treatment failure for surgery and other therapies but have not been studied for minimally invasive interventions.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the association between Waddell signs and treatment outcome in 3 cohorts: epidural steroid injections (ESI) for leg pain and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections and facet interventions for LBP. Categories of Waddell signs included nonanatomic tenderness, pain during sham stimulation, discrepancy in physical examination, overreaction, and regional disturbances divulging from neuroanatomy. The primary outcome was change in patient-reported "average" numerical rating scale for pain intensity (average NRS-PI), modeled as a function of the number of Waddell signs using simple linear regression. Secondary outcomes included a binary indicator of treatment response. We conducted secondary and sensitivity analyses to account for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We enrolled 318 patients: 152 in the ESI cohort, 102 in the facet cohort, and 64 in the SIJ cohort, having sufficient data for primary analysis on 308 patients. Among these, 62% (n = 192) had no Waddell signs, 18% (n = 54) had 1 sign, 11% (n = 33) had 2, 5% (n = 16) had 3, 2% (n = 7) had 4, and about 2% (n = 6) had all 5 signs. The mean change in average NRS-PI in each of these 6 groups was -1.6 ± 2.6, -1.1 ± 2.7, -1.5 ± 2.5, -1.6 ± 2.6, -1 ± 1.5, and 0.7 ± 2.1, respectively, and their corresponding treatment failure rates were 54% (102 of 192), 67% (36 of 54), 70% (23 of 33), 75% (12 of 16), 71% (5 of 7), and 83% (5 of 6). In the primary analysis, an increasing number of Waddell signs were not associated with a significant decrease in average NRS-PI (coefficient [Coef] = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.43 to 0.05; P = .12). A higher number of Waddell signs were associated with treatment failure, with a 1.35 increased odds of treatment failure per cumulative number of signs (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas this study found no consistent relationship between Waddell signs and decreased mean pain scores, a significant relationship between the number of Waddell signs and treatment failure was observed.