OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative effectiveness and safety profiles of percutaneous and minimally invasive interventions for chronic low back pain.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past 20 years reporting on radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the basivertebral, disc annulus and facet nerve structures, steroid injection of the disc, facet joint and medial branch, biologic therapies, and multifidus muscle stimulation. Outcomes evaluated included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D) scores and serious adverse event (SAE) rates. Basivertebral nerve (BVN) ablation was chosen as the subject of comparison to all other therapies using a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. BVN ablation was found to provide significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores for 6-, 12- and 24-months follow-up (P≤0.05). Biologic therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation were the only two treatments with both VAS and ODI outcomes not significantly different from BVN ablation at 6-, 12- and 24-months follow-up. All outcomes found to be statistically significant represented inferior results to those of BVN ablation. Insufficient data precluded meaningful comparisons of SF-36 and EQ-5D scores. The SAE rates for all therapies and all reported time points were not significantly different from BVN ablation except for biologic therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation at 6-months follow- up.
CONCLUSIONS: BVN ablation, biologic therapy and multifidus stimulation all provide significant, durable improvements in both pain and disability compared to other interventions, which provided only short-term pain relief. Studies on BVN ablation reported no SAEs, a significantly better result than for studies of biologic therapy and multifidus stimulation.
Objectives The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy, including physical, medical, surgical, and other therapies. Methods We electronically searched electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials. The response rate and visual analog scale of pain change were considered as primary outcomes. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) or standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% CrIs. Besides, surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were performed to rank efficacy and safety of treatments on each end points. Results A total of 16 eligible studies with 1071 subjects were included in this analysis. Our results showed that corticosteroid was significantly more effective than control regarding the response rate (OR = 3.86, 95% CrI: 1.16, 12.55). Surgery had a better performance in pain change compared with control (MD = -1.92, 95% CrI: -3.58, -0.15). According to the SUCRA results, corticosteroid, collar, and physiotherapy ranked the highest concerning response rate (SUCRA = 0.656, 0.652, and 0.610, respectively). Surgery, traction, and corticosteroid were superior to others in pain change (SUCRA = 0.866, 0.748, and 0.589, respectively). Conclusion According to the network meta-analysis result, we recommended surgery as the optimal treatment for radiculopathy patients; traction and corticosteroids were also recommended for their beneficial interventions.
BACKGROUND: A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available.
PURPOSE: To review the current evidence on systemic pharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through November 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials that reported pain, function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another intervention.
DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second verified accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of trials ranged from 9 (benzodiazepines) to 70 (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). New evidence found that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for radiculopathy. For opioids, evidence remains limited to short-term trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess serious harms. Skeletal muscle relaxants are effective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation. Systemic corticosteroids do not seem to be effective. For effective interventions, pain relief was small to moderate and generally short-term; improvements in function were generally smaller. Evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of antiseizure medications.
LIMITATIONS: Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses. Only English-language studies were included, many of which had methodological shortcomings. Medications injected for local effects were not addressed.
CONCLUSION: Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, primarily short-term effects on pain. New evidence suggests that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).
IMPORTANCE: Opioid analgesics are commonly used for low back pain, however, to our knowledge there has been no systematic evaluation of the effect of opioid dose and use of enrichment study design on estimates of treatment effect.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of opioids in the management of back pain; and investigate the effect of opioid dose and use of an enrichment study design on treatment effect.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO (inception to September 2015) with citation tracking from eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
STUDY SELECTION: Placebo-controlled RCTs in any language.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using a random effects model with strength of evidence assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain. Pain and disability outcomes were converted to a common 0 to 100 scale, with effects greater than 20 points considered clinically important.
RESULTS: Of 20 included RCTs of opioid analgesics (with a total of 7925 participants), 13 trials (3419 participants) evaluated short-term effects on chronic low back pain, and no placebo-controlled trials enrolled patients with acute low back pain. In half of these 13 trials, at least 50% of participants withdrew owing to adverse events or lack of efficacy. There was moderate-quality evidence that opioid analgesics reduce pain in the short term; mean difference (MD), -10.1 (95% CI, -12.8 to -7.4). Meta-regression revealed a 12.0 point greater pain relief for every 1 log unit increase in morphine equivalent dose (P = .046). Clinically important pain relief was not observed within the dose range evaluated (40.0-240.0-mg morphine equivalents per day). There was no significant effect of enrichment study design.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For people with chronic low back pain who tolerate the medicine, opioid analgesics provide modest short-term pain relief but the effect is not likely to be clinically important within guideline recommended doses. Evidence on long-term efficacy is lacking. The efficacy of opioid analgesics in acute low back pain is unknown.
AIM: To investigate the diagnostic validity and therapeutic value of lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain.
METHODS: The review process applied systematic evidence-based assessment methodology of controlled trials of diagnostic validity and randomized controlled trials of therapeutic efficacy. Inclusion criteria encompassed all facet joint interventions performed in a controlled fashion. The pain relief of greater than 50% was the outcome measure for diagnostic accuracy assessment of the controlled studies with ability to perform previously painful movements, whereas, for randomized controlled therapeutic efficacy studies, the primary outcome was significant pain relief and the secondary outcome was a positive change in functional status. For the inclusion of the diagnostic controlled studies, all studies must have utilized either placebo controlled facet joint blocks or comparative local anesthetic blocks. In assessing therapeutic interventions, short-term and long-term reliefs were defined as either up to 6 mo or greater than 6 mo of relief. The literature search was extensive utilizing various types of electronic search media including PubMed from 1966 onwards, Cochrane library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, clinicaltrials.gov, along with other sources including previous systematic reviews, non-indexed journals, and abstracts until March 2015. Each manuscript included in the assessment was assessed for methodologic quality or risk of bias assessment utilizing the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist for diagnostic interventions, and Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool for therapeutic interventions. Evidence based on the review of the systematic assessment of controlled studies was graded utilizing a modified schema of qualitative evidence with best evidence synthesis, variable from level I to level V.
RESULTS: Across all databases, 16 high quality diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. In addition, multiple studies assessed the influence of multiple factors on diagnostic validity. In contrast to diagnostic validity studies, therapeutic efficacy trials were limited to a total of 14 randomized controlled trials, assessing the efficacy of intraarticular injections, facet or zygapophysial joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of the innervation of the facet joints. The evidence for the diagnostic validity of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with at least 75% pain relief with ability to perform previously painful movements was level I, based on a range of level I to V derived from a best evidence synthesis. For therapeutic interventions, the evidence was variable from level II to III, with level II evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement (greater than 6 mo), and level III evidence for lumbosacral zygapophysial joint injections for short-term improvement only.
CONCLUSION: This review provides significant evidence for the diagnostic validity of facet joint nerve blocks, and moderate evidence for therapeutic radiofrequency neurotomy and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain.
BACKGROUND: As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.
METHODS: We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.
RESULTS: Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.
Background: Increases in prescriptions of opioid medications for chronic pain have been accompanied by increases in opioid overdoses, abuse, and other harms and uncertainty about long-term effectiveness.
Purpose: To evaluate evidence on the effectiveness and harms of long-term (>3 months) opioid therapy for chronic pain in adults.
Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (January 2008 through August 2014); relevant studies from a prior review; reference lists; and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Study Selection: Randomized trials and observational studies that involved adults with chronic pain who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy and that evaluated opioid therapy versus placebo, no opioid, or nonopioid therapy; different opioid dosing strategies; or risk mitigation strategies.
Data Extraction: Dual extraction and quality assessment.
Data Synthesis: No study of opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy evaluated long-term (>1 year) outcomes related to pain, function, quality of life, opioid abuse, or addiction. Good- and fair-quality observational studies suggest that opioid therapy for chronic pain is associated with increased risk for overdose, opioid abuse, fractures, myocardial infarction, and markers of sexual dysfunction, although there are few studies for each of these outcomes; for some harms, higher doses are associated with increased risk. Evidence on the effectiveness and harms of different opioid dosing and risk mitigation strategies is limited.
Limitations: Non-English-language articles were excluded, meta-analysis could not be done, and publication bias could not be assessed. No placebo-controlled trials met inclusion criteria, evidence was lacking for many comparisons and outcomes, and observational studies were limited in their ability to address potential confounding.
Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for improving chronic pain and function. Evidence supports a dose-dependent risk for serious harms.
Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND: There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests.
RESULTS: We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal.
CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
METHODS: We performed a search on the CENTRAL, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to September 2014. We recovered 17 original articles, of which only 10 were in full compliance with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) criteria. These articles were reviewed in an independent and blinded way by two reviewers who were previously trained to extract data and score their quality by the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0).
RESULTS: We accepted ten studies with 1,010 participants. There is minimal evidence that shows that epidural steroid injections are better than lidocaine alone, regardless of the mode of epidural injection. There is a fair short-term and long-term benefit for treating spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that epidural steroid injections provide limited improvement in short-term and long-term benefits in LSS patients.
Determine the relative effectiveness and safety profiles of percutaneous and minimally invasive interventions for chronic low back pain.
METHODS:
A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past 20 years reporting on radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the basivertebral, disc annulus and facet nerve structures, steroid injection of the disc, facet joint and medial branch, biologic therapies, and multifidus muscle stimulation. Outcomes evaluated included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D) scores and serious adverse event (SAE) rates. Basivertebral nerve (BVN) ablation was chosen as the subject of comparison to all other therapies using a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS:
Twenty-seven studies were included. BVN ablation was found to provide significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores for 6-, 12- and 24-months follow-up (P≤0.05). Biologic therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation were the only two treatments with both VAS and ODI outcomes not significantly different from BVN ablation at 6-, 12- and 24-months follow-up. All outcomes found to be statistically significant represented inferior results to those of BVN ablation. Insufficient data precluded meaningful comparisons of SF-36 and EQ-5D scores. The SAE rates for all therapies and all reported time points were not significantly different from BVN ablation except for biologic therapy and multifidus muscle stimulation at 6-months follow- up.
CONCLUSIONS:
BVN ablation, biologic therapy and multifidus stimulation all provide significant, durable improvements in both pain and disability compared to other interventions, which provided only short-term pain relief. Studies on BVN ablation reported no SAEs, a significantly better result than for studies of biologic therapy and multifidus stimulation.
