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.
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common health problems in adults. The impact of LBP on the individual can cause loss of health status in the form of symptoms and loss of function related to pain in the back; limitation of daily, leisure, and/or strenuous activities, and disability. LBP also poses an economic burden to society, mainly in terms of one of the most common reasons for seeking medical care (direct treatment costs), and accounts for the large number of work days lost (indirect costs). To reduce the impact of LBP on adults, drug therapy is the most frequently recommended intervention. Over the last decade, a substantial number of randomized clinical trials of drug therapy for LBP have been published.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of drug therapy for the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP).
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, CAJ Full-text Database, and Cochrane databases) were searched for articles published from 2002 to 2012. The eligibility criteria were randomized trials and double-blind controlled trials of oral or injection drug therapy for CNLBP in subjects who were aged at least 18 years old, published in English or Chinese. Two independent reviewers extracted the data.
RESULTS: A total of 25 drug therapy trials were included. cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol, and opioids were commonly used. Only 5 trials studied the efficacy of adjuvant analgesics of antiepileptics (n = 1) and antidepressants (n = 4) for CNLBP. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for COX-2 NSAIDs in pain relief was -12.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -15.00 to -9.06). The SMD for tramadol in pain relief was -1.72 (95% CI: -3.45 to 0.01). As the 95% CI crossed 0, this effect size was not considered statistically significant. The SMD for the overall effects of opioids in pain relief was -5.18 (95% CI: -8.30 to -2.05). The SMD for the partial opioid agonist drug in pain relief was -7.46 (95% CI: -11.87 to -3.04).
LIMITATIONS: The follow-up periods of these included trials in the meta-analysis ranged from 4 to 24 weeks. The difference of follow-up periods influenced how study outcomes were recorded. These included trials also had significant differences in patient selections. Some trials may actually include CNLBP patients with neuropathic pain, as not having focal neurological findings or signs does not mean that the pain is not neuropathic. Consequently, different pain conditions may influence patients who responded to the same drug and then influence pooled estimates of treatment effect size.
CONCLUSION: This review endorses the use of COX-2 NSAIDs as the first-line drugs for CNLBP. Tramadol shows no statistically significant effect on pain relief, but has small effect sizes in improving functioning. Among included opioid therapy studies, the overall effects of opioids and the partial opioids agonist drug had statistically significant treatment effects in pain relief for CNLBP patients.
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.
CONTEXT: Adverse effects of selective cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors on renal events and arrhythmia have been controversial, with suggestions of a class effect. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively evaluate adverse risks of renal events (renal dysfunction, hypertension, and peripheral edema) and arrhythmia events and to explore drug class effects and temporal trends of apparent effects of the COX-2 inhibitors: rofecoxib, celecoxib, valdecoxib, parecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of EMBASE and MEDLINE (through June 2006), bibliographies, US Food and Drug Administration reports, and pharmaceutical industry clinical trial databases. STUDY SELECTION: From relevant reports, 114 randomized double-blind clinical trials were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on publication year, participant characteristics, trial duration, drug, control, dose, and events were extracted using a standardized protocol. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results were pooled via random-effects models and meta-regressions. Of 116 094 participants from 114 trial reports including 127 trial populations (40 rofecoxib, 37 celecoxib, 29 valdecoxib + parecoxib, 15 etoricoxib, and 6 lumiracoxib), there were a total of 6394 composite renal events (2670 peripheral edema, 3489 hypertension, 235 renal dysfunction) and 286 arrhythmia events. Results indicated significant heterogeneity of renal effects across agents (P for interaction = .02), indicating no class effect. Compared with controls, rofecoxib was associated with increased risk of arrhythmia (relative risk [RR], 2.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-7.88) and composite renal events (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33-1.76); adverse renal effects increased with greater dose and duration (both P< or =.05). For all individual renal end points, rofecoxib was associated with increased risk of peripheral edema (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.23-1.66), hypertension (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.85), and renal dysfunction (RR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.05-5.07). In contrast, celecoxib was associated with lower risk of both renal dysfunction (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94) and hypertension (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97) compared with controls. Other agents were not significantly associated with risk. Time-cumulative analyses indicated that for rofecoxib the adverse risks for peripheral edema and hypertension were evident by the end of year 2000 and for risk of arrhythmia by 2004. CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive analysis of 114 randomized trials with 116,094 participants, rofecoxib was associated with increased renal and arrhythmia risks. A COX-2 inhibitor class effect was not evident. Future safety monitoring is warranted and may benefit from an active and continuous cumulative surveillance system.
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.
