Muscle relaxants are commonly prescribed for low back pain (LBP); however, there is limited evidence of their clinical efficacy and tolerability. This review evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of muscle relaxants in people with LBP. We searched online databases including Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO (inception to end October 2015) and performed citation tracking for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of randomized controlled trials of muscle relaxants. Pain outcomes were converted to a common 0–100 scale. Data were pooled using a random effects model with strength of evidence assessed using GRADE. Fifteen trials (3362 participants) were evaluated in this review. A total of five trials (496 participants) provide high quality evidence that muscle relaxants provide clinically significant pain relief in the short term for acute LBP; MD −21.3, [−29.0, −13.5]. There was no information on long‐term outcomes. The median adverse event rate in clinical trials for muscle relaxants was similar to placebo 14.1% IQR (7.0–28.7%) and 16.0% (4.1–31.2%); <i>p</i> = 0.5, respectively. There is no evidence for the efficacy of benzodiazepines in LBP. For people with acute LBP, muscle relaxants provide clinically significant short‐term pain relief. For chronic LBP, the efficacy of muscle relaxants is largely unknown. There was no eligible RCT evidence to support the efficacy of benzodiazepines in LBP. Prolonged use of these medicines in LBP cannot be guided by trial evidence. What does this review add?: Muscle relaxants provide clinically significant pain relief for acute low back pain. Caution must be taken with the interpretation of the findings as the evidence comes from specific muscle relaxant medicines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
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.
A systematic review involving 50 randomized controlled trials (4,863 patients) published since 1980 was undertaken with the objective of assessing efficacy and safety of low back pain (LBP) medications. The methodological quality of each trial was evaluated based on a standardized system. Quality scores ranged from 26 to 82 points on a 100-point scale (from 0 to 100), indicating an overall moderate quality of the trials reviewed. Limited evidence was found regarding the effectiveness of drug treatments for LBP and current studies focused on short-term usage of the therapies. Available evidence supported the effectiveness of non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in acute and chronic LBP, of muscle relaxants in acute LBP, and of antidepressants in chronic LBP; safety results were heterogeneous. More rigorously designed trials should be implemented to establish comparative efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat chronic and acute LBP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: The use of muscle relaxants in the management of non-specific low back pain is controversial. It is not clear if they are effective, and concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effects involved.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine if muscle relaxants are effective in the treatment of non-specific low back pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY: A computer-assisted search of the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 up to October 2002) and EMBASE (1988 up to October 2002) was carried out. These databases were searched using the algorithm recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. References cited in the identified articles and other relevant literature were screened.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and/or double-blinded controlled trials, involving patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain, treated with muscle relaxants as monotherapy or in combination with other therapeutic modalities, were included for review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently carried out the methodological quality assessment and data extraction of the trials. The analysis comprised not only a quantitative analysis (statistical pooling) but also a qualitative analysis ("best evidence synthesis"). This involved the appraisal of the strength of evidence for various conclusions using a rating system based on the quality and outcomes of the studies included. Evidence was classified as "strong", "moderate", "limited", "conflicting" or "no" evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three trials (77%) were of high quality, 24 trials (80%) were on acute low back pain. Four trials studied benzodiazepines, 11 non-benzodiazepines and two antispasticity muscle relaxants in comparison with placebo. Results showed that there is strong evidence that any of these muscle relaxants are more effective than placebo for patients with acute LBP on short-term pain relief. The pooled RR for non-benzodiazepines versus placebo after two to four days was 0.80 [95% CI; 0.71 to 0.89] for pain relief and 0.49 [95% CI; 0.25 to 0.95] for global efficacy. Adverse events, however, with a relative risk of 1.50 [95% CI; 1.14 to 1.98] were significantly more prevalent in patients receiving muscle relaxants and especially the central nervous system adverse effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI; 1.23 to 3.37). The various muscle relaxants were found to be similar in performance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Muscle relaxants are effective in the management of non-specific low back pain, but the adverse effects require that they be used with caution. Trials are needed that evaluate if muscle relaxants are more effective than analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Muscle relaxants are commonly prescribed for low back pain (LBP); however, there is limited evidence of their clinical efficacy and tolerability. This review evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of muscle relaxants in people with LBP. We searched online databases including Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO (inception to end October 2015) and performed citation tracking for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of randomized controlled trials of muscle relaxants. Pain outcomes were converted to a common 0–100 scale. Data were pooled using a random effects model with strength of evidence assessed using GRADE. Fifteen trials (3362 participants) were evaluated in this review. A total of five trials (496 participants) provide high quality evidence that muscle relaxants provide clinically significant pain relief in the short term for acute LBP; MD −21.3, [−29.0, −13.5]. There was no information on long‐term outcomes. The median adverse event rate in clinical trials for muscle relaxants was similar to placebo 14.1% IQR (7.0–28.7%) and 16.0% (4.1–31.2%); p = 0.5, respectively. There is no evidence for the efficacy of benzodiazepines in LBP. For people with acute LBP, muscle relaxants provide clinically significant short‐term pain relief. For chronic LBP, the efficacy of muscle relaxants is largely unknown. There was no eligible RCT evidence to support the efficacy of benzodiazepines in LBP. Prolonged use of these medicines in LBP cannot be guided by trial evidence. What does this review add?: Muscle relaxants provide clinically significant pain relief for acute low back pain. Caution must be taken with the interpretation of the findings as the evidence comes from specific muscle relaxant medicines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
