low back pain

Objective. To provide an estimate of the effectiveness of basivertebral nerve (BVN) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to
treat vertebrogenic low back pain (LBP). Design. Systematic review with single-arm meta-analysis. Population.
Persons 18 years of age with chronic LBP associated with type 1 or 2 Modic changes. Intervention. Intraosseous
BVN RFA. Comparison. Sham, placebo procedure, active standard care treatment, or none. Outcomes. The proportion
of patients treated with BVN RFA who reported 50% pain score improvement on a visual analog scale or numeric
rating scale. The main secondary outcome was 15-point improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score. Methods.
Three reviewers independently assessed articles published before December 6, 2021, in MEDLINE and Embase. The
Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to evaluate
the overall quality of evidence. Results. Of the 856 unique records screened, 12 publications met the inclusion criteria,
representing six unique study populations, with 414 participants allocated to receive BVN RFA. Single-arm metaanalysis showed a success rate of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51–78%) and 64% (95% CI 43–82%) for 50%
pain relief at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Rates of 15-point Oswestry Disability Index score improvement were
75% (95% CI 63–86%) and 75% (95% CI 63–85%) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Conclusion. According to GRADE,
there is moderate-quality evidence that BVN RFA effectively reduces pain and disability in most patients with vertebr

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.

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is an important cause of chronic low back pain and affects approximately 1% of the US population. The back pain associated with axSpA has a characteristic pattern referred to as inflammatory back pain (IBP). Features of IBP include insidious onset before age 45 years, association with morning stiffness, improvement with exercise but not rest, alternating buttock pain, and good response to treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In patients with IBP, it is essential to look for other features associated with spondyloarthritis (SpA), such as enthesitis, dactylitis, peripheral arthritis, extra-articular manifestations (eg, psoriasis, uveitis, or inflammatory bowel disease), human leukocyte antigen B27 positivity, and a family history of SpA. Axial SpA is underrecognized, and a delay of several years between symptom onset and diagnosis is common. However, with new and effective therapies available for the treatment of active axSpA, early recognition and diagnosis are of critical importance. For this narrative review, we conducted a literature search of English-language articles using PubMed. Individual searches were performed to identify potential articles of interest related to axSpA (search terms: ["axSpA" OR "axial SpA" OR "axial spondyloarthritis" OR "ankylosing spondylitis"]) in combination with terms related to IBP ("inflammatory back pain" OR "IBP" OR "chronic back pain" OR "CBP" OR "lower back pain" OR "LBP"), diagnosis (["diagn∗" OR "classification"] AND ["criteria" OR "recommend∗" OR "guidelines"]), and referral ("refer∗"). No date range was formally selected, as we were interested in providing an overview of the evolution of these concepts in clinical practice. We supplemented the review with insights based on our clinical expertise. Patients with chronic back pain should be screened for IBP and other SpA features; suspicion for axSpA should trigger referral to a rheumatologist for further evaluation.

Objectives. We updated the evidence from our 2018 report assessing persistent improvement in outcomes following completion of therapy for noninvasive nonpharmacological treatment for selected chronic pain conditions.

Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through November 2017 (for prior report) and from September 2017 through September 2019 (for this update report), reference lists, ClinicalTrials.gov, and our previous report.

Review methods. Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for five common chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain; chronic neck pain; osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, or hand; fibromyalgia; and tension headache) that reported results for a at least 1 month postintervention. We analyzed effects and assessed strength of evidence (SOE) at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months).

Results. We included 233 RCTs (31 new to this update). Many were small (N<70), and evidence beyond 12 months after treatment completion was sparse. The most common comparison was with usual care. Evidence on harms was limited, with no evidence suggesting increased risk for serious treatment-related harms for any intervention. Effect sizes were generally small for function and pain.

Chronic low back pain: Psychological therapies were associated with small improvements compared with usual care or an attention control for both function and pain at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term followup (SOE: moderate). Function improved over short and/or intermediate term for exercise, low-level laser therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, yoga, acupuncture, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE moderate at short term for exercise, massage, and yoga; low for all others). Improvements in pain at short term were seen for massage, mindfulness-based stress reduction, acupuncture, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: moderate), and exercise, low-level laser therapy, and yoga (SOE: low). At intermediate term, spinal manipulation, yoga, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: moderate) and exercise and mindfulness-based stress reduction (SOE: low) were associated with improved pain. Compared with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation improved both function and pain at short and intermediate terms (small effects, SOE: moderate.)

Chronic neck pain: In the short term, low-level laser therapy (SOE: moderate) and massage (SOE: low) improved function and pain. Exercise in general improved function long term, and combination exercise improved function and pain both short and long term compared with usual care (SOE: low). Acupuncture improved function short and intermediate term, but there was no pain improvement compared with sham acupuncture (SOE: low). Compared with acetaminophen, Pilates improved both function and pain (SOE: low).

Osteoarthritis pain: Exercise resulted in small improvements in function and pain at short-term (SOE: moderate) and long-term (SOE: low), and moderate improvement at intermediate-term (SOE: low) followup for knee osteoarthritis versus nonactive comparators. Small improvements in function and pain with exercise were seen for hip osteoarthritis short term (SOE: low). Functional improvement persisted into intermediate term, but pain improvement did not (SOE: low).

Fibromyalgia: Functional improvements were seen with exercise, mind-body practices, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) and acupuncture (SOE: moderate) short term compared with usual care, attention control, or sham treatment. At intermediate term, there was functional improvement with exercise and acupuncture (SOE: moderate), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based stress reduction, myofascial release, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low). Long term, functional improvements persisted for multidisciplinary rehabilitation without improvement in pain (SOE: low). Compared with exercise, tai chi conferred improvement in function short and intermediate term (SOE: low). Pain was improved with exercise (short and intermediate term, SOE moderate), and for CBT (short term), mindfulness practices, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (intermediate term) (SOE low).

Chronic tension headache: Evidence was sparse and the majority of trials were of poor quality. Spinal manipulation resulted in moderate improvement in pain short term.

Conclusions. Trials identified subsequent to the earlier report largely support previous findings—namely that exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, CBT, mindfulness practices, massage, and mind-body practices most consistently improve function and/or pain beyond the course of therapy for specific chronic pain conditions. Additional research, including comparisons with pharmacological and other active controls, on effects beyond the immediate post-treatment period is needed, particularly for conditions other than low back pain.