back pain

Chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain remains a leading cause of disability and functional impairment among older adults and is associated with substantial societal and personal costs. Chronic pain is particularly challenging to manage in older adults because of multimorbidity, concerns about treatment-related harm, as well as older adults' beliefs about pain and its management. This narrative review presents data on nine high-quality, peer-reviewed clinical trials published primarily over the past two years that focus on MSK pain management in older adults, of which four were comprehensively reviewed. These studies address contributors to knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain (insomnia), provide evidence for digital delivery or artificial intelligence driven behavioral interventions and potentially more efficient/equally effective modes of delivering glucocorticoids for OA; each of the selected studies have potential for scalability and meaningful impact in the care of older adults.

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.