Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain.

Despite improved knowledge about the benefits and harms of treatments for chronic back pain in the past several decades, there is a large and consequential mismatch between treatments found safe and effective and those routinely covered by health insurance. As a result, care for back pain has, if anything, deteriorated in recent decades-expenses are higher, harms are greater, and use of ineffective treatments is more common. Deficiencies in health care delivery processes and payment models are centrally involved in the failure to improve care for back pain. A key step for accelerating progress is changing insurance coverage policies to facilitate use of the safest and most helpful approaches while discouraging riskier and less effective treatments. Relatively simple changes in reimbursement policies may minimize harm and improve quality of life for many patients with chronic back and similar pain syndromes. Such changes might also reduce health care expenditures because the costs of treatments currently covered by insurance and their associated harms may well outweigh the costs of the relatively safe and effective treatments recommended by current guidelines but poorly covered by insurance. There is no justification for continuing the status quo-patients and clinicians deserve better.

Oral steroids for acute radiculopathy due to a herniated lumbar disk: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Oral steroids are commonly used to treat acute sciatica due to a herniated disk but have not been evaluated in an appropriately powered clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine if oral prednisone is more effective than placebo in improving function and pain among patients with acute sciatica. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted from 2008 to 2013 in a large integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Adults (n=269) with radicular pain for 3 months or less, an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of 30 or higher (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate greater dysfunction), and a herniated disk confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging were eligible. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive a tapering 15-day course of oral prednisone (5 days each of 60 mg, 40 mg, and 20 mg; total cumulative dose = 600 mg; n = 181) or matching placebo (n = 88). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was ODI change at 3 weeks; secondary outcomes were ODI change at 1 year, change in lower extremity pain (measured on a 0-10 scale; higher scores indicate more pain), spine surgery, and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores (0-100 scale; higher scores better). RESULTS: Observed baseline and 3-week mean ODI scores were 51.2 and 32.2 for the prednisone group and 51.1 and 37.5 for the placebo group, respectively. The prednisone-treated group showed an adjusted mean 6.4-point (95% CI, 1.9-10.9; P = .006) greater improvement in ODI scores at 3 weeks than the placebo group and a mean 7.4-point (95% CI, 2.2-12.5; P = .005) greater improvement at 52 weeks. Compared with the placebo group, the prednisone group showed an adjusted mean 0.3-point (95% CI, -0.4 to 1.0; P = .34) greater reduction in pain at 3 weeks and a mean 0.6-point (95% CI, -0.2 to 1.3; P = .15) greater reduction at 52 weeks. The prednisone group showed an adjusted mean 3.3-point (95% CI, 1.3-5.2; P = .001) greater improvement in the SF-36 PCS score at 3 weeks, no difference in the SF-36 PCS score at 52 weeks (mean, 2.5; 95% CI, -0.3 to 5.4; P = .08), no change in the SF-36 MCS score at 3 weeks (mean, 2.2; 95% CI, -0.4 to 4.8; P = .10), and an adjusted 3.6-point (95% CI, 0.6-6.7; P = .02) greater improvement in the SF-36 MCS score at 52 weeks. There were no differences in surgery rates at 52-week follow-up. Having 1 or more adverse events at 3-week follow-up was more common in the prednisone group than in the placebo group (49.2% vs 23.9%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute radiculopathy due to a herniated lumbar disk, a short course of oral steroids, compared with placebo, resulted in modestly improved function and no improvement in pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00668434.

An evidence-based systematic review of elderberry and elderflower (Sambucus nigra) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration.

An evidence-based systematic review of elderberry and elderflower (Sambucus nigra) by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration consolidates the safety and efficacy data available in the scientific literature using a validated, reproducible grading rationale. This article includes written and statistical analysis of clinical trials, plus a compilation of expert opinion, folkloric precedent, history, pharmacology, kinetics/dynamics, interactions, adverse effects, toxicology, and dosing.

A detailed safety assessment of a saw palmetto extract.

BACKGROUND: Saw palmetto is commonly used by men for lower-urinary tract symptoms. Despite its widespread use, very little is known about the potential toxicity of this dietary supplement. METHODS: The Saw palmetto for Treatment of Enlarged Prostates (STEP) study was a randomized clinical trial performed among 225 men with moderate-to-severe symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia, comparing a standardized extract of the saw palmetto berry (160 mg twice daily) with a placebo over a 1-year period. As part of this study, detailed data were collected on serious and non-serious adverse events, sexual functioning, and laboratory tests of blood and urine. Between-group differences were assessed with mixed-effects regression models. RESULTS: There were no significant differences observed between the saw palmetto and placebo-allocated participants in the risk of suffering at least one serious adverse event (5.4% vs. 9.7%, respectively; p=0.31) or non-serious symptomatic adverse event (34.8% vs. 30.1%, p=0.48). There were few significant between-group differences in sexual functioning or for most laboratory analyses, with only small differences observed in changes over time in total bilirubin (p=0.001), potassium (p=0.03), and the incidence of glycosuria (0% in the saw palmetto group vs. 3.7% in the placebo group, p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite careful assessment, no evidence for serious toxicity of saw palmetto was observed in this clinical trial. Given the sample size and length of this study, however, these data do not rule out potential rare adverse effects associated with the use of saw palmetto.

Saw palmetto for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Saw palmetto is used by over 2 million men in the United States for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and is commonly recommended as an alternative to drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 225 men over the age of 49 years who had moderate-to-severe symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia to one year of treatment with saw palmetto extract (160 mg twice a day) or placebo. The primary outcome measures were changes in the scores on the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI) and the maximal urinary flow rate. Secondary outcome measures included changes in prostate size, residual urinary volume after voiding, quality of life, laboratory values, and the rate of reported adverse effects. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the saw palmetto and placebo groups in the change in AUASI scores (mean difference, 0.04 point; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.93 to 1.01), maximal urinary flow rate (mean difference, 0.43 ml per minute; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.52 to 1.38), prostate size, residual volume after voiding, quality of life, or serum prostate-specific antigen levels during the one-year study. The incidence of side effects was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, saw palmetto did not improve symptoms or objective measures of benign prostatic hyperplasia. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00037154.).

Spontaneous bleeding associated with ginkgo biloba: a case report and systematic review of the literature: a case report and systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo) is a herbal remedy used by over 2% of the adult population in the United States. Several review articles have suggested that ginkgo may increase the risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To report a case of bleeding associated with using ginkgo, to systematically review the literature for similar case reports, and to evaluate whether using ginkgo is causally related to bleeding. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, IBIDS, and the Cochrane Collaboration Database from 1966 to October 2004 with no language restrictions. REVIEW METHODS: Published case reports of bleeding events in persons using ginkgo were selected. Two reviewers independently abstracted a standard set of information to assess whether ginkgo caused the bleeding event. RESULTS: Fifteen published case reports described a temporal association between using ginkgo and a bleeding event. Most cases involved serious medical conditions, including 8 episodes of intracranial bleeding. However, 13 of the case reports identified other risk factors for bleeding. Only 6 reports clearly described that ginkgo was stopped and that bleeding did not recur. Bleeding times, measured in 3 reports, were elevated when patients were taking ginkgo. CONCLUSION: A structured assessment of published case reports suggests a possible causal association between using ginkgo and bleeding events. Given the widespread use of this herb and the serious nature of the reported events, further studies are needed. Patients using ginkgo, particularly those with known bleeding risks, should be counseled about a possible increase in bleeding risk.