Pain management in rheumatology research, training, and practice.

The Pain Management Task Force of the American College of Rheumatology published a report in 2010 highlighting pain management as a fundamental aspect of clinical practice, training and research. In the interim, the consideration of pain as a focus of attention of rheumatologists and rheumatology health professionals has become even more challenging than in 2010 because of the epidemic of opiate addiction and overdose death. The characterisation of categories of pain by mechanism (e.g., inflammation, joint degeneration, abnormalities of central pain processing) can help guide treatment. However, such categorisation can overlook the overlap of these processes and their interaction to create mixed pain states. Further complicating the assessment of pain, outcome measures in rheumatic disease often assess the degree of pain indirectly while concentrating on the quantification of inflammation. Non-inflammatory pain often persists despite treatment, highlighting the need for alternative analgesic therapies. Recommended therapies include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and stimulators of the pain inhibitory pathway. Each of these non-opioid therapies has incomplete efficacy and potential toxicities that can limit their utility. Non-pharmacologic therapies can show efficacy that rivals or surpasses pharmacologic therapies in the control of pain and improving function in a variety of rheumatic disorders including chronic low back pain and fibromyalgia. A limitation of the use of these therapies is inadequate training and appreciation of their benefits. Furthermore, the supply of trained practitioners to provide non-pharmacological care and support patient efforts for self-management is often limited. Together, these considerations suggest the importance of a renewed effort to implement task force recommendations.

Low Back Pain in Adolescent and Geriatric Populations.

Spinal pain is the most common form of musculoskeletal pain. Chronic low back pain may contain nociceptive, neuropathic, and central components. Children are at risk of developing spinal pain. An increasing proportion of children develop low back pain as they become adolescents. In most adolescents, no specific diagnosis is identified. Psychological factors play a role in adolescents with back pain. Lumbar spinal stenosis causes neurogenic claudication in older patients. Magnetic resonance imaging is the best radiographic technique to detect nerve compression. Surgical decompression with or without fusion may offer greater short-term benefit but may not be significantly better than medical therapy.

Comparison of the history and physical examination for hip osteoarthritis and lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Leg pain associated with walking is sometimes incorrectly attributed to hip osteoarthritis (OA) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). PURPOSE: This study compared physicians' values of signs and symptoms for diagnosing and differentiating hip OA and LSS to their clinical utility. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Musculoskeletal physicians were surveyed with online questionnaires. Patients were recruited from hip and spine specialty practices. PATIENT SAMPLE: Seventy-seven hip OA and 79 LSS patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Signs and symptoms of hip OA and LSS. METHODS: Fifty-one of 66 invited musculoskeletal physicians completed online surveys about the values of 83 signs and symptoms for diagnosing hip OA and LSS. Of these, the most valued 32 symptoms and 13 physical examination items were applied to patients with symptomatic hip OA or LSS. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) were calculated for each items' ability to differentiate hip OA from LSS, with a +LR>2 set as indicating usefulness for favoring either diagnosis. Positive LRs were compared with surveyed physicians' values for each test. RESULTS: All symptoms were reported by some patients with each diagnosis. Only 11 of 32 physician-valued symptoms were useful for discriminating hip OA from LSS. Eight symptoms favored hip OA over LSS: groin pain (+LR=4.9); knee pain (+LR=2.2); pain that decreased with continued walking (+LR=3.9); pain that occurs immediately with walking (+LR=2.4); pain that occurs immediately with standing (+LR=2.1); pain getting in/out of a car (+LR=3.3); pain with dressing the symptomatic leg (+LR=3.1); and difficulty reaching the foot of the symptomatic leg while dressing (+LR=2.3). Three symptoms favored LSS over hip OA: pain below the knee (+LR=2.3); leg tingling and/or numbness (+LR=2.7); and some pain in both legs (+LR=2.5). Notable symptoms that did not discriminate hip OA from LSS included: pain is less while pushing a shopping cart (+LR=1.0); back pain (+LR=1.1); weakness and/or heaviness of leg (+LR=1.1); buttocks pain (+LR=1.2); poor balance or unsteadiness (+LR=1.2); pain that increased with weight-bearing on the painful leg (+LR=1.3), and step to gait on stairs (+LR=1.7). Consistent with physicians' expectations, 7 of 13 physical examination items strongly favored hip OA over LSS: limited weight-bearing on painful leg when standing (+LR=10); observed limp (+LR=9); and painful and restricted range-of-motion with any of five hip maneuvers (+LR range 21-99). Four of five tested neurological deficits (+LR range 3-8) favored the diagnosis of LSS over hip OA. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial crossover of symptoms between hip OA and LSS, with some physician-valued symptoms useful for differentiating these disorders whereas others were not. Physicians recognize the value of the examination of gait, the hip, and lower extremity neurological function for differentiating hip OA from LSS. These tests should be routinely performed on all patients for which either diagnosis is considered. Awareness of these findings might reduce diagnostic errors.

Efficacy of a low-dose regimen of cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride in acute skeletal muscle spasm: results of two placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride is a muscle relaxant that is effective in improving muscle spasm, reducing local pain and tenderness, and increasing range of motion in acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. Sedation is the most common adverse event associated with its use at the usual dosage of 10 mg TID. Studies in healthy adults suggest that a lower dose may produce less sedation. Because cyclobenzaprine's duration of action is 4 to 6 hours, reducing the dosing frequency to 10 mg BID would create a potentially painful untreated interval between doses. The alternative is administration of a lower dose (eg, 5 or 2.5 mg) TID. OBJECTIVE: These studies were designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of cyclobenzaprine 2.5, 5, and 10 mg TID compared with placebo in patients with acute musculoskeletal spasm. METHODS: In 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials conducted at primary care centers in the United States, adult patients with acute painful muscle spasm of the lumbar or cervical region were randomly assigned to receive treatment with 2.5, 5, or 10 mg cyclobenzaprine TID or placebo for 7 days (study 1: cyclobenzaprine 5 or 10 mg TID or placebo; study 2: cyclobenzaprine 2.5 or 5 mg TID or placebo). The primary efficacy measures were patient-rated clinical global impression of change, medication helpfulness, and relief from starting backache. Neither study included a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) as an active control. Although physicians frequently prescribe an analgesic or NSAID in addition to cyclobenzaprine, these studies were not designed to assess whether adding cyclobenzaprine provides a benefit over that of an analgesic. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred five patients (737 study 1; 668 study 2), two thirds with low back pain and one third with neck pain, were randomized to treatment. Their mean age was 42 years, and approximately 89% were white. In both studies, patients receiving cyclobenzaprine 5 or 10 mg had significantly higher mean scores on the primary efficacy measures compared with those receiving placebo (study 1-P/= 1 adverse event was reported in 54.1%, 61.8%, and 35.4% of patients receiving cyclobenzaprine 5 or 10 mg or placebo, respectively, in study 1 and by 43.9%, 55.9%, and 35.4% of patients receiving cyclobenzaprine 2.5 or 5 mg or placebo, respectively, in study 2. Adverse events were the primary reason for discontinuation of treatment in the cyclobenzaprine 5- and 10-mg groups in both studies. In study 2, ineffectiveness of therapy was the main reason for discontinuation of therapy in the group receiving cyclobenzaprine 2.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Cyclobenzaprine 2.5 mg TID was not significantly more effective than placebo. The cyclobenzaprine 5- and 10-mg TID regimens were associated with significantly higher mean efficacy scores compared with placebo. Cyclobenzaprine 5 mg TID was as effective as 10 mg TID, and was associated with a lower incidence of sedation.

Effects of valdecoxib in the treatment of chronic low back pain: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valdecoxib, a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 specific inhibitor, is indicated for relief of the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and primary dysmenorrhea. Therapeutic doses of COX-2 specific inhibitors are as effective as nonspecific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in reducing inflammatory pain while sparing the gastrointestinal and platelet toxicity associated with nonspecific COX-1 inhibition. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of valdecoxib 40 mg/d compared with placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: This 4-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 37 centers across the United States and 5 centers in Canada. Patients aged > or =18 years with chronic low back pain in flare were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive valdecoxib 40-mg/d or placebo tablets, once daily for 4 weeks. Patients rated low back pain intensity on a visual analog scale and completed the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the modified Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (mBPI-SF) at each visit. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-three patients were enrolled. The valdecoxib group comprised 148 patients (81 women, 67 men; mean [SD] age, 48.6 [13.3] years; mean [SD] body weight, 86.6 [20.9] kg), and the placebo group included 145 patients (85 women, 60 men; mean [SD] age, 48.7 [12.6] years; mean [SD] body weight, 85.6 [19.9] kg). Of the enrolled patients, 249 completed the study: 134 patients (91%) who received valdecoxib and 115 patients (79%) who received placebo. No statistically significant differences in patient baseline characteristics were noted between treatment groups, except in response to 1 mBPI-SF question; patients in the valdecoxib group reported significantly greater interference in relations with other people due to pain than did those in the placebo group (P = 0.048). Changes from baseline in low back pain intensity were significantly greater in valdecoxib-treated patients at each assessment (all, P < 0.001 vs placebo). Pain scores on the mBPI-SF indicated significantly greater pain relief with valdecoxib at each assessment (all, P < or = 0.014 vs placebo). Improvements in mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score with valdecoxib were significantly greater than with placebo at each assessment (all, P < or = 0.003). Although the overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly higher among patients receiving valdecoxib than those receiving placebo (35.1% vs 24.1%, respectively; P = 0.042), no significant differences were found between groups for the incidence of any individual AE. Most AEs (89% [77/87 total events]) were mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with chronic low back pain, valdecoxib 40 mg/d provided rapid relief (within 1 week) and consistent relief (over 4 weeks). In addition, significant improvement in function and decreased disability were found with valdecoxib compared with placebo.

Efficacy and safety of tanezumab in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Increased nerve growth factor levels are associated with chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (LBP). This study examined safety and analgesic efficacy of tanezumab, a humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, in adults with chronic LBP. Patients received intravenous tanezumab 200 µg/kg plus oral placebo (n=88), intravenous placebo plus oral naproxen 500 mg twice a day (n=88), or intravenous placebo plus oral placebo (n=41). Primary outcome was average LBP intensity (aLBPI) at Week 6. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with ≥30% or ≥50% reduction in aLBPI, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory-short form scores, Patients' Global Assessment of LBP, Patients' Global Evaluation of study medication, and rescue medication use. Mean aLBPI change from baseline to Week 6 was greater with tanezumab vs naproxen (P=0.004) and placebo (P<0.001). Greater proportions of patients reported ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in aLBPI with tanezumab vs naproxen (P≤0.013) and placebo (P<0.001), and greater improvements in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (P<0.001) and other secondary outcomes except rescue medication use. Tanezumab was associated with adverse events (AEs) of abnormal peripheral sensation that were generally mild and resolved before study completion; however, there were no serious AEs. Nine patients (4 of whom were tanezumab-treated) discontinued due to AEs. In conclusion, tanezumab resulted in analgesic efficacy that was clinically and statistically superior to placebo and naproxen in patients with chronic LBP. Tanezumab clinical development is on regulatory hold due to AEs in osteoarthritis patients.

Cyclobenzaprine ER for muscle spasm associated with low back and neck pain: two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of identical design.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of once-daily cyclobenzaprine extended release (CER) 15- and 30-mg capsules in patients with muscle spasm associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: Two identically designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group studies in patients aged 18-75 years with muscle spasm associated with neck or back pain. Patients received CER 15 or 30 mg once daily, cyclobenzaprine immediate release (CIR) 10 mg three times daily, or placebo for 14 days. Primary efficacy measures were patient's rating of medication helpfulness and physician's clinical global assessment of response to therapy at day 4. Secondary measures were patient's rating of medication helpfulness and physician's clinical global assessment of response (days 8 and 14), relief from local pain, global impression of change, restriction in activities of daily living, restriction of movement, daytime drowsiness, quality of nighttime sleep (days 4, 8, and 14), and quality of life (days 8 and 14). RESULTS: A total of 156/254 randomized patients in study 1 and 174/250 in study 2 completed 14 days of treatment. Significant improvements in patient's rating of medication helpfulness were reported with CER versus placebo (CER 30 mg, study 1, p = 0.007; CER 15 mg, study 2, p = 0.018) at day 4. Significant improvements with CER 30 mg versus placebo were also seen at day 4 in study 1 for patient-rated global impression of change (p = 0.008), relief of local pain (p = 0.004), and restriction of movement (p = 0.002). Neither study reported differences between study groups on the physician's clinical global assessment. Improvements with CER were comparable to that of CIR. In both studies, daytime drowsiness was reported more frequently in active treatment groups than in the placebo group; however, reports of drowsiness decreased over time in all groups. In general, daytime drowsiness was reported more frequently in CIR groups than in CER groups. More adverse events were reported in the active treatment groups versus placebo and were similar in the CER and CIR groups, except somnolence, which occurred more frequently with CIR. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily CER 15 mg (study 2) and CER 30 mg (study 1) were effective in treating muscle spasm associated with painful musculoskeletal conditions after 4 days of treatment. Differences between CER and placebo groups did not reach statistical significance on all efficacy measures, and the protocols were not powered to detect differences between active treatment arms. CER was generally safe and well tolerated, with low rates of somnolence.

Chronic neck pain: how to approach treatment.

Chronic neck pain is a common patient complaint. Despite its frequency as a clinical problem, there are few evidence-based studies that document efficacy of therapies for neck pain. The treatment of this symptom is based primarily on clinical experience. Preventing the development of chronic neck pain can be achieved by modification of the work environment with chairs that encourage proper musculoskeletal movement. The use of neck supports for sleep and active neck exercises together can improve neck pain. Passive therapies, including massage, acupuncture, mechanical traction, and electrotherapy, have limited benefit when measured by clinical trial results. NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, and pure analgesics are the mainstays of therapy. Local injections of anesthetics with or without soluble corticosteroid preparations offer additional pain relief. The purpose of these agents is to diminish pain to facilitate normal neck movement. Surgical therapy with cervical spine fusion is indicated for the rare patient with intractable neck pain resistant to all nonsurgical therapies.

Beginning the treatment of musculoskeletal pain.

The selection of appropriate therapy for the management of musculoskeletal pain requires understanding the general principles of pain management and recognizing the importance of using both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities. Aspects to consider include the type of pain, its intensity and duration, presence of comorbidities and/or use of concomitant medications, patient age, likelihood of adverse effects, psychosocial factors, past pain treatments, patient preferences, and costs.