Eficacia de las infiltraciones epidurales en el abordaje del dolor y la discapacidad por radiculopatía lumbosacra aguda y subaguda / Efficacy of epidural infiltration in the management of pain and disability due to acute and subacute lumbosacral radiculopathy

Antecedentes y objetivos: Las infiltraciones epidurales (IEE) constituyen una alternativa en el tratamiento del síndrome de radiculopatía lumbosacro (SRL). El objetivo de estudio es evaluar la eficacia de las IEE en la intensidad del dolor, mejora de la recuperación funcional y retorno a la actividad laboral. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo en una cohorte de 100 pacientes consecutivos remitidos a la unidad del dolor por SRL de más de 3 meses de duración. Se analizó la eficacia de las inyecciones de corticoides y anestésicos locales por diferentes vías (interlaminar, caudal y transforaminal) a los 15 días, un mes y 3 meses de la infiltración, en cuanto a la intensidad del dolor mediante la escala analógica visual (EAV), evolución del grado de discapacidad y la reincorporación laboral. Resultados: Noventa y nueve pacientes se incluyeron en el estudio. El 46,5% fueron varones y el 53,5% mujeres. La edad media fue de 57,47±11,1 años. En la mayoría (58,6%) de los casos se optó por la vía caudal, seguida de la transforaminal (23,2%), e interlaminar (18,2%). Las IEE produjeron una reducción significativa del dolor en todos los periodos estudiados (EAV: 7,78±1,5 basal; 6,2±0,9 a los 15 días; 6,3±1,2 al mes; 6,15±1,3 a los 3 meses; p<0,05). La vía de acceso más eficaz fue la transforaminal. El 70% de los pacientes en situación de incapacidad laboral retornaron a su trabajo tras el tratamiento. Discusión y conclusiones: El tratamiento mediante las IEE redujo la intensidad del dolor por SRL, mejoró la situación funcional y la reincorporación a la actividad laboral.(AU)

Backgrund and objective: Epidural infiltrations are used for treatment of low back pain and sciatica. linked to lumbar radiculopathy (lumbosacral radicular syndrome). This study evaluates the efficacy of epidural infiltration by different routes to reduce pain intensity, disability and return to work. Methods: Is a prospective observational study in one hundred consecutive patients sent to pain unit for severe lumbo-sacral radiculopaty. We analyze the efficacy on pain relief (Visual Analogue Scale) and funcional status at two weeks, one month, and three months after epidural injection of local anesthetics and esteroids with differents approachs (interlaminar, caudal and transforaminal). Results: Ninety nine patients (46.5% men, 53.5 women) were finally enrrolled in the study. Mean age was 57.47±11.1 years. The caudal approach was used in 58.6% patients, 23.2% transforaminal approach, and 18.2% interlaminar approach. A significant pain relief was found in all times studied (EAV 7.48±1.5 basal; 6.2±0,9 at 15 days; 6.3±1.2 at one month; 6.15±1.3 at 3 months, P<.05). Transforaminal approach was superior to caudal or interlaminal. Seventy percent in time off work patients returned to work after epidural inyections. Conclusions: Epidural local anesthetics with esteroids injections for lumbo-sacral radiculopathy were effective for low back pain, improved functional status and promoted return to work. Transforaminal approach is superior to others.(AU)

Perceptions in orthopedic surgery on the use of cannabis in treating pain: a survey of patients with spine pain (POSIT Spine).

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite guidelines discouraging opioids as first-line treatment, opioids remain the most prescribed drugs for back pain. There is renewed interest in exploring the potential medical applications of cannabis, and with the recent changes in national legislation there is a unique opportunity to investigate the analgesic properties of cannabis. METHODS: This was a multi-center survey-based study examining patient perceptions regarding cannabis for spine pain. We included patients presenting with back or neck pain to one of three Orthopedic clinics in Ontario. Our primary outcome was perceived effect of cannabis on back pain, while secondary outcomes were perceptions regarding potential applications and barriers to cannabis use. RESULTS: 259 patients participated in this study, 35.3% (90/255) stating they used cannabis medically. Average pain severity was 6.5/10 ± 0.3 (95% CI 6.2-6.8). Nearly three-quarters were prescribed opioids (73.6%, 148/201), with oxycodone/oxycontin (45.9% 68/148) being the most common, and almost half of (49.3%, 73/148) had used an opioid in the last week. Patients estimated cannabis could treat 54.3% ± 4.0 (95% CI 50.3-58.3%) of their spine pain and replace 46.2% ± 6. 6 (95% CI 39.6-52.8%) of their current analgesics. Age (ß = - 0.3, CI - 0.6-0.0), higher pain severity (ß = 0.4, CI 0.1-0.6) and previous cannabis use (ß = 14.7, CI 5.1-24.4) were associated with a higher perceived effect of cannabis. Patients thought cannabis would be beneficial to treat pain (129/146, 88.4%), and reduce (116/146, 79.5%) or eliminate opioids (102/146, 69.9%). Not considering using cannabis for medical purposes (65/150, 43.3%) was the number one reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Patients estimated medical cannabis could treat more than half of their spine pain, with one in three patients already using medical cannabis. 79% of patients also believe cannabis could reduce opioid usage. This data will help support more research into cannabis for musculoskeletal pain.

A Good Response to Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Does Not Discriminate Patients With Longstanding Axial Spondyloarthritis From Controls With Chronic Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with longstanding axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and controls with back pain (nonspondyloarthritis [non-SpA]). METHODS: Consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain (axSpA or non-SpA), were prospectively recruited. Any previous NSAIDs were withdrawn 2 days before study start (baseline). Back pain was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS; range 0-10) starting at 2 hours after baseline and several times thereafter up to 4 weeks. "Any response" to NSAIDs was defined as improvement of back pain on the NRS > 2 units, and "good response" as improvement > 50%, compared to baseline. RESULTS: Among 233 patients included, 68 had axSpA (29.2%) and 165 had non-SpA back pain (70.8%). The mean age was 42.7 (SD 10.7) vs 49.3 (SD 11.1) years, symptom duration 15.1 (SD 11.1) years vs 14.6 (SD 11.9) years, and pain score 5.9 (SD 2.3) vs 6.3 (SD 2.0), respectively. Overall, of patients with axSpA or non-SpA back pain, 30.9% vs 29.1% of patients showed any response and 23.5% vs 16.4% of patients showed a good response after 4 weeks, respectively (P value not significant). No differences were found in the rapidity of response or between subgroups of patients based on demographics, including different stages of axSpA. CONCLUSION: No major differences in the response to NSAIDs were found between patients with axSpA and those with non-SpA with longstanding chronic back pain. The item in the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria on "response to NSAIDs" needs more study.

Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials generally have not assessed efficacy of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) beyond 6 months because of methodological barriers and ethical concerns. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of LTOT for up to 12 months. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP) from April 2016 through August 2022. Participants reporting LTOT (>90 days) were matched to opioid nonusers with propensity scores. Primary outcomes involved low back pain intensity, back-related disability, and pain impact measured with a numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, respectively. Secondary outcomes involved minimally important changes in primary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of 402 matched participants was 55.4 years (S.D., 11.9 years), and 297 (73.9%) were female. There were 119 (59.2%) LTOT users who took opioids continuously for 12 months. The mean daily morphine milligram equivalent dosage at baseline was 36.7 (95% CI, 32.8 to 40.7). There were no differences between LTOT and control groups in mean pain intensity (6.06, 95% CI, 5.80-6.32 vs 5.92, 95% CI, 5.68-6.17), back-related disability (15.32, 95% CI, 14.55-16.09 vs 14.81, 95% CI, 13.99-15.62), or pain impact (32.51, 95% CI, 31.33-33.70 vs 31.22, 95% CI, 30.00 to 32.43). Correspondingly, LTOT users did not report greater likelihood of minimally important changes in any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Using LTOT for up to 12 months is not more effective in improving CLBP outcomes than treatment without opioids. Clinicians should consider tapering opioid dosage among LTOT users in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.

Performance of the streamlined quality outcomes database web-based calculator: internal and external validation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: With an increasing number of web-based calculators designed to provide the probabilities of an individual achieving improvement after lumbar spine surgery, there is a need to determine the accuracy of these models. PURPOSE: To perform an internal and external validation study of the reduced Quality Outcomes Database web-based Calculator (QOD-Calc). STUDY DESIGN: Observational longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients enrolled study-wide in Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) and patients enrolled in DaneSpine at a single institution who had elective lumbar spine surgery with baseline data to complete QOD-Calc and 12-month postoperative data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for back and leg pain, EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D). METHODS: Baseline data elements were entered into QOD-Calc to determine the probability for each patient having Any Improvement and 30% Improvement in NRS leg pain, back pain, EQ-5D and ODI. These probabilities were compared with the actual 12-month postop data for each of the QOD and DaneSpine cases. Receiver-operating characteristics analyses were performed and calibration plots created to assess model performance. RESULTS: 24,755 QOD cases and 8,105 DaneSpine lumbar cases were included in the analysis. QOD-Calc had acceptable to outstanding ability (AUC: 0.694-0.874) to predict Any Improvement in the QOD cohort and moderate to acceptable ability (AUC: 0.658-0.747) to predict 30% Improvement. QOD-Calc had acceptable to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.669-0.734) to predict Any improvement and moderate to exceptional ability (AUC: 0.619-0.862) to predict 30% Improvement in the DaneSpine cohort. AUCs for the DaneSpine cohort was consistently lower that the AUCs for the QOD validation cohort. CONCLUSION: QOD-Calc performs well in predicting outcomes in a patient population that is similar to the patients that was used to develop it. Although still acceptable, model performance was slightly worse in a distinct population, despite the fact that the sample was more homogenous. Model performance may also be attributed to the low discrimination threshold, with close to 90% of cases reporting Any Improvement in outcome. Prediction models may need to be developed that are highly specific to the characteristics of the population.

Hydrocortisone Differentially Affects Reinstatement of Pain-related Responses in Patients With Chronic Back Pain and Healthy Volunteers.

Despite the crucial role of effective and sustained extinction of conditioned pain-related fear in cognitive-behavioral treatment approaches for chronic pain, experimental research on extinction memory retrieval in chronic pain remains scarce. In healthy populations, extinction efficacy of fear memory is affected by stress. Therefore, we investigated the effects of oral hydrocortisone administration on the reinstatement of pain-related associations in 57 patients with non-specific chronic back pain (CBP) and 59 healthy control (HC) participants in a differential pain-related conditioning paradigm within a placebo-controlled, randomized, and double-blind design. Participants' skin conductance responses indicate hydrocortisone-induced reinstatement effects in HCs but no observable reinstatement in HCs receiving placebo treatment. Interestingly, these effects were reversed in patients with CBP, that is, reinstatement responses were only observed in the placebo and not in the hydrocortisone group. Our findings corroborate previous evidence of stress-induced effects on extinction efficacy and reinstatement of fear memory in HCs, extending them into the pain context, and call for more research to clarify the role of stress in fear extinction and return of fear phenomena possibly contributing to treatment failure in chronic pain treatment. PERSPECTIVE: Opposing effects in HCs and patients with non-specific CBP may be associated with changes in the patients' stress systems. These findings could be of relevance to optimizing psychological, extinction-based treatment approaches.

Bloqueo en el plano del músculo erector de la columna frente a anestesia local infiltrativa para discectomía endoscópica percutánea transforaminal: ensayo controlado aleatorizado prospectivo / Erector spine plane block versus local infiltration anaesthesia for transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy: Prospective randomise controlled trial

Antecedentes: Casi el 60-80% de la población padece de dolor de espalda, lo cual convierte a esta situación en una de las causas más comunes de consulta. Uno de los tratamientos más efectivos para el dolor lumbar es la discectomía endoscópica percutánea transforaminal, que requiere diferentes opciones anestésicas. Nuestro objetivo primario fue probar la hipótesis de si el bloqueo en el plano del músculo erector de la columna (ESP) bilateral con sedación es similar a la infiltración tradicional local de anestésico con sedación. Materiales y métodos: Se asignó aleatoriamente a cincuenta y dos pacientes sometidos a discectomía endoscópica percutánea transforaminal a dos grupos: el G1 recibió sedación intravenosa con anestesia local infiltrativa; G2 recibió sedación intravenosa con ESP bilateral. Resultado primario: cantidad de fentanilo y propofol durante la cirugía. Resultados secundarios: episodios adversos durante la sedación utilizando la herramienta de reporte sobre episodios adversos de la sedación de la Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia (SIVA), nivel de sedación postoperatoria utilizando la escala Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), intensidad del dolor tras la cirugía utilizando la escala visual analógica (EVA), umbral del dolor mecánico (MPT) utilizando microfilamentos de von Frey, medido en ambas extremidades inferiores, y satisfacción con la analgesia aplicando la escala Likert de 5 puntos. Resultados: La cantidad de fentanilo, propofol y el nivel de sedación postoperatoria fueron significativamente menores en G2 (p<0,001). No se produjo diferencia en cuanto a intensidad del dolor, satisfacción con la analgesia y umbral del dolor mecánico tras la cirugía en ambos grupos. No se produjeron episodios adversos en el grupo G2 en comparación con G1 (2 pacientes descriptores del riesgo mínimo, 5 descriptores del riesgo menor y 1 descriptor del riesgo centinela) que requirieron medicación adicional o ventilación de rescate...(AU)

Background: About 60% to 80% of the population suffers from back pain, making it one of the most common health complaints. One of an effective treatments of low back pain is transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic discectomy (TPED) which requires different options for anaesthesia. Our primary objective was to test the hypothesis if the bilateral erector spine plane block (ESP) with sedation is similar to traditional infiltrative local anaesthesia with sedation. Materials and methods: Fifty-two patients that underwent TPED were randomly assigned in two groups: G1 received intravenous sedation with infiltrative local anaesthesia; G2 received intravenous sedation with bilateral ESP. Primary outcome: amount of fentanyl and propofol during surgery. Secondary outcomes: adverse events during sedation employing World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia (SIVA) adverse sedation event reporting tool, level of postoperative sedation with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), intensity of pain after surgery engaging a visual analogue scale (EVA), the mechanical pain threshold (MPT) with von Frey monofilaments measured on both lower extremities, satisfaction with analgesia applying 5-point Likert scale. Results: Amount of fentanyl, propofol and level of postoperative sedation was significantly lower in G2 (p<0.001). There was no difference in intensity of pain, satisfaction with analgesia, and the mechanical pain threshold after surgery in both groups. There were no adverse events in G2 group in contradistinction to G1 (2 patients minimal risk descriptors, 5 minor risk descriptors and 1 sentinel risk descriptors) which required additional medication or rescue ventilation...(AU)

Combined Rehabilitation with Alpha Lipoic Acid, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, Resveratrol, and Cholecalciferolin Discogenic Sciatica in Young People: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background and Objectives: In the Western world, back pain and sciatica are among the main causes of disability and absence from work with significant personal, social, and economic costs. This prospective observational study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a rehabilitation program combined with the administration of Alpha Lipoic Acid, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, Resveratrol, and Cholecalciferol in the treatment of sciatica due to herniated discs in young patients in terms of pain resolution, postural alterations, taking painkillers, and quality of life. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted on 128 patients with sciatica. We divided the sample into 3 groups: the Combo group, which received a combination of rehabilitation protocol and daily therapy with 600 mg Alpha Lipoic Acid, 1000 mg Acetyl-L-Carnitine, 50 mg Resveratrol, and 800 UI Cholecalciferol for 30 days; the Reha group, which received only a rehabilitation protocol; and the Supplement group, which received only oral supplementation with 600 mg Alpha Lipoic Acid, 1000 mg Acetyl-L-Carnitine, 50 mg Resveratrol, and 800 UI Cholecalciferol. Clinical assessments were made at the time of recruitment (T0), 30 days after the start of treatment (T1), and 60 days after the end of treatment (T2). The rating scales were as follows: the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ); and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). All patients also underwent an instrumental stabilometric evaluation. Results: At T1, the Combo group showed statistically superior results compared to the other groups for pain (p < 0.05), disability (p < 0.05), and quality of life (p < 0.05). At T2, the Combo group showed statistically superior results compared to the other groups only for pain (p < 0.05) and quality of life (p < 0.05). From the analysis of the stabilometric evaluation data, we only observed a statistically significant improvement at T2 in the Combo group for the average X (p < 0.05) compared to the other groups. Conclusions: The combined treatment of rehabilitation and supplements with anti-inflammatory, pain-relieving, and antioxidant action is effective in the treatment of sciatica and can be useful in improving postural stability.

[The role of structure-modifying agents in the treatment of back pain].

BACKGROUND: Back pain is currently one of the most urgent problems within pain syndromes. Inadequate treatment of nonspecific back pain, even with a relatively favorable prognosis, leads to its chronicity and decreases the patient's quality of life. The most common cause of vertebrogenic dorsopathies is spinal osteochondrosis. The etiopathogenetic basis of spinal osteochondrosis is degenerative and dystrophic changes in the intervertebral discs involving adjacent vertebrae, joints, and ligaments. Considering the experience of many years of using chondroprotective therapy in clinical practice, we performed an observational study using Ambene Bio to assess the change of pain severity over time in patients with osteochondrosis and back pain. AIM: To study the change in the severity of pain and its components in patients with back pain during therapy with Ambene Bio combined with standard therapy (NSAIDs and muscle relaxants). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with chronic lower back pain lasting more than 3 months were included in the study. CONCLUSION: The study results confirmed the high efficacy of Ambene Bio in patients with dorsopathies with an alternating treatment regimen (10 IM injections 2 mL every other day).

Repurposing Antihypertensive and Statin Medications for Spinal Pain: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Mendelian randomization (MR) study. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether antihypertensive medications (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and statins can be repurposed to prevent or treat spinal pain (back or neck pain). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Observational studies and a recent MR study have found associations between elevated blood pressure and a greater risk of back pain. Observational studies have found associations between hyperlipidemia and statin use and greater risk of back pain. No prior MR studies have examined the effects of antihypertensives or statins on spinal pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a two-sample MR study using publicly available summary statistics from large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Sample sizes in exposure GWASs were n=757,601 (systolic blood pressure) and n=173,082 (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), and n=1,028,947 for the outcome GWAS of spinal pain defined as health care seeking for any spinal pain-related diagnosis. Genes and cis-acting variants were identified as proxies for the drug targets of interest. MR analyses used inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis. The threshold for statistical significance after correction for multiple testing was P <0.0125. RESULTS: No statistically significant associations of these medications with spinal pain were found. However, findings were suggestive of a protective effect of beta-blockers on spinal pain risk (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.98; P =0.03), and calcium channel blockers on greater spinal pain risk (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.24; P =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A protective effect of beta-blockers on spinal pain was suggested in the current study, consistent with findings from observational studies of various other pain phenotypes. The detrimental effect of calcium channel blockers on spinal pain suggested in the current study must be interpreted in the context of conflicting directions of effect on nonspinal pain phenotypes in other observational studies.This Mendelian randomization study examined whether antihypertensive medications (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and statins can be repurposed to prevent or treat spinal.This was a two-sample MR study using publicly available summary statistics from large-scale genome-wide association studies ranging size from 173,082 to 1,028,947 adults.While no statistically significant associations were found, a protective effect of beta-blockers on spinal pain was suggested (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 0.98; p= 0.03), as was a detrimental effect of calcium channel blockers on spinal pain (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.24; p= 0.02).

Effect of surgery on the long-term use of opioids in patients with degenerative back disorders: a retrospective register-based study.

PURPOSE: This study based exclusively on register-data provides a scientific basis for further research on the use of opioids in patients with degenerative back disorder. The main objective of this study is to investigate whether surgically treated back pain patients have the same risk of being long-term opioid users as back pain patients who did not have surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective register-based cohort study based on all patients diagnosed with a degenerative back disorder at the Spine Center of Southern Denmark from 2011 to 2017. The primary outcome of the study was the use of opioids two years after the patient's first hospital contact with a degenerative back condition. Fisher exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. The effect of the surgery was estimated using adjusted logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: For patients who used opioids before the first hospital contact, the ratio for long-term opioid use for surgically treated patients is significantly lower than for non-surgically treated patients (OR = 0.75, 95%CI (0.66; 0.86)). For patients who did not use opioids before, the ratio for long-term opioid use for surgically treated patients does not differ from that of non-surgically treated patients (OR = 1.01, 95%CI (0.84; 1.22)). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a degenerative back disorder who used opioids before their first visit to a specialized spine center have a lower risk of becoming long-term opioid users if they were surgically treated. Whereas for patients who did not use opioids before the first visit, surgical treatment does not influence the risk of becoming long-term opioid users.

Atypical Familial Mediterranean Fever Presenting with Recurrent Upper Back Pain: A Case Report.

Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is a genetic autoinflammatory disease that is characterized by recurrent episodes of fever, serositis, and synovitis. FMF synovitis attacks resemble the clinical presentation of acute monoarthritis with pain and hydrarthrosis, which always resolve spontaneously. In most cases, colchicine will prevent these painful arthritis attacks in FMF. However, distinguishing these arthritis episodes from other febrile attacks with various clinical manifestations, including serositis, is important. We describe a Japanese patient with FMF who presented a febrile attack with severe abdominal and upper back pain (peri-scapula lesion), without any other joint involvement. A 44-year-old female patient presented with recurrent episodes of fever with abdominal and back pain. She carried heterozygous variants in exon 3 of the MEFV gene (P369S/R408Q). She was diagnosed with FMF according to Tel-Hashomer's diagnostic criteria for FMF. Colchicine treatment improved her febrile attcks with peritonitis, however, severe back pain was sustained. This unique aspect of severe pain attack was successfully resolved by canakinumab treatment, which is a specific interleukin-1ß monoclonal antibody, and was finally diagnosed as FMF-related shoulder joint synovitis. Further investigations were needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interleukin-1 antagonists against colchicine-resistant arthritis in FMF patients.

[The use of a fixed combination of diclofenac and orphenadrine in the treatment of acute pain syndrome in patients with discogenic lumbosacral radiculopathy and lumboischialgia]. / Primenenie fiksirovannoi kombinatsii diklofenaka i orfenadrina v terapii ostrogo bolevogo sindroma u patsientov s diskogennoi poyasnichno-kresttsovoi radikulopatiei i lyumboishialgiei.

Acute pain syndromes caused by discogenic lumbosacral radiculopathy and lumboischialgia are not uncommon in clinical practice and characterized by a high risk of becoming chronic. The pathogenetic aspects, features of the clinical picture, existing approaches to conservative treatment of these conditions are analyzed in this paper. Data on the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of diclofenac and orphenadrine (Neodolpasse) use in the treatment of vertebrogenic pain syndromes based on the NEODOLEX study results are presented, and the authors' own clinical observations are given. Possible reasons for the high efficacy of Neodolpasse in patients with discogenic radiculopathies and nonspecific back and neck pain are discussed.

The modifier effect of physical activity, body mass index, and age on the association of metformin and chronic back pain: A cross-sectional analysis of 21,899 participants from the UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence of the anti-inflammatory effect of the anti-diabetic drug metformin and its use to reduce pain. However, we currently lack studies investigating whether metformin is associated with a reduction in chronic back pain prevalence when considering physical activity levels, body mass index (BMI), and age. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether use of metformin is associated with lower levels of reporting of chronic back pain in a large cohort with type 2 diabetes when stratified for physical activity, BMI, and age. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 21,889 participants with type 2 diabetes who were drawn from the UK Biobank database. We investigated whether people using metformin reported a higher prevalence of chronic low back pain than those who did not. Type 2 diabetes, chronic back pain, and metformin were self-reported. Participants were stratified according to their physical activity level (low, moderate and high), BMI (normal, overweight, and obese), and age (40 to <50; 50 to < 60; and ≥60 years). Logistic regression models were built for each physical activity level, BMI and age category to investigate the prevalence of chronic back pain amongst those using and not using metformin. RESULTS: Participants who were using metformin and who had low levels of physical activity [OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.78 to 0.96] or who were obese [OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.86 to 0.98] or older [OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.78 to 0.93] had lower odds of reporting chronic back pain than their counterparts. CONCLUSION: The anti-diabetic drug metformin might reduce prevalence of chronic low back pain in people who are older, overweight, or less active. These findings should be confirmed in studies using a longitudinal design.

Treatment With Opioids Is Not Associated With Poor Outcomes Among Older Adults With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Receiving Epidural Injections.

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess how baseline treatment with opioids is associated with pain and function in older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis who receive epidural injections. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Data were obtained from the Lumbar Epidural Steroid injections for Spinal Stenosis trial, a double-blind, multisite, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Baseline treatment with opioids was assessed from electronic medical record prescription pharmacy data or from health utilization records collected from patients. We calculated adjusted changes in back pain numerical rating scale, leg pain numerical rating scale, and back-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores) from baseline to three weeks and to six weeks among patients treated and not treated with opioids at baseline using generalized linear regression. RESULTS: Baseline treatment with opioids was not significantly associated with back pain intensity (adjusted difference in means at three weeks of follow-up between patients treated with opioids at baseline versus not [±95% CI, 0.1 (-0.7, 0.7)], leg pain intensity [-0.2 (-0.9, 0.4)], or back-related function [-0.8 (-2.1, 0.4)]. We found similar results at six weeks of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis who are receiving epidural injections, those treated with opioids at baseline had similar outcomes to those who were not.

Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalisation in Patients with Osteoarthritis or Back Pain Treated with Ibuprofen Compared to Other NSAIDs or Paracetamol: A Network Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether ibuprofen use, compared with other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2i) or paracetamol, increases the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis or hospitalisation. DESIGN: A prevalent user and active comparator cohort study. SETTING: Two US claims databases (Open Claims and PharMetrics Plus) mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. PARTICIPANTS: Insured patients with a history of osteoarthritis or back pain and receiving ibuprofen, other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol between 1 November, 2019 and 31 January, 2020 (study enrolment window 1) or between 1 February, 2020 and 31 October, 2020 (study enrolment window 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Large-scale propensity score matching and empirical calibration were used to minimise confounding. Incidence and hazard ratios of COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalisation according to drug/s use were estimated and pooled in the same study period across data sources using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Index treatment episode was the primary risk evaluation window, censored at the time of discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 633,562 and 1,063,960 participants were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively, for the ibuprofen versus ns-NSAIDs comparison, 311,669 and 524,470 for ibuprofen versus COX-2i, and 492,002 and 878,598 for ibuprofen versus paracetamol. Meta-analyses of empirically calibrated hazard ratios revealed no significantly differential risk of COVID-19 outcomes in users of ibuprofen versus any of the other studied analgesic classes: hazard ratios were 1.13 (0.96-1.33) for the ibuprofen-ns-NSAIDs comparison, 1.03 (0.83-1.28) for the ibuprofen-COX-2i comparison and 1.13 (0.74-1.73) for ibuprofen-paracetamol comparison on COVID-19 diagnosis in the February 2020-October 2020 window. Similar hazard ratios were found on COVID-19 hospitalisation and across both study periods. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, we found no differential risks of incident COVID-19 diagnosis or COVID-19 hospitalisation for ibuprofen users compared with other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol. Our findings support regulatory recommendations that NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, should be prescribed as indicated in the same way as before the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for those who rely on ibuprofen or NSAIDs to manage chronic arthritis or musculoskeletal pain symptoms.

Does pain medication influence outcomes in elderly people seeking care for back pain? BACE cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is common among older adults resulting in the high societal and economic burden of persistent pain and disability. Pain medications are frequently prescribed for back pain, especially among older patients, but the efficacy of analgesics on back pain in this patient population remains under debate. In the present study, we investigated the outcomes (i.e. pain intensity and disability) of pain medication use in older people with back pain participating in a prospective cohort study. METHODS: A total of 669 patients aged >55 years consulting a general practitioner for a new episode of back complaints were included in this study. The association between pain medication use and outcomes (pain intensity and disability) was assessed at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Pain medication users were observed to experience more pain and disability at baseline compared with non-users. At 3-month follow-up, patients from all subgroups (e.g. pain medication users versus non-users) improved over time. Yet medication users had higher pain intensity and poorer disability scores compared with non-users. Patients who de-escalated or stopped pain medication had lower pain and disability than non-users. When comparing different types of medications (i.e. paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids), none of the groups showed better scores regarding pain and disability in users compared with non-users. Opioid users displayed the highest levels of pain and disability. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, although patients who de-escalated or stopped analgesics had less pain and disability, pain medication overall does not result in better outcomes in older people with back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Older patients taking pain medication did not report better outcomes than the ones who did not, except for those who de-escalated or stopped pain medication. Caution should be taken in prescribing pain medication for older patients with back pain in primary care.

[Comparative analysis of the use of symptomatic slow acting drugs for osteoarthritis containing chondroitin sulfate or affecting its biosynthesis in patients with non-specific low back pain]. / Sravnitel'nyi analiz primeneniya simptomaticheskikh preparatov zamedlennogo deistviya, soderzhashchikh khondroitina sul'fat ili vliyayushchikh na ego biosintez, u patsientov s nespetsificheskoi bol'yu poyasnichno-kresttsovoi lokalizatsii.

OBJECTIVE: Retrospective comparative analysis of the use of SYSADOA preparations containing chondroitin sulfate (Chondroguard, 2 ml, 25 amp., glycosaminoglycan-peptide complex, 1 ml 25 amp., bioactive concentrate of small marine fish, 2 ml, 10 amp.) in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) of lumbar and sacral localization caused by spondylosis and osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine, at the stage of outpatient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data of medical records of patients (n=120; men - 32, women - 88, age - 54.1±7.6 years, duration of disease exacerbation 4.0±1.7 months) with nonspecific LBP were systematized according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. All patients were divided into 4 groups: Group 1 (n=30) received Chondroguard im., 2 ml every other day, the course of treatment was 25 injections, 25 days; Group 2 (n=30) received glycosaminoglycan-peptide complex on the 1st day - 0.3 ml, on the 2nd day - 0.5 ml, and then 3 times a week for 1 ml, course of treatment - 25 injections, 25 days; Group 3 (n=30) received bioactive concentrate of small marine fish, 2 ml im., every other day, the course of treatment was 10 injections; repeated courses of treatment - after 6 months; Group 4 (n=30) received Amelotex (meloxicam) at a dose of 15 mg once a day for 15 days. All patients of the first 3 groups received Amelotex at a dose of 15 mg with the possibility of reducing the dose to 7.5 mg or completely discontinuing the drug if necessary. Retrospectively, dynamic monitoring was performed in the medical records of outpatients after 50 days and 6 months from the start of therapy according to the following parameters: intensity of pain according to VAS, short form of the McGill pain questionnaire, vital signs of patients (Oswestry Disability Index, version 2.1a [Oswestry Disability Index], and Roland-Morris questionnaire), propensity to chronic pain syndrome according to the STarT Back Screening Tool questionnaire, the presence and severity of comorbid fibromyalgia according to the Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool questionnaire, the level of pain catastrophization according to the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the severity of comorbid anxiety and depression according to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the severity comorbid insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index), quality of life according to the SF-36 scale, the effectiveness of drugs according to the patient on a 5-point scale, the need to take NSAIDs and analgesics, tolerability on a 4-point system. The safety of therapy was monitored using the WHO and Naranjo scales. RESULTS: In patients with nonspecific LBP, a greater degree of reduction in the intensity of the pain syndrome, a smaller number of exacerbations of the pain syndrome over 6 months of observation, an improvement in the functional status and life activity, a tendency to a decrease in the severity of anxiety and depression, sleep disturbances and comorbid fibromyalgia, limiting the risk of chronicity and catastrophization of pain, the presence of a structure-modifying effect on IVD and degenerative changes in the facet joints, a significant improvement in the physical and mental components of health, high satisfaction and safety of therapy, which included taking Chondroguard with meloxicam, with a decrease in the need to take the latter by the 50th day observation period compared to other regimens. The effects of Chondroguard and meloxicam turned out to be long-term and were recorded by the 6th month in the absence of Chondroguard, which indicated the preservation of the influence of highly purified cholesterol on the pathogenetic mechanisms of the formation of LBP. CONCLUSION: The study allows us to recommend the use of a parenteral form of cholesterol (Chondroguard, CJSC «PharmFirma «Sotex¼, Russia) for the treatment of nonspecific LBP with moderate or severe pain, chronic relapsing or persistent course, in combination with NSAIDs and their subsequent cancellation or administration on demand.