Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.

Eligibility criteria for study selection

Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.

Results

33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.

Conclusion

Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

SUBMITTER: Ferreira GE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8489297 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0-100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason.ResultsWe included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33 points (95% CI - 6.15 to - 2.50) on a 0-100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo.ConclusionsTreatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP.Trial registrationWe prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupressure on low back pain (LBP).MethodsWe searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registries through December 28, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupressure on LBP were considered for meta-analysis with Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.0 software. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to quantify the statistical reliability. HETRED analysis and GRADE were used to determine the heterogeneity and quality of the results, respectively.ResultsTwenty-three RCTs representing 2400 participants were included. Acupressure was superior to tuina massage on response rate (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.35; P < 0.00001) and in the standardized mean difference (SMD) for pain reduction [SMD -1.92; 95% CI, -3.09 to -0.76; P=0.001]. Likewise, acupressure was superior to physical therapy [SMD, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.65; P < 0.00001] and to usual care [SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.02; P=0.04] in pain reduction. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly improved by acupressure compared with usual care [SMD, -0.55; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.25; P=0.0003]. The combination of acupressure with either manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture showed significant improvements over the adjuvant therapies alone in response rate [RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.26; P < 0.00001], pain reduction, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA). However, each study displayed substantial heterogeneity. Through subgroup sensitivity analysis and -HETRED analysis, the heterogeneity of acupressure compared with manual acupuncture decreased while the results maintained significance with respect to pain reduction [SMD -0.9; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.6; P < 0.00001] and JOA [SMD, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.98; P < 0.00001]. Similar results were obtained comparing acupressure with electro-acupuncture with respect to pain [SMD, -1.07; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.81; P < 0.00001] and JOA [SMD, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.27, P < 0.00001]. TSA demonstrated the effectiveness of acupressure as a standalone or as a combinative treatment (with manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture) for LBP.ConclusionAcupressure is an effective treatment for LBP. However, GRADE assessments downgraded the evidence in the trials, indicating that additional investigations are needed to confirm these observations.

Project description:Background and objectiveAlthough paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis.MethodsOnline database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsTwenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) - 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4 to -2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD - 4.7, 95% CI - 8.3 to - 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD - 15.1, 95% CI - 18.5 to - 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD - 11.7, 95% CI - 19.2 to - 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD - 6.8, 95% CI - 12.7 to -0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy.ConclusionsLow-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event).Results49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias.ConclusionsConsiderable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions.Results12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, -1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, -0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (-3.7, -5.5 to -1.9) and disability (-2.9, -4.9 to -0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. "High quality" evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain.ConclusionsParacetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been widely used for pain control in musculoskeletal disorders. Whether ESWT can relieve chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improve lumbar function is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies to comprehensively analyse and determine the efficacy and safety of ESWT for chronic low back pain.MethodsFour databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ESWT for CLBP. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic review criteria, relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability status, and mental health. The data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. If I2 ≥ 50%, a random effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.ResultsTwelve RCTs involving 632 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The ESWT group reported significantly more pain relief than the control group at 4 weeks (WMD = - 1.04; 95% CI = - 1.44 to - 0.65; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD = - 0.85; 95% CI = - 1.30 to - 0.41; P < 0.001). Regarding the dysfunction index, ESWT led to significant improvement in lumbar dysfunction compared with the control group at 4 weeks (WMD = - 4.22; 95% CI = - 7.55 to - 0.89; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD = - 4.51; 95% CI = - 8.58 to - 0.44; P = 0.03). For mental health, there was no significant difference between the ESWT group and the control group after 4 weeks of intervention (SMD = 1.17; 95% CI = - 0.10 to 2.45; P = 0.07).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that ESWT provided better pain relief and improved lumbar dysfunction compared with the other interventions included, and no serious adverse effects were found. There was no significant effect of ESWT on the mental health of patients, but we hope to obtain more RCTs for further analysis in the future. Based on the pooled results, we suggest that ESWT is effective and safe for treating chronic low back pain.

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.