Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review

Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of opioid, nonopioid pharmacologic, and nonpharmacologic therapy in patients with specific types of acute pain, including effects on pain, function, quality of life, adverse events, and long-term use of opioids. Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to August 2020, reference lists, and a Federal Register notice. Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of outpatient therapies for eight acute pain conditions: low back pain, neck pain, other musculoskeletal pain, neuropathic pain, postoperative pain following discharge, dental pain (surgical or nonsurgical), pain due to kidney stones, and pain due to sickle cell disease. Meta-analyses were conducted on pharmacologic therapy for dental pain and kidney stone pain, and likelihood of repeat or rescue medication use and adverse events. The magnitude of effects was classified as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria, and strength of evidence was assessed. Results. One hundred eighty-three RCTs on the comparative effectiveness of therapies for acute pain were included. Opioid therapy was probably less effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for surgical dental pain and kidney stones, and might be similarly effective as NSAIDs for low back pain. Opioids and NSAIDs were more effective than acetaminophen for surgical dental pain, but opioids were less effective than acetaminophen for kidney stone pain. For postoperative pain, opioids were associated with increased likelihood of repeat or rescue analgesic use, but effects on pain intensity were inconsistent. Being prescribed an opioid for acute low back pain or postoperative pain was associated with increased likelihood of use of opioids at long-term followup versus not being prescribed, based on observational studies. Heat therapy was probably effective for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation might be effective for acute back pain with radiculopathy, acupressure might be effective for acute musculoskeletal pain, an opioid might be effective for acute neuropathic pain, massage might be effective for some types of postoperative pain, and a cervical collar or exercise might be effective for acute neck pain with radiculopathy. Most studies had methodological limitations. Effect sizes were primarily small to moderate for pain, the most commonly evaluated outcome. Opioids were associated with increased risk of short-term adverse events versus NSAIDs or acetaminophen, including any adverse event, nausea, dizziness, and somnolence. Serious adverse events were uncommon for all interventions, but studies were not designed to assess risk of overdose, opioid use disorder, or long-term harms. Evidence on how benefits or harms varied in subgroups was lacking. Conclusions. Opioid therapy was associated with decreased or similar effectiveness as an NSAID for some acute pain conditions, but with increased risk of short-term adverse events. Evidence on nonpharmacological therapies was limited, but heat therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, acupuncture, acupressure, a cervical collar, and exercise were effective for specific acute pain conditions. Research is needed to determine the comparative effectiveness of therapies for sickle cell pain, acute neuropathic pain, neck pain, and management of postoperative pain following discharge; effects of therapies for acute pain on non-pain outcomes; effects of therapies on long-term outcomes, including long-term opioid use; and how benefits and harms of therapies vary in subgroups.

Download Full-text

Summary of Short-term and Long-term Oxymorphone Efficacy (Pain) Studies in Low Back Pain, Cancer Pain, Osteoarthritis, and Neuropathic Pain

Pain Medicine ◽

10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00595.x ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 10 (suppl 1) ◽

pp. S11-S19 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Michael J. Brennan

Keyword(s):

Neuropathic Pain ◽

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Cancer Pain ◽

Low Back ◽

Short Term

Download Full-text

Long-term Safety and Tolerability of NKTR-181 in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain or Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Phase 3 Multicenter, Open-Label, 52-Week Study (SUMMIT-08 LTS)

Pain Medicine ◽

10.1093/pm/pnz169 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (7) ◽

pp. 1347-1356 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Jeffrey Gudin ◽

Richard Rauck ◽

Charles Argoff ◽

Eva Agaiby ◽

Joseph Gimbel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

Low Back ◽

Open Label ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Chronic Noncancer Pain ◽

Noncancer Pain

Abstract Objective To evaluate the long-term safety of NKTR-181, a novel mu-opioid receptor agonist that may have reduced human abuse potential, in patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain (CLBP) or other chronic noncancer pain (CNP). Design Uncontrolled, multicenter, open-label, long-term study of NKTR-181 comprised of three periods: screening (≤21 days), treatment (52 weeks), and safety follow-up (∼14 days after the last dose of NKTR-181). Setting Multicenter, long-term clinical research study. Methods NKTR-181 administered at doses of 100–600 mg twice daily (BID) was evaluated in opioid-naïve and opioid-experienced patients. Patients were enrolled de novo or following completion of the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 efficacy study (SUMMIT-07). Safety assessments included adverse event documentation, measurements of opioid withdrawal, and clinical laboratory tests. Effectiveness was assessed using the modified Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (mBPI-SF). Results The study enrolled 638 patients. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were constipation (26%) and nausea (12%). Serious TEAEs, reported in 5% of patients, were deemed by investigators to be unrelated to NKTR-181. There were no deaths or reported cases of respiratory depression. A sustained reduction in mBPI-SF pain intensity and pain interference from baseline to study termination was observed throughout treatment. Only 2% of patients discontinued NKTR-181 due to lack of efficacy, and 11% discontinued due to treatment-related AEs. NKTR-181 doses of up to 600 mg BID were generally well tolerated, and patients experienced low rates of opioid-related adverse events. Conclusions The study results support the premise that NKTR-181 is a safe and effective option for patients with moderate to severe CLBP or CNP.

Download Full-text

RESTORATIVE NEUROSTIMULATION FOR MECHANICAL CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN: LONG TERM RESULTS FROM THE REACTIV8-A CLINICAL TRIAL V. Mehta on behalf of the ReActiv8-A investigators.

10.26226/morressier.5ab3c881a874c600265593ea ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Vivek Mehta

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Low Back

Download Full-text

Cognitive–Evaluative Dimension of Pain in Neuropathic Pain Relapse in Sciatica: A Case Report

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina57070658 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 57 (7) ◽

pp. 658

Author(s):

Tsubasa Kawasaki ◽

Takuya Yada ◽

Masahiro Ohira

Keyword(s):

Neuropathic Pain ◽

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Case Report ◽

Acute Phase ◽

Low Back ◽

Evaluative Dimension ◽

Long Duration ◽

Improvement Process ◽

Insight Into

The cognitive–evaluative (C–E) dimension of pain is commonly observed in patients with a relatively long duration of pain. However, little is known about the effects of pain relapse on the C–E dimension of pain. Moreover, the improvement process of the C–E dimension of pain following treatment is unknown. The objective of this case report was to (a) demonstrate that the C–E dimension was affected in the acute phase of neuropathic pain in cases of pain relapse, and (b) demonstrate the improvement process of the C–E dimension of pain. A woman was diagnosed with low back pain (LBP) and sciatica. The patient had previously experienced symptoms of LBP and sciatica; thus, this episode was a case of pain relapse. At the beginning of rehabilitation, the C–E dimension of pain was present in addition to the sensory–discriminative (S–D) dimension of pain. It was observed that improvement of the C–E dimension of pain was delayed in comparison with that of the S–D dimension of pain. The C–E dimension of pain was observed with pain relapse even though it was in the acute phase of pain. This case provides a novel insight into the C–E dimension of pain. Moreover, the delay in improving the C–E dimension of pain indicates a difference in the improvement process for each pain dimension.

Download Full-text

Long-term improvements following a residential combined physical and psychological programme for chronic low back pain

BMJ Open Quality ◽

10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001068 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. e001068

Author(s):

Shaun Wellburn ◽

Cormac G Ryan ◽

Andrew Coxon ◽

Alastair J Dickson ◽

D John Dickson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Low Back ◽

Residential Setting ◽

Wide Range

ObjectivesEvaluate the outcomes and explore experiences of patients undergoing a residential combined physical and psychological programme (CPPP) for chronic low back pain.DesignA longitudinal observational cohort design, with a parallel qualitative design using semistructured interviews.SettingResidential, multimodal rehabilitation.Participants136 adults (62 male/74 female) referred to the CPPP, 100 (44 male/56 female) of whom completed the programme, during the term of the study. Ten (2 male/8 female) participated in the qualitative evaluation.InterventionA 3-week residential CPPP.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures were the STarT Back screening tool score; pain intensity—11-point Numerical Rating Scale; function—Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); health status/quality of life—EQ-5D-5L EuroQol five-Dimension-five level; anxiety—Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depression—Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Secondary outcome measures were the Global Subjective Outcome Scale; National Health Service Friends and Family Test;.ResultsAt discharge, 6 and 12 months follow ups, there were improvements from baseline that were greater than minimum clinically important differences in each of the outcomes (with the sole exception of ODI at discharge). At 12 months, the majority of people considered themselves a lot better (57%) and were extremely likely (86%) to recommend the programme to a friend. The qualitative data showed praise for the residential nature of the intervention and the opportunities for interaction with peers and peer support. There were testimonies of improvements in understanding of pain and how to manage it better. Some participants said they had reduced, or stopped, medication they had been taking to manage their pain.ConclusionsParticipants improved, and maintained long term, beyond minimum clinically important differences on a wide range of outcomes. Participants reported an enhanced ability to self-manage their back pain and support for the residential setting.

Download Full-text

Posterior-Chain Resistance Training Compared to General Exercise and Walking Programmes for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sports Medicine - Open ◽

10.1186/s40798-021-00306-w ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Nicholas Tataryn ◽

Vini Simas ◽

Tailah Catterall ◽

James Furness ◽

Justin W. L. Keogh

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Resistance Training ◽

Muscle Strength ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Muscular Strength ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Low Back ◽

Pain Level ◽

General Exercise

Abstract Background While chronic exercise training has been demonstrated to be an effective non-pharmacological treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP), there has been a relative lack of evidence or clinical guidelines for whether a posterior chain resistance training programme provides any benefits over general exercise (GE). Objectives To determine if chronic posterior chain resistance training (PCRT), defined as exercise programmes of ≥6 weeks duration focused on the thoracic, lumbar and hip extensor musculature, is more effective than GE in improving pain, level of disability, muscular strength and the number of adverse events in recreationally active and sedentary individuals with CLBP. Methods Four electronic databases were systematically searched from 25 September 2019 until 30 August 2020. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools checklist for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), articles were critically appraised and compared against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Standardized mean difference (SMD), risk difference (RD) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.3. Results Eight articles were included, with a total of 408 participants (203 PCRT, 205 GE). Both PCRT and GE were effective in improving a number of CLBP-related outcomes, but these effects were often significantly greater in PCRT than GE, especially with greater training durations (i.e. 12–16 weeks compared to 6–8 weeks). Specifically, when compared to GE, PCRT demonstrated a greater reduction in pain (SMD = − 0.61 (95% CI − 1.21 to 0.00), p = 0.05; I2 = 74%) and level of disability (SMD = − 0.53 (95% CI − 0.97 to − 0.09), p = 0.02; I2 = 52%), as well as a greater increase in muscle strength (SMD = 0.67 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.13), p = 0.004; I2 = 0%). No differences in the number of adverse events were reported between PCRT and GE (RD = − 0.02 (95% CI − 0.10 to 0.05), p = 0.57; I2 = 72%). Conclusion Results of the meta-analysis indicated that 12–16 weeks of PCRT had a statistically significantly greater effect than GE on pain, level of disability and muscular strength, with no significant difference in the number of adverse events for recreationally active and sedentary patients with CLBP. Clinicians should strongly consider utilizing PCRT interventions for 12–16 weeks with patients with CLBP to maximize their improvements in pain, disability and muscle strength. Future research should focus on comparing the efficacy and adverse events associated with specific PCRT exercise training and movement patterns (i.e. deadlift, hip lift) in treating this population. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020155700.

Download Full-text