Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Low Back Pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature with subgroup analysis for heterogeneous treatment effects. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize prior Cochrane reports regarding the safety and effectiveness of opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antidepressants for treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) and to evaluate whether certain subpopulations respond more favorably to pharmacological management. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: While medications are a mainstay of LBP management, there is uncertainty as to the optimal use of commonly prescribed medications such as opioids, antidepressants, and NSAIDS. METHODS: To summarize the overall treatment effect and safety for each of the three pharmacological drug classes (opioids, NSAIDs, or antidepressants), we summarized existing Cochrane reviews. To evaluate whether the effects of treatment varied by specific subgroups of patients, we sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating one of the three pharmacological drug classes versus an alternative management for chronic LBP. RESULTS: Based on the Cochrane reviews, opioids are more effective than placebo with respect to pain and disability, with a much greater effect size for pain than disability. When compared with NSAIDs, opioids did not confer a greater benefit with regard to pain and disability. The rate of side effects from opioids is significantly greater than placebo with differences ranging between 2% and 9%. The systematic review of RCTs showed that antidepressants are not more effective than placebo with respect to pain, functional status, or depression. Certain subgroup treatment effects were identified, supporting our hypothesis that chronic LBP should be considered a heterogeneous set of disorders. As such, chronic LBP subgroups should be considered both when making clinical treatment decisions and when designing future research trials. CONCLUSION: Opioids and NSAIDs are effective for chronic LBP, while antidepressants have no meaningful clinical benefit. Based on the significant rate of side effects with opioids and the lack of convincing superiority over NSAIDs, opioids are not recommended as a treatment for chronic LBP. Attention to subgroups of patients will likely help guide treatment, and will likely help increase the clinical impact of future research. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendation 1: NSAIDs should be considered as a treatment of chronic LBP (Strength: Strong). There is evidence demonstrating favorable effectiveness, but also significant side effects that may have meaningful clinical consequences. Recommendation 2: Opioids may be considered in the treatment of chronic LBP but should be avoided if possible (Strength: Weak). There is evidence demonstrating favorable effectiveness compared to placebo, similar effectiveness compared to NSAIDs, and with significant side effects including decreasing effectiveness related to habituation when used long-term. Recommendation 3: Antidepressants should not be routinely used for the treatment of chronic LBP (Strength: Strong). There is evidence that they are not more effective than placebo with respect to pain, functional status, or depression. Based on the hypothesis that chronic LBP is a symptom reflective of a heterogeneous group of disorders, categorization of certain patient specific subgroups may be helpful in guiding future treatment decision making. It is likely that inclusion of subgroup factors in future RCTs will provide information needed to improve the strength and specificity of future clinical recommendations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».