Treatment of acute low back pain with the COX-2-selective anti-inflammatory drug nimesulide: results of a randomized, double-blind comparative trial versus ibuprofen. Trunk exercise combined with spinal manipulative or NSAID therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial. Pain treatment with a COX-2 inhibitor after coronary artery bypass operation: a randomized trial. Treatment of low back pain with a herbal or synthetic anti-rheumatic: a randomized controlled study. Willow bark extract for low back pain. Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study: A randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study. Efficacy and safety of tramadol/acetaminophen tablets (Ultracet) as add-on therapy for osteoarthritis pain in subjects receiving a COX-2 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A randomised, double-blind, clinical trial comparing the efficacy of nimesulide, celecoxib and rofecoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee. Treatment of painful temporomandibular joints with a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor: a randomized placebo-controlled comparison of celecoxib to naproxen. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for pain management in patients with uncomplicated minor rib fractures. Evaluation of an automated system for prior authorization: a COX-2 inhibitor example. Capacity of the clinical picture to characterize low back pain relieved by facet joint anesthesia. Proposed criteria to identify patients with painful facet joints. Preliminary study of the safety and efficacy of SC-58635, a novel cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor: efficacy and safety in two placebo-controlled trials in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and studies of gastrointestinal and platelet effects. Effects of valdecoxib in the treatment of chronic low back pain: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. A randomized double-blind pilot study comparing Doloteffin and Vioxx in the treatment of low back pain. The comparative analgesic efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for painful osteoarthritis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treatment of postoperative pain after cardiac surgery. The post-operative analgesic efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib compared with placebo and naproxen after total knee or hip arthroplasty. Prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcer with misoprostol: multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Opioid therapy for chronic noncancer back pain. A randomized prospective study. Implementation of RCGP guidelines for acute low back pain: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Intramuscular NSAIDS reduce post-operative pain after minor outpatient anaesthesia. Medical therapy of malignant nerve pain. A randomised double-blind explanatory trial with naproxen versus slow-release morphine. Pain reducing effect of three types of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with chronic pain: a randomized crossover trial. A group randomized trial to improve safe use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A controlled trial of corticosteroid injections into facet joints for chronic low back pain. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain. [Reduced diclofenac administration by B vitamins: results of a randomized double-blind study with reduced daily doses of diclofenac (75 mg diclofenac versus 75 mg diclofenac plus B vitamins) in acute lumbar vertebral syndromes]. Oral drug of choice in carpal tunnel syndrome. A controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and exercise for chronic low back pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as the first step in cancer pain therapy: double-blind, within-patient study comparing nine drugs. A prospective randomized controlled study of VAX-D and TENS for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Duodenal and gastric ulcer prevention with misoprostol in arthritis patients taking NSAIDs. Misoprostol Study Group. Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets for the treatment of osteoarthritis flare pain: a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on study. Back pain and sciatica: controlled trials of manipulation, traction, sclerosant and epidural injections. Injection of steroids and local anaesthetics as therapy for low-back pain. Comparison of rofecoxib and celecoxib, two cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, in postoperative dental pain: a randomized, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled clinical trial. An open study of diflunisal, conservative and manipulative therapy in the management of acute mechanical low back pain. Implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Characterization of rofecoxib as a cyclooxygenase-2 isoform inhibitor and demonstration of analgesia in the dental pain model. Effects of post-operative pain treatment using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics, opioids or epidural blockade on systemic and local immune responses in children. Double blind, placebo controlled trial on the cytoprotective effect of misoprostol in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and seronegative spondarthropathy on NSAIDs. Treatment of severe pain from osteoarthritis with slow-release tramadol or dihydrocodeine in combination with NSAID's: a randomised study comparing analgesia, antinociception and gastrointestinal effects. Diclofenac/misoprostol compared with diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Arthrotec Osteoarthritis Study Group. Chronic unilateral low-back pain. Predictors of outcome of facet joint injections. The perioperative use of corticosteroids and bupivacaine in the management of lumbar disc disease. A study of co-treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with misoprostol for cervical priming before suction termination of first trimester pregnancy. Efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole compared with misoprostol for the prevention of NSAID-related gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms in rheumatic patients. Transdermal fentanyl for improvement of pain and functioning in osteoarthritis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of electroacupuncture and TENS for low back pain: a preliminary study for a pragmatic trial. Ulcer prevention in long-term users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled study of misoprostol vs lansoprazole. Cimetidine therapy in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy. Double-blind long-term evaluation.
A prospective, randomized double-blind comparative trial.
                To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of nimesulide, a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective anti-inflammatory agent versus ibuprofen in patients with acute lumbosacral back pain.
                Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been more effective than placebo in patients with uncomplicated acute low back pain in previous randomized controlled trials. The efficacy and tolerability of a new COX-2-selective anti-inflammatory drug have not yet been established.
                One hundred four patients aged 18-65 years with acute low back pain were enrolled. The patients were randomly allocated either to oral nimesulide (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or oral ibuprofen (600 mg three times daily for 10 days). Outcome measures on a visual analog scale were an average of the pain intensity and the pain relief, stiffness in the back, functional status, and the results of physical examinations. All side effects were recorded at each visit.
                With both study therapies, there was a clear improvement in all measured parameters of the pain and back function parameters measured from the third day of treatment onward. The patients' capacity for daily tasks, showed improvement in both groups (P < 0. 001), but a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in favor of the nimesulide group (P < 0.05) after 10 days. Nimesulide was more effective than ibuprofen in improved lateral bending measurements (P = 0.026). Nimesulide and ibuprofen provided similar degrees of improvement in the modified Schober tests and in the pain intensity and back stiffness scores. More gastrointestinal side effects were reported with ibuprofen than nimesulide, and the comparison showed a trend (P = 0.067). Ten side effects occurred in the nimesulide group in 7 (13%) patients and 13 in the ibuprofen group in 11 (21%) patients.
                The results confirmed that the COX-2-selective inhibitor nimesulide is an effective and well-tolerated agent for use in general practices to treat acute low back pain. The incidence of gastrointestinal side effects seems to be lower with nimesulide than with ibuprofen. To study the relative efficacy of three different treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Two preplanned comparisons were made: (a) Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with trunk strengthening exercises (TSE) vs. SMT combined with trunk stretching exercises, and (b) SMT combined with TSE vs. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy combined with TSE.
                Interdisciplinary, prospective, observer-blinded, randomized clinical trial with a 1-yr follow-up period. The trial evaluated therapies in combination only and was not designed to test the individual treatment components.
                Primary contact, college out-patient clinic.
                In total, 174 patients aged 20-60 yr were admitted to the study.
                Patient-rated low back pain, disability, and functional health status at 5 and 11 wk.
                Five weeks of SMT or NSAID therapy in combination with supervised trunk exercise, followed by and additional 6 wk of supervised exercise alone.
                Individual group comparisons after 5 and 11 wk of intervention on all three main outcome measures did not reveal any clear clinically important or statistically significant differences. There seemed to be a sustained reduction in medication use at the 1-yr follow-up. in the SMT/TSE group. Continuance of exercise during the follow-up year, regardless of type, was associated with a better outcome.
                Each of the three therapeutic regimens was associated with similar and clinically important improvement over time that was considered superior to the expected natural history of long-standing CLBP. For the management of CLBP, trunk exercise in combination with SMT or NSAID therapy seemed to be beneficial and worthwhile. The magnitude of nonspecific therapeutic (placebo) effects, cost-effectiveness and relative risks of side effects associated with these types of therapy need to be addressed in future studies. Adequate analgesic medication is mandatory after cardiac operations. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors represent a new therapeutic option, acting primarily on the response to inflammation.
                We compared a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (etodolac) with two traditional drugs: a nonselective cyclooxygenase inhibitor (diclofenac) and a weak opioid (tramadol) on postoperative pain and renal function in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass operations. Sixty consecutive patients were randomized into three groups: (1) group A patients who received tramadol; (2) group B patients who received diclofenac; and (3) group C patients who received etodolac. For measurement of analgesic effect, the visual analogue scale was assessed up to postoperative day 4. Creatinine-clearance was determined before and at the end of study medication, and serum creatinine and urea were monitored daily for renal effects. Study medication was given on postoperative days 2 and 3. Side effects and additional pain medication were recorded.
                The visual analogue scale was lower in group C (p < 0.05) from postoperative days 2 to 4 and in group B (p < 0.05) from postoperative days 3 to 4 compared with group A. Amount of additional pain medication and incidence of side effects were significantly less in group C compared with group A. We observed a short-lasting elevation of serum creatinine and urea in groups B and C compared with group A (p < 0.05).
                At the doses analyzed, etodolac and diclofenac produced better postoperative pain relief with less side-effects than tramadol. A short-lasting impairment of renal function was found in patients treated with etodolac and diclofenac. To compare the effects of a proprietary extract of willow bark (Assalix) and a selective inhibitor (rofecoxib) of the enzyme cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2).
                An open, randomized, post-marketing study was carried out in an out-patients clinic on two groups of patients aged 18 to 80 yr presenting over a 6-month period with acute exacerbations of low back pain. Using computer-generated random list, 114 patients were allocated to receive a daily dose of herbal extract containing 240 mg of salicin [PAID (phyto-anti-inflammatory drug) group] and 114 were allocated to receive 12.5 mg of the synthetic COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib [NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) group]. The doses were chosen according to existing recommendations. All patients were free to use whatever additional conventional treatments were thought necessary. The outcome measures were a modified Arhus index, its pain component and the Total Pain Index.
                Groups were well matched. After 4 weeks of treatment, the Arhus index had improved by about 20%, its pain component by about 30% and the Total Pain Index by about 35%. The number of pain-free patients (visual analogue scale score <2) was about 20 in each group. About 60% of the patients in each group responded well to the treatment (as judged by an improvement of >/=30% in the Total Pain Index relative to its baseline). The improvement was also reflected reasonably well in the physicians' and patients' judgements of the effectiveness of treatment, which were largely concordant. Few patients of either group resorted to the additional conventional treatment options. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Treatment with rofecoxib was about 40% more expensive than that with Assalix.
                There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two treatments at the doses chosen. Treatment with Assalix was less expensive. Conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a spectrum of toxic effects, notably gastrointestinal (GI) effects, because of inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1. Whether COX-2-specific inhibitors are associated with fewer clinical GI toxic effects is unknown.
                To determine whether celecoxib, a COX-2-specific inhibitor, is associated with a lower incidence of significant upper GI toxic effects and other adverse effects compared with conventional NSAIDs.
                The Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS), a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted from September 1998 to March 2000.
                Three hundred eighty-six clinical sites in the United States and Canada.
                A total of 8059 patients (>/=18 years old) with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were enrolled in the study, and 7968 received at least 1 dose of study drug. A total of 4573 patients (57%) received treatment for 6 months.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, 400 mg twice per day (2 and 4 times the maximum RA and OA dosages, respectively; n = 3987); ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times per day (n = 1985); or diclofenac, 75 mg twice per day (n = 1996). Aspirin use for cardiovascular prophylaxis (</=325 mg/d) was permitted.
                Incidence of prospectively defined symptomatic upper GI ulcers and ulcer complications (bleeding, perforation, and obstruction) and other adverse effects during the 6-month treatment period.
                For all patients, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.76% vs 1.45% (P =.09) and 2. 08% vs 3.54% (P =.02), respectively. For patients not taking aspirin, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.44% vs 1.27% (P =.04) and 1.40% vs 2.91% (P =.02). For patients taking aspirin, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 2.01% vs 2.12% (P =.92) and 4.70% vs 6.00% (P =.49). Fewer celecoxib-treated patients than NSAID-treated patients experienced chronic GI blood loss, GI intolerance, hepatotoxicity, or renal toxicity. No difference was noted in the incidence of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and NSAIDs, irrespective of aspirin use.
                In this study, celecoxib, at dosages greater than those indicated clinically, was associated with a lower incidence of symptomatic ulcers and ulcer complications combined, as well as other clinically important toxic effects, compared with NSAIDs at standard dosages. The decrease in upper GI toxicity was strongest among patients not taking aspirin concomitantly. JAMA. 2000;284:1247-1255 To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tramadol 37.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg combination tablets (tramadol/APAP) as add-on therapy for subjects with osteoarthritis (OA) pain inadequately controlled by COX-2 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID).
                This 91-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled subjects with symptomatic OA for >/= 1 year who experienced at least moderate pain [visual analog scale (VAS) score >/= 50/100 mm] despite treatment with stable doses of celecoxib (>/= 200 mg/day) or rofecoxib (>/= 25 mg/day). Tramadol/APAP or matching placebo was titrated to 4 tablets/day on Day 10 and thereafter as needed up to 8 tablets/day. The primary efficacy measure was final VAS score; secondary measures included final pain relief rating scores, subject/investigator overall medication assessments, rate and time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy, and selected quality-of-life/physical functioning scores.
                Of 307 subjects randomized, 306 taking celecoxib (56.5%) or rofecoxib (43.5%) were included in the intent-to-treat population (n = 153 tramadol/APAP, 153 placebo). Mean final VAS scores for tramadol/APAP plus COX-2 NSAID were significantly lower than placebo plus COX-2 NSAID (41.5 vs 48.3; p = 0.025) and mean final pain relief rating scores were significantly higher (p = 0.002). Subjects taking tramadol/APAP showed significant improvements compared with placebo in subject/investigator medication assessments, as well as in the WOMAC Physical Function and the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 Role-Physical measures. The most common treatment-related adverse events for tramadol/APAP were somnolence (6.5%), nausea (4.6%), and constipation (3.3%). Mean tramadol/APAP dose was 4.1 tablets (154 mg tramadol/ 1332 mg APAP).
                Tramadol 37.5 mg/APAP 325 mg combination tablets were effective and safe as add-on therapy with COX-2 NSAID for treatment of OA pain. Joint pain is the main complaint in patients affected by osteoarthritis (OA), and NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain associated with OA. Over the past few years, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective inhibitors have been proved to have certain advantages over non-selective NSAIDs and have been increasingly used for pain management in patients with OA.
                The main objective of this randomised, double-blind, within-patient study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of three COX-2 inhibitors in 30 patients affected by symptomatic OA of the knee. We evaluated the effects of oral nimesulide (100mg), celecoxib (200mg) and rofecoxib (25mg). Each drug was administered for 7 days.
                Analgesic efficacy was determined using the patient's assessment of pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and by total pain relief over 3 hours (TOPAR3) on the first and last days of treatment. In addition, the overall analgesic efficacy and tolerability were determined by a global assessment by the patient at the end of each week of treatment, using 5-point categorical scales. At the end of the study, each patient was asked about which of the three forms of treatment they would choose as a continuation of the pain therapy.
                Taking all the results into consideration, nimesulide proved to be significantly more effective in providing symptomatic relief than did celecoxib and rofecoxib. Furthermore, nimesulide provided more rapid relief of pain associated with walking than did the other two drugs tested. Patients expressed similar preference for nimesulide and rofecoxib, but a lesser preference for celecoxib treatment. No patient withdrew from the study because of adverse events and the three different forms of treatment were generally safe and well tolerated.
                The present data confirm our previous observations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, further suggesting that nimesulide represents an effective agent for the treatment of joint pain, with particular reference to the rapid onset of its analgesic effect. To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, with naproxen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and placebo in the treatment of painful temporomandibular joints (TMJs). In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 68 subjects with painful TMJs secondary to disc-displacement with reduction, received celecoxib 100 mg twice a day; naproxen, 500 mg twice a day; or placebo for 6 weeks. Subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity measured by visual analogue scale, maximal comfortable mandibular opening, and quality of life (SF-36), at baseline (1 week after discontinuing previous analgesic therapy) and again after 6 weeks of drug treatment. Naproxen significantly reduced the symptoms of painful temporomandibular joint disc-displacement (TMJ DD) with reduction as determined by most efficacy measures. Significant improvement in pain intensity occurred within 3 weeks of treatment, and was sustained throughout the 6-week study. Clinically significant improvement in mandibular range of motion was observed for naproxen compared to celecoxib and placebo. Celecoxib showed slightly better pain reduction than placebo, but was not significantly effective for temporomandibular disorder pain. Celecoxib and naproxen were well tolerated, with similar number of reported adverse effects. Dual COX-1 and COX-2 inhibition with naproxen was demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of painful TMJs, as seen by significant improvement in clinical signs and symptoms of TMJ DD with reduction compared to celecoxib and placebo. Inhibition of both COX isozymes is needed to achieve effective analgesia for this type of musculoskeletal pain. Few non-surgical conditions are more painful than rib fractures. There are a few methods for pain relief in patients with minor rib fractures.
                We used a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID, Naproxen sodium) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (TENS) to control pain of the patients with uncomplicated minor rib fractures. One hundred consecutive patients admitted to Kartal Education and Research Hospital Emergency Service, were randomized into four groups. The patients were assigned to one of the following pain treatments: NSAID, TENS, NSAID plus inactive TENS or placebo. The patients used NSAIDs and placebo four times a day and TENS twice a day for 3 days. All patients were asked to assess their pain level with a scoring system on days 0, 1 and 3.
                The most effective treatment was TENS on days 1 and 3 (P<0.05). Although NSAID and NSAID plus inactive TENS controlled pain better than placebo on day 1 (P<0.05), this superiority did not continue to day 3 (P>0.05). There was no difference between NSAID and NSAID plus inactive TENS in controlling pain on either days 1 or 3.
                We conclude that TENS was more effective than NSAID or placebo in patients with uncomplicated minor rib fractures, because of its prominent and admirable efficacy in reduction of pain. To evaluate the effectiveness of an automated prior authorization (PA) system (SmartPA) in reducing use of and expenditures for cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors.
                Before and after with control group.
                After implementation of SmartPA in Missouri, changes in use of and expenditures for COX-2 inhibitors, COX-2 substitutes (traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] and other products for pain), and gastrointestinal (GI) protective agents were compared between the Medicaid program of Missouri and that of a state with no PA program for COX-2 inhibitors. Subjects were continuously enrolled for the 24-month study period and had a claim for a COX-2 inhibitor in the 12-month baseline period. Analyses included comparison of means and linear regression. Regressions controlled for age, sex, risk for GI complications, severity of illness, and the interaction between state and risk.
                Changes in expenditures for COX-2 inhibitors, NSAIDs, other pain drugs, and GI-protective drugs were $256 higher, $56 lower, $21 higher, and $198 higher, respectively, in the control state among low-risk patients. Changes in expenditures were $102 higher, $12 lower, $21 lower, and $185 higher, respectively, in the control state among high-risk patients. Results were similar for drug utilization.
                Implementation of SmartPA resulted in reduced use of and expenditures for COX-2 inhibitors and reduced net expenditures for all pain and GI-protective medications. These effects were greatest for patients at low risk for GI complications. Prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of facet joint injection with lidocaine and facet joint injection with saline in two groups of patients with low back pain, with and without clinical criteria that were determined in a previous study to implicate the facet joint as the primary source of the pain.
                To assess the efficacy of single facet joint anesthesia versus placebo (saline injections) and to determine clinical criteria that are predictive of significant relief of LBP after injection.
                There is no syndrome that discriminates between lower back pain caused by facet joint and that caused by other structures. Single or double facet joint anesthesia, and single photon emission computed tomography are expensive and time-consuming procedures for selecting patients in controlled clinical trials with large populations.
                Results of a previous study showed that seven clinical characteristics were more frequent in patients who responded to facet joint anesthesia than in those who did not. In the current study, a group of 43 patients with lower back pain who met at least five criteria were compared with 37 patients who met fewer criteria. Patients randomly received injection of either lidocaine or saline into the lower facet joints. The result was considered positive if more than 75% pain relief was determined by visual analog scale. The patient, the radiologist, and the investigator were blinded. An analysis of variance was used to seek an interaction between clinical group effect and injection effect, and logistic regression analysis to select the best set of variables that would be predictive of minimum pain relief of 75% after the injection.
                There was a significant interaction between clinical group and injection effect (P = 0.003). In patients with back pain, lidocaine provided greater lower-back pain relief than saline (P = 0.01). Lidocaine also-provided greater pain relief in the back pain group than in the nonpain group (P = 0.02). The presence of five among seven variables (age greater than 65 years and pain that was not exacerbated by coughing, not worsened by hyperextension, not worsened by forward flexion, not worsened when rising from flexion, not worsened by extension-rotation, and well-relieved by recumbency), always including the last item, distinguished 92% of patients responding to lidocaine injection and 80% of those not responding in the lidocaine group.
                A set of five clinical characteristics can be used in randomized studies to select lower back pain that will be well relieved by facet joint anesthesia. These characteristics should not, however, be considered as definite diagnostic criteria of lower back pain originating from facet joints. To investigate the efficacy and safety of SC-58635 (celecoxib), an antiinflammatory and analgesic agent that acts by selective cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibition and is not expected to cause the typical gastrointestinal (GI), renal, and platelet-related side effects associated with inhibition of the COX-1 enzyme.
                Four phase II trials were performed: a 2-week osteoarthritis efficacy trial, a 4-week rheumatoid arthritis efficacy trial, a 1-week endoscopic study of GI mucosal effects, and a 1-week study of effects on platelet function.
                The 2 arthritis trials identified SC-58635 dosage levels that were consistently effective in treating the signs and symptoms of arthritis and were distinguished from placebo on standard arthritis scales. In the upper GI endoscopy study, 19% of subjects receiving naproxen (6 of 32) developed gastric ulcers, whereas no ulcers occurred in subjects receiving SC-58635 or placebo. The study of platelet effects revealed no meaningful effect of SC-58635 on platelet aggregation or thromboxane B2 levels, whereas aspirin caused significant decreases in 2 of 3 platelet aggregation measures and thromboxane B2 levels. In all 4 trials, SC-58635 was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo.
                SC-58635 achieves analgesic and antiinflammatory efficacy in arthritis through selective COX-2 inhibition, without showing any evidence of 2 of the toxic effects of COX-1 inhibition associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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.
                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. This randomized, double-dummy, double-blind pilot study of acutely exacerbated low back pain was aimed to inform a definitive comparison between Doloteffin, a proprietary extract of Harpagophytum, and rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2).
                Forty-four patients (phyto-anti-inflammatory drug-PAID-group) received a daily dose of Doloteffin containing, inter alia, 60 mg of harpagoside for 6 weeks and 44 (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-NSAID-group) received 12.5 mg/day of rofecoxib. All were allowed rescue medication of up to 400 mg/day of tramadol. Several outcome measures were examined at various intervals to obtain estimates of effect size and variability that might be used to decide the most suitable principal outcome measure and corresponding numbers required for a definitive study.
                Forty-three PAID and 36 NSAID patients completed the study. Ten PAID and 5 NSAID patients reported no pain without rescue medication for at least 5 days of the 6th week of treatment. Eighteen PAID and 12 NSAID patients had more than a 50% reduction in the week's average of their pain scores between the 1st and 6th weeks. The mean percentage decrease from baseline in the pain component of the Arhus Index was 23 (S.D. 52) in PAID and 26 (S.D. 43) in NSAID. The corresponding measures for the overall Arhus Index were 11 (31) and 16 (24) and, for the Health Assessment Questionnaire, 7 (8) and 6 (7). Tramadol was used by 21 PAID patients and 13 NSAID patients. Fourteen patients in each group experienced 39 adverse effects, of which 28 (13 in PAID) were judged to some degree attributable to the study medications.
                Though no significant intergroup differences were demonstrable, large numbers will be needed to show equivalence. Thirty-six non-hospitalized subjects with chronic pain from OA of the knee participated in an evaluation of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and naproxen, an NSAID. All pre-experiment treatment was withdrawn. Each subject experienced in some order three 3-week treatment phases: NSAID plus placebo TENS; TENS plus placebo drug; and double placebo. A broad range of pain measures was used, including daily diary ratings, and four-times-per-day ratings entered into a small electronic data logger (the PIPER) worn by the subject. A substantial placebo response occurred across all conditions, which may have masked treatment differences. Broad comparisons across subjects, combining the four main measures of pain, found no significant differences among the three experimental treatments. Analysis of diary and PIPER data for individuals suggested that, in a small minority of subjects, the NSAID plus placebo TENS combination may be more effective than double placebo. The PIPER ratings seemed to tap aspects of the pain experience different from those captured by conventional measures, suggesting the value of very frequent pain assessments, such as those entered by a subject into the PIPER, in the study of chronic pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used as analgesic in postoperative pain to reduce opioid side effects, such as drowsiness and nausea. However, NSAIDs have not been used extensively in cardiac surgical patients due to the fear of untoward effects on gastric, renal, and coagulation parameters. This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of three NSAIDs for pain control in CABG patients.
                One hundred and twenty patients scheduled for elective CABG surgery were enrolled in randomized, double blind, controlled study. Standardized fast track cardiac anesthesia was used. One dose of drug (75 mg diclofenac, 100 mg ketoprofen, 100 mg indomethacin, or placebo) was given pr one hour before tracheal extubation and a second dose 12 hr later. Pain was treated with morphine iv and acetaminophen po. Visual analogue pain scores were recorded at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 hr after the first dose of drug.
                There were no differences among the groups in pain scores. Only patients who received diclofenac required less morphine than patients in the control group (P < 0.05). When the total amounts of pain medications were computed to morphine equivalents, only patients in the diclofenac group received less pain medications than the placebo group (P < 0.05). Proportion of patients with postoperative increase of creatinine level (20% and over) did not differ between placebo and drug groups.
                Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be used for analgesia management post CABG surgery in selected patients. Diclofenac appears to have the best analgesic effects by reducing the morphine and other analgesic requirement postoperatively. Lumiracoxib is a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor in development for the treatment of chronic and acute pain.
                This randomized, double-blind multicentre study enrolled 180 patients (aged 18-80 years) with moderate-to-severe pain (>or=2 on a 4-point categorical scale) within 48 h of unilateral total knee or total hip arthroplasty. Patients were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily (n = 60), placebo (n = 60) or naproxen 500 mg twice daily (n = 60). The study consisted of a 12-h single-dose phase followed by a multiple-dose phase (up to 96 h or until discontinuation). The primary efficacy measure was the summed (time-weighted) pain intensity difference over 0-8 h after the first dose (SPID-8).
                Lumiracoxib and naproxen were comparable and both treatments were superior to placebo for the primary efficacy measure, SPID-8. Both treatments were generally similar and also superior to placebo for the secondary efficacy measures during both the single- and multiple-dose phases for up to 96 h. Both active treatments were well tolerated.
                Lumiracoxib is an effective alternative to traditional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of post-operative pain. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out to see whether the synthetic E prostaglandin, misoprostol, would prevent gastric ulcer induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). 420 patients with osteoarthritis and NSAID-associated abdominal pain were studied; they were receiving ibuprofen, piroxicam, or naproxen. Endoscopy was done at entry and after 1, 2, and 3 months of continuous treatment with 100 micrograms or 200 micrograms misoprostol or placebo, given four times daily with meals and at bedtime, concurrently with the NSAID. Abdominal pain was rated independently by patients and physicians. A treatment failure was defined as development of a gastric ulcer. Gastric ulcers (0.3 cm in diameter or greater) occurred less frequently (p less than 0.001) in both misoprostol treatment groups (5.6% 100 micrograms and 1.4% 200 micrograms) than in the placebo group (21.7%). The significant difference in ulcer formation between the placebo and the misoprostol treatment groups remained when comparisons were restricted to ulcers greater than 0.5 cm in diameter (12.3% placebo, 4.2% 100 micrograms misoprostol, and 0.7% 200 micrograms misoprostol). Mild to moderate, self-limiting diarrhoea was the most frequently reported adverse effect attributed to misoprostol. These results provide the first clear indication that NSAID-induced ulcers are preventable. A randomized, open, long-term, repeated-dose comparison of an anti-inflammatory drug and two opioid regimens in 36 patients with back pain.
                To examine the long-term safety and efficacy of chronic opioid therapy in a randomized trial of patients with back pain.
                All participants underwent a 4-week washout period of no opioid medication before being randomly assigned to one of three treatment regimens for 16 weeks: 1) naproxen only, 2) set-dose oxycodone, or 3) titrated-dose oxycodone and sustained-release morphine sulfate. All patients then were assigned to a titrated dose of opioids for 16 weeks and then gradually tapered off their medication for 12 weeks. Finally, all participants were monitored for a 1-month posttreatment washout period. Each patient was called once a week for a report on pain, activity, mood, medication, hours awake, and adverse effects and was monitored carefully for signs of abuse and noncompliance.
                Weekly reports during the experimental phase showed the titrated-dose group to have less pain (P < 0.001) and less emotional distress (P < 0.001) than the other two groups. Both opioid groups were significantly different from the naproxen-only group. During the titration phase, patients also reported significantly less pain and improved mood. Few differences were found in activity or hours asleep, or between average pretreatment and posttreatment phone-interview and questionnaire variables. No adverse events occurred, and only one participant showed signs of abuse behavior.
                The results suggest that opioid therapy has a positive effect on pain and mood but little effect on activity and sleep. Opioid therapy for chronic back pain was used without significant risk of abuse. However, tapered-off opioid treatment is palliative and without long-term benefit. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) has produced guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care.
                To investigate the impact on patient management of an educational strategy to promote these guidelines among general practitioners (GPs).
                Group randomised controlled trial, using the health centre as the unit of randomisation.
                Primary care teams in north-west England.
                Twenty-four health centres were randomly allocated to an intervention or control arm. Practices in the intervention arm were offered outreach visits to promote national guidelines on acute low back pain, as well as access to fast-track physiotherapy and to a triage service for patients with persistent symptoms.
                Twenty-four centres were randomised. Two thousand, one hundred and eighty-seven eligible patients presented with acute low back pain during the study period: 1049 in the intervention group and 1138 in the control group. There were no significant differences between study groups in the proportion of patients who were referred for X-ray, issued with a sickness certificate, prescribed opioids or muscle relaxants, or who were referred to secondary care, but significantly more patients in the intervention group were referred to physiotherapy or the back pain unit (difference in proportion = 12.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.8% to 21.6%).
                The management of patients presenting with low back pain to primary care was mostly unchanged by an outreach educational strategy to promote greater adherence to RCGP guidelines among GPs. An increase in referral to physiotherapy or educational programmes followed the provision of a triage service. Two hundred healthy patients scheduled for elective minor gynaecological surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly allocated to one of four groups who received either diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly (i.m.), ketorolac 30 mg i.m., diclofenac 50 mg orally, or 2 mL NaCl i.m. The drugs were administered 10-20 min prior to a standard anaesthetic. All surgery was uneventful. The patients were discharged after a mean of 110 +/- 30 min with no differences between the groups. Complaints about pain and need for post-operative analgesics were significantly less frequent in the two groups of patients receiving an intramuscular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), as compared to placebo. The patients who received 50 mg diclofenac orally, administered shortly before the procedure, had the same pain course as the placebo patients. It is uncertain whether there exists a nociceptive component in malignant nerve pain responsive to NSAIDs and opioids. 20 patients with malignant nerve pain were randomly assigned to treatment with naproxen 1500 mg versus slow-release morphine 60 mg daily during 1 week, followed by cross-over medication during the second week in a double-blind, double-dummy protocol. In the 16 evaluable patients, a significant (P < 0.05) reduction of 26% (S.E. +/- 7.9) in pain intensity was reached at day 7, compared to baseline pain. At day 7, significant pain relief of 32% (P < 0.05) was observed in the naproxen group, but not in the morphine group (21%, P = 0.14). Patients using morphine needed approximately twice as much paracetamol rescue than patients using naproxen. Additional pain relief could be observed in 4/9 patients with cross-over medication. These data support the concept of a nociceptive component in malignant nerve pain responding to NSAIDs and opioids, and favour the combination of both an anti-inflammatory drug and an opioid for symptomatic pain relief. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a frequently applied therapy in chronic pain although evidence for effectiveness is inconclusive. Several types of TENS, based on different combinations of frequency, pulse duration and intensity, exist. The precise mechanism of action and the relevance of combinations of stimulus parameters are still unclear. To compare the effectiveness of three types of TENS we conducted a randomized, single blinded crossover trial. Patients received two times a 2-week period of daily TENS treatment, separated by a washout period of 2 weeks. In total, 180 chronic pain patients were randomized into three groups. In group 1, high frequency, low intensity TENS (HFT) was compared with high frequency, high intensity TENS (HIT). In groups 2 and 3, HFT and HIT were compared with a control TENS (COT). The order of applying the different modalities of TENS in each group was also randomized. Primary outcome was the patient's overall assessment of effectiveness and pain reduction (VAS). No differences were found in patient's assessment or pain reducing effect between the three groups, indicating no superiority of one type of TENS. In total, 56% continued TENS after the 2-week treatment period. At 6 months, 42% of all patients still used TENS. We concluded that there were no differences in effectiveness for the three types of TENS used in this study. Because no placebo group was included, no definite conclusions on effectiveness of TENS in general in the treatment of chronic pain could be made. To determine whether audit/feedback and educational materials improve adherence to recommendations for laboratory monitoring and cytoprotective agents to detect and prevent adverse events caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs).
                Controlled, cluster-randomized trial.
                Physicians commonly prescribing NSAIDs were identified within a large managed care organization and randomized to a control or an intervention group (audit/feedback with peer-derived benchmarks and continuing medical education). Medical records were examined 10 months before and after the intervention for clinical data and receipt of complete blood count (CBC), creatinine testing, and cytoprotective agents (process measures). Primary analysis compared intervention versus control physicians among those who initially performed below a peer-derived benchmark. General estimating equations accounted for patient clustering.
                Of 101 physicians initially randomized, 85 remained eligible (38 internists, 36 family physicians, 11 rheumatologists) postintervention. Mean percent change in performance between intervention and control physicians for CBC monitoring was 16% versus 10%; for creatinine monitoring, 0% versus 17%; and use of cytoprotective agents, -3% versus -1%. None of these changes were significant. Rheumatology specialty, number of NSAID prescriptions and physician visits, and patient risk factors for NSAID-related toxicity were more strongly associated with improved safety practices than the intervention.
                Audit/feedback and educational materials had no observed effect on improving NSAID-related safety practices. Potentially contributing factors include high baseline performance (ceiling effect), dilution of the intervention effect by case mix and provider factors, nonreceipt of intervention materials, and diverse indications for lab tests. Chronic low back pain is a common problem with many treatments, few of which have been rigorously evaluated. This randomized, placebo-controlled trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of injections of corticosteroid into facet joints to treat chronic low back pain.
                Patients with chronic low back pain who reported immediate relief of their pain after injections of local anesthetic into the facet joints between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae and the fifth lumbar and first sacral vertebrae were randomly assigned to receive under fluoroscopic guidance injections of either methylprednisolone acetate (20 mg; n = 49) or isotonic saline (n = 48) in the same facet joints. Ninety-five patients were followed for six months and their condition assessed with scales of pain severity, back mobility, and limitation of function.
                After one month, none of the outcome measures evaluating pain, functional status, and back flexion differed clinically or statistically between the two study groups. Forty-two percent of the patients who received methylprednisolone and 33 percent of those who received placebo reported marked or very marked improvement (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -11 to 28 percentage points; P = 0.53). The results were similar after three months. At the six-month evaluation, the patients treated with methylprednisolone reported more improvement, less pain on the visual-analogue scale, and less physical disability. The differences were reduced, however, when concurrent interventions were taken into account. Moreover, only 11 patients (22 percent) in the methylprednisolone group and 5 (10 percent) in the placebo group had sustained improvement from the first month to the sixth month (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -2 to 26; P = 0.19).
                We conclude that injecting methylprednisolone acetate into the facet joints is of little value in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain. To assess the efficacy of exercise therapy for acute low back pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 40 Dutch general practices. Patients received either exercise instruction with advice for daily life by a physiotherapist; placebo ultrasound therapy by a physiotherapist; or usual care by the general practitioner. All patients received analgesic agents and information on low back pain before randomization. Four hundred seventy-three patients were included. No differences in number of recurrences, functional health status, or medical care usage could be found among the three groups. In the exercise group, duration of recurrences was shorter and patients were less tired during the first 3 months than in the usual care group, but no differences were found between the exercise and placebo groups. It was concluded that exercise therapy for patients with acute low back pain has no advantage over usual care from the general practitioner. Pain syndromes of the lumbar spine are one of the main problems in orthopedic practice. The therapeutic effect of NSAIDs is not subject to doubt in this connection. But considering that the application of NSAIDs is frequently associated with side effects, a reduction of dosage would be to the patient's benefit. Clinical studies have shown that concomitant treatment with vitamins B1, B6, B12 and diclofenac leads to a more efficient pain relief than treatment using diclofenac alone and thus provides the possibility of saving NSAIDs. This clinical trial was carried out in order to determine whether these results can also be achieved when a reduced dosage of diclofenac (75 mg daily) is used. 123 patients with acute pain syndromes of the lumbar spine were treated with either B-vitamins and diclofenac or diclofenac alone for a maximum of 7 days. There was the option to terminate therapy in the trial after 3-4 days in the case of total pain relief. 45 patients could stop the treatment due to remission of symptoms. 30 patients belonged to the combination therapy group, the other 15 took diclofenac alone; this difference is statistically significant (p less than 0.05). All parameters concerning pain relief and movement of the vertebral column showed statistically significant differences in favour of the B-vitamin-diclofenac-combination, too. The results document the positive influence of B-vitamins on painful vertebral syndromes and indicate that B-vitamins contribute to saving of NSAIDs by shortening the treatment time and reducing daily NSAID-dosage. Conservative treatment of mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is variable.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of commonly used oral medications such as diuretics, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids in the treatment of CTS.
                Prospective, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study of patients with clinical symptoms and signs of CTS, confirmed by standard electrodiagnosis. Baseline assessments included a standardized symptom questionnaire, rating five categories of symptoms (pain, numbness, paresthesia, weakness/clumsiness, and nocturnal awakening) on a scale from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (severe). The total score in each of the five categories was termed the global symptom score (GSS). After baseline assessment, patients were randomized to the following treatment arms: 1) 4 weeks of placebo (n = 16); 2) 4 weeks of diuretic (trichlormethiazide, 2 mg daily; n = 16); 3) 4 weeks of NSAID-slow release (SR) (tenoxicam-SR, 20 mg daily; n = 18); and 4) 2 weeks of prednisolone, 20 mg daily, followed by another 2-week dosage of 10 mg daily (n = 23). Results of follow-up assessments in the second and the fourth weeks were identical to baseline scores. The changes in GSS were analyzed to determine the statistical difference.
                No significant reduction from baseline GSS was seen at second, and fourth weeks in the placebo, NSAID-SR, and diuretic groups. However, the mean score at 4 weeks in the steroid group decreased significantly from a baseline of 27.9 +/- 6.9 to 10 +/- 7.4.
                For patients with mild to moderate CTS who opt for conservative treatment, corticosteroids are of greater benefit. A number of treatments are widely prescribed for chronic back pain, but few have been rigorously evaluated. We examined the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), a program of stretching exercises, or a combination of both for low back pain. Patients with chronic low back pain (median duration, 4.1 years) were randomly assigned to receive daily treatment with TENS (n = 36), sham TENS (n = 36), TENS plus a program of exercises (n = 37), or sham TENS plus exercises (n = 36). After one month no clinically or statistically significant treatment effect of TENS was found on any of 11 indicators of outcome measuring pain, function, and back flexion; there was no interactive effect of TENS with exercise. Overall improvement in pain indicators was 47 percent with TENS and 42 percent with sham TENS (P not significant). The 95 percent confidence intervals for group differences excluded a major clinical benefit of TENS for most outcomes. By contrast, after one month patients in the exercise groups had significant improvement in self-rated pain scores, reduction in the frequency of pain, and greater levels of activity as compared with patients in the groups that did not exercise. The mean reported improvement in pain scores was 52 percent in the exercise groups and 37 percent in the nonexercise groups (P = 0.02). Two months after the active intervention, however, most patients had discontinued the exercises, and the initial improvements were gone. We conclude that for patients with chronic low back pain, treatment with TENS is no more effective than treatment with a placebo, and TENS adds no apparent benefit to that of exercise alone. The efficacy and tolerability of acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol, diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, pirprofen, sulindac, naproxen and suprofen were compared in the treatment of cancer pain. In a double-blind, within-patient randomized study, each drug was given for 1 week to eight patients and for another week to a further eight patients. A total of 65 patients were effectively treated; only 48 completed week 1 and 41 completed week 2. Naproxen, diclofenac and indomethacin were highly effective in pain relief (tested by means of a 100 mm visual analogue scale) and were relatively well tolerated. It is concluded that these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be considered as first choice in the treatment of cancer pain. Low back pain is one of the most significant medical and socioeconomic problems in modern society. International guidelines call for evidence-based management for the pain and disability associated with musculoskeletal disorders. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to address the question of efficacy and appropriateness of vertebral axial decompression (VAX-D) therapy, a new technology that has been shown in clinical research to create negative intradiscal pressures, and has been shown to be effective in treating patients presenting with chronic low back pain (> 3 months duration) with associated leg pain. Successful outcome was defined as a 50% reduction in pain utilizing a 10 cm Visual Analog Pain Scale and an improvement in the level of functioning as measured by patient-nominated disability ratings. Patients were randomly assigned to VAX-D or to TENS which was used as a control treatment or placebo. The TENS treatment demonstrated a success rate of 0%, while VAX-D demonstrated a success rate of 68.4% (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in pain and improvement in functional outcome was obtained in patients with chronic low back pain treated with VAX-D. To determine the efficacy of misoprostol for the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced duodenal and gastric ulcers in arthritis patients receiving NSAID therapy.
                A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.
                Six hundred thirty-eight private, Veterans Affairs, health maintenance, and academic practices.
                Six hundred thirty-eight patients with chronic inflammatory or noninflammatory arthritis who were taking an NSAID but who did not have a gastric or duodenal ulcer on screening endoscopy received treatment with ibuprofen, piroxicam, naproxen, sulindac, tolmetin, indomethacin, or diclofenac daily for 3 months. Four hundred fifty-five (71%) patients completed the trial.
                Patients meeting the entry criteria were randomized to receive either misoprostol, 200 micrograms, or placebo, four times a day for 12 weeks.
                The endoscopy was repeated at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The development of a duodenal or gastric ulcer (defined as a circumscribed mucosal defect > or = 0.5 cm in diameter and with perceptible depth) was regarded as prophylactic failure.
                By 12 weeks, a duodenal ulcer developed in 2 of 320 (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 3.9%) patients randomized to receive misoprostol, compared with 15 of 323 (4.6%; CI, 2.8% to 8%) patients receiving placebo (P = 0.002). A gastric ulcer developed in 6 of 320 (1.9%; (CI, 0.8% to 4.4%) patients, compared with in 25 of 323 (7.7%; CI, 5.1% to 11.4%), respectively.
                Misoprostol significantly lowers the frequency of both duodenal and gastric ulcer development in patients who require long-term therapy with NSAIDS. In a flare of osteoarthritis (OA) pain, increasing the dose of standard anti-inflammatory or routine analgesic drugs may not be practical because of an increased incidence of side effects. In patients achieving inadequate pain relief from traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective inhibitors, it may be appropriate to add an analgesic agent with a different mechanism of action, thereby targeting multiple components of the pain pathway.
                The addition of tramadol/acetaminophen tablets to existing therapy was compared with the addition of placebo in the treatment of OA flare pain.
                This was a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on study. Patients received 1 or 2 tramadol/acetaminophen (37.5 mg/325 mg) tablets QID or matching placebo for 10 days in addition to ongoing NSAID or COX-2-selective inhibitor therapy. The primary outcome measures were average daily pain intensity and average daily pain relief scores from days 1 through 5.
                Three hundred eight patients were randomized to tramadoUacetaminophen (n = 197) or placebo (n = 111) and were followed for up to 10 days. Patients had a mean (+/-SD) age of 60.1 +/- 9.87 years, and were predominantly female (71.8%) and white (87.7%). Their mean (+/- SD) pain visual analog score at baseline was 73.2 +/- 11.8 mm, and their mean pain intensity score was 2.4 +/- 0.5 (on a scale from 0 = none to 3 = severe). Average daily pain intensity and pain relief scores were significantly improved with tramadol/acetaminophen compared with placebo on the primary assessment of efficacy from days 1 through 5 (both, P < 0.001) and on the assessment of efficacy from days I through 10 (both, P < 0.001) Tramadol/acetaminophen was significantly superior to placebo on the patients' and physicians' overall assessments of medication (both, P < 0.001) and on 3 of 4 subscales (pain [P = 0.004], physical function [P = 0.013], and overall [P = 0.008]) of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Questionnaire. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with tramadol/acetaminophen were nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. No serious adverse events were reported in the tramadol/acetaminophen group.
                In this study, addition of tramadol/acetaminophen to NSAID or COX-2-selective inhibitor therapy was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of OA flare pain. Four treatment regimens for patients with specified combinations of low back pain and sciatica were evaluated. The largest group studied had low back pain with limited straight-leg raising (SLR) and in them the beneficial effect of manipulation in hastening pain relief was highly significant. In similar patients without limitation of SLR, the effect was of borderline significance. In all the other groups, treated patients also recovered more quickly than their controls. Traction, for patients with low back pain and sciatica, and epidural injections when a root palsy was present also produced some significant pain relief. The effect of sclerosants for back pain was less clear. Thirty patients with low-back pain of at least one month's duration were included in a double-blind controlled study with third-party administration and treated with either methylprednisolone acetate mixed with lignocaine or isotonic saline, injected at the site of the iliolumbar ligament. The treatment was evaluated by a visual analogue scale, range of spinal flexion ad modum Wright & Moll and of the patients' self-assessments. In the methylprednisolone group, significant decreases in pain score and in patients' self-assessments were found. The range of spinal flexion did not undergo any significant change. No significant changes were found in the control group. No side effects were observed during the study. Pain is a common complaint, often occurring in conjunction with inflammation. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most commonly used analgesic agents in ambulatory patients. In recent studies, the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor rofecoxib demonstrated analgesic effects similar to those of NSAIDs in the treatment of acute pain and primary dysmenorrhea. The present randomized, single-dose, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group study was undertaken to compare the analgesic efficacy of the COX-2 inhibitors rofecoxib 50 mg and celecoxib 200 mg with that of ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo in patients with postoperative dental pain. Two hundred and seventy-two patients experiencing pain after the removal of > or =2 third molars were randomized according to pain severity (moderate vs severe) to receive a single dose of placebo (n = 45), rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 90), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 91), or ibuprofen 400 mg (n = 46). Using a patient diary, patients recorded pain intensity, pain relief, and global evaluations throughout the 24-hour period after dosing. The overall analgesic effect, onset of action, peak effect, and duration of effect were evaluated, with the primary end point being total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8). The safety profile was assessed on the basis of physical findings, laboratory results, and spontaneous reports of adverse experiences. The results showed that compared with celecoxib, rofecoxib had superior analgesic effects on all measures of analgesic efficacy, including overall analgesic effect (TOPAR8, 18.3 vs. 12.5; P<0.001), time to onset of effect (30 vs. 60 minutes; P = 0.003), peak pain relief (score, 2.8 vs 2.3; P<0.05), and duration of effect (>24 vs. 5.1 hours; P<0.001). In addition, rofecoxib's analgesic efficacy was similar to that of ibuprofen (TOPAR8, 18.3 vs. 17.0; P = 0.460), but the duration was longer (P<0.05); with ibuprofen, the time to on set was 24 minutes, peak pain relief score was 2.9, and duration of analgesic effect was 8.9 hours. The safety profile was similar across all treatment groups. Thus rofecoxib provided analgesic efficacy superior to that of celecoxib and comparable to that of ibuprofen in the treatment of patients with acute postoperative dental pain. One hundred and twelve patients with acute mechanical low back pain were randomly divided into three treatment groups. All patients received ergonomic advice and then either a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or conservative or manipulative types of physiotherapy. Serial assessments of pain and spinal mobility showed similar response rates in all three treatment groups and no significant difference between therapies. The overall improvement ratings, time off work, and economic cost favoured the group treated with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, but this group had a better range of spinal flexion at the onset so firm conclusions regarding the preferred management of these patients in general practice cannot be drawn. Treatment failures occurred in all groups highlighting the need for a variety of therapeutic approaches in managing the patient with low back pain. Cluster randomized controlled trial for a multifaceted implementation strategy.
                To assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions (multifaceted implementation strategy) to implement the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners with regard to adherence to guideline recommendations.
                Guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care have been developed in various countries, but little is known about the optimal implementation strategy. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to overcome identified barriers to the implementation of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners.
                General practitioners were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The general practitioners in the intervention group (n = 21) received tailored interventions consisting of the Dutch low back pain guideline for general practitioners, a 2-hour educational and clinical practice workshop; two scientific articles on low back pain management; the guideline for occupational physicians; a tool for patient education; and a tool for reaching agreement on low back care with physical, exercise, and manual therapists. The control group (n = 20) received no intervention. The participating general practitioners were asked to recruit consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain as the main reason for consultation. General practitioners completed registration forms of each individual consultation with regard to the main outcome measures: advice and information, referral to other health-care providers, and prescription of medication.
                Forty-one of the 67 randomized general practitioners reported on a total of 616 consultations for 531 patients with nonspecific low back pain. The advice and explanation provided by the general practitioners, the prescription of paracetamol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prescription of pain medication on atime contingent or a pain contingent basis showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups. There were also no differences in overall referral rate. However, in follow-up consultations fewer patients were referred to a physical or exercise therapist by the general practitioners in the intervention group than in the control group.
                The multifaceted intervention strategy modestly improved implementation (for parts of the recommendations in) the Dutch low back pain guideline by general practitioners and produced small concomitant changes in patient management. The implementation strategy produced fewer referrals to therapists during follow-up consultations. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin, ibuprofen, and indomethacin (INN, indometacin) inhibit both the constitutive (COX-1) and inducible (COX-2) isoforms of cyclooxygenase. The induction of COX-2 after inflammatory stimuli has led to the hypothesis that COX-2 inhibition primarily accounts for the therapeutic properties of NSAIDs.
                Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell lines that express each COX isoform were used to characterize the in vitro selectivity of rofecoxib. Single oral doses of rofecoxib and indomethacin were then assessed in subjects with use of ex vivo COX-isoform specific assays (serum thromboxane B2 [TXB2] and lipopolysaccharide [LPS]-stimulated whole blood prostaglandin E2 and assays of COX-1 and COX-2 activity, respectively). A double-blind, parallel-group study compared the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib to placebo and ibuprofen in 102 patients with dental pain.
                Rofecoxib showed a >800-fold COX-2 selectivity with use of CHO cells that express human COX-1 and COX-2. In subjects, dose- and concentration-dependent inhibition of LPS-stimulated prostaglandin E2 was observed with both rofecoxib (IC50 [the concentration estimated to produce 50% inhibition], 0.77 micromol/L) and indomethacin (IC50, 0.33 micromol/L). Whereas indomethacin inhibited TXB2, (IC50, 0.14 micromol/L), no inhibition was observed with rofecoxib even at doses of up to 1000 mg. In the dental pain study, total pain relief (TOTPAR) over the 6 hours after dosing was similar between 50 mg and 500 mg rofecoxib and 400 mg ibuprofen (P > .20). All active treatments showed greater improvement than placebo (P < .001)
                Rofecoxib inhibited COX-2 without evidence of COX-1 inhibition, even at oral doses of up to 1000 mg. Nonetheless, rofecoxib showed analgesic activity indistinguishable from that observed with ibuprofen, a nonisoform-selective COX inhibitor. These results support the hypothesis that the analgesic effects of NSAIDs primarily derive from inhibition of COX-2. Many studies have been carried out on the effects of anaesthetic drugs and methods on the immune response, but pain and its relief also affect the immune response. We measured systemic immune responses in the blood circulation and local responses in the surgical wound when non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics (NSAIDs), opioids or epidural blockade was used in the peri-operative treatment of pain.
                Responses were measured in 51 children, aged from 2 to 12 years and undergoing major surgery under balanced anaesthesia. Bolus doses of diclofenac intravenously (i.v.) and rectally (NSAID group), continuous i.v. infusion of oxycodone (opioid group) or continuous epidural infusion of bupivacaine + fentanyl (epidural group) were used peri-operatively for pain relief.
                The only difference related to the analgesic method was shorter duration of post-operative leucocytosis and lower phytohaemagglutinin (PHA)-induced lymphocyte proliferative responses in peripheral blood in the opioid group than in the NSAID or epidural groups. By contrast, time-related alterations were seen overall in leucocyte and differential counts, lymphocyte and their subset counts, lymphocyte proliferative responses, and in serum cortisol, C-reactive protein, plasma interleukin-6 and group II phospholipase A2 concentrations and in the appearance of different cell types in the wound.
                Post-operative pain treatments using diclofenac (NSAID), oxycodone (opioid) and epidural blockade have basically similar effects on systemic and local immune responses with only slight, probably clinically unimportant differences in children undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia.
                Copyright 2004 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Ninety arthritic patients were randomly allotted to receive misoprostol 200 micrograms thrice daily or placebo, for 4 weeks, while they were started on various NSAIDs. While upper gastrointestinal symptoms occurred equally in both groups, patients on placebo had significantly more post-therapy abnormal endoscopy findings. Misoprostol was well tolerated without any adverse side effects; it did not interfere with the therapeutic efficacy of the NSAIDs. Arthritic patients requiring long term NSAID therapy appear to benefit from misoprostol because of its cytoprotective effect on the gastrointestinal mucosa. Opioids are increasingly used in the treatment of chronic non-malignant pain. The aim of this open-label, randomised, parallel group study was to compare analgesia and side-effects of two commonly used opioid analgesics, tramadol and dihydrocodeine, in long-acting formulations in 60 osteoarthritis patients with strong pain despite NSAID's. Dose titration based on effect was performed with the respective immediate release solutions given additionally to tramadol 100 mg bid and dihydrocodeine 60 mg bid during the first 4 days of the 1 month treatment. Electrical sensation and pain thresholds over the osteoarthritic joint and at a distant location and gastrointestinal transit times were performed before and during treatment. Thirty patients with pain controlled by NSAID's alone formed the comparator group. Pain intensities at rest and during movement decreased highly significantly with tramadol and dihydrocodeine from median pre-treatment verbal ratings of over 3 (0=none, 4=unbearable) to 1 and below from the second treatment day onwards (ANOVA P<0.0001). Pain at rest was significantly lower with tramadol (ANOVA P=0.04), but ratings were similar during movement. Mean (95% CI) daily doses on days 1 and 28 were 209 (198-220) mg and 203 (191-206) mg of tramadol, and 129 (122-136) mg and 130 (121-134) mg of dihydrocodeine, respectively. Minor side-effects were more common with tramadol (P=0.04). Changes in bowel functions and symptoms were minor with both treatments, but the frequency of defaecation was lower and stools were harder with dihydrocodeine. Orocaecal transit time remained unchanged and similar to controls with both analgesics. Colonic transit times only increased significantly during treatment with dihydrocodeine. Sensation and pain thresholds were lower pre-treatment in both groups than in controls and increased during treatment. These antinociceptive effects were more marked in the tramadol group and distant from the osteoarthritic joint. We conclude rapid pain relief was achieved with both long-acting tramadol and dihydrocodeine with NSAID's in strong osteoarthritis pain. Minimal dose titration was required and side-effects were minor. Tramadol interfered less with intestinal function and showed greater antinociceptive action. Gastric (GU) and duodenal ulcers (DU) are common adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Endoscopically diagnosed upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration occurs in about 24% of longterm NSAID users. Coadministration of misoprostol with the NSAID reduces the incidence of NSAID induced GU and DU and their complications. However, compliance is limited by the different dosing regimens of misoprostol and NSAID and GI symptoms associated with misoprostol at its recommended q.i.d. dose. We compared the efficacy, safety, and incidence of endoscopic upper GI ulceration associated with the administration of 2 combinations of diclofenac (50 or 75 mg) and misoprostol 200 microg (D50/M200 t.i.d., D75/M200 b.i.d.), diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., and placebo in a 6 week, randomized, double blind study in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip.
                A total of 572 patients with symptomatic OA of the knee or hip and history of GU, DU. or 10 or more erosions were randomized to receive D50/M200 t.i.d., D75/M200 b.i.d., diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., or placebo for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline, 2, and 6 weeks, and upper GI endoscopies at baseline and end of treatment.
                All active treatment groups were significantly better than placebo, at all visits, in improving OA symptoms. There were no significant differences in arthritis efficacy between the diclofenac/ misoprostol combinations and diclofenac. However, endoscopically diagnosed GU and/or DU were significantly less frequent in patients receiving D50/M200 t.i.d. (8%), D75/M200 b.i.d. (7%), and placebo (4%) compared to diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. (17%). Adverse events were not different between the active treatment groups, except for higher incidences of flatulence with D75/M200 and diarrhea with D50/M200.
                Diclofenac 50 mg/misoprostol 200 microg t.i.d. and diclofenac 75 mg/misoprostol 200 microg b.i.d. are as efficacious as diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of OA, but are associated with a significantly lower incidence of gastric and/or duodenal ulcers. One hundred nine patients with chronic (3-36 months; mean, 13.4 months) unilateral low-back pain and no signs of sciatica were subjected to facet joint injection, randomized in three therapy groups: cortisone and local anesthetic injected intra-articularly, the same mixture injected pericapsularly, and physiologic sodium hydrochloride injected intra-articularly into two facet joints. To evaluate the results, three outcome variables were formed: work, subjective, and disability outcome. The inappropriate signs (IAS) recorded before injections had the best predictability for a good outcome. The mode of injection or duration of symptoms had no significance as a predictor. It was concluded that the outcome after facet joint injection depends on the patient's biopsychosocial chances of self-facilitated improvement. If abnormal illness behavior and distress are found, it helps to estimate the response for treatment and to choose a realistic method of treatment. The introduction of microdiscectomy to lumbar spine surgery has resulted in a significant decrease in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. Intraoperative application of long-acting local anesthetic agents has been used for many general and neurosurgical procedures for the management of postoperative pain. In addition, many surgeons routinely use intraoperative corticosteroids during lumbar discectomy to reduce traumatic nerve root inflammation. However, the efficacy of intraoperative long-acting local anesthetic agents and corticosteroids for reduction of postoperative discomfort has not been reported for lumbar discectomy. This study evaluated 32 patients at a university-based Veterans Administration hospital undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy. All 32 patients presented with radicular symptoms and had radiographic confirmation of a herniated nucleus pulposus. These patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 (12 patients) received 160 mg intramuscular Depo-Medrol (methylprednisolone acetate) and 250 mg intravenous Solu-Medrol (methyl-prednisolone sodium succinate) at the start of the operation. A macerated fat graft soaked in 80 mg Depo-Medrol was placed over the affected nerve root following discectomy. In addition, 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine was infiltrated into the paraspinal musculature at skin incision and during closure. Group 2 (10 patients) received 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine infiltrated into the paraspinal musculature at skin incision and at closure. In this group of patients, a saline-soaked fat graft was placed over the affected nerve root. Group 3 (10 patients) acted as a control group, undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy without corticosteroids or bupivacaine. Patients receiving bupivacaine and corticosteroids (Group 1) had a statistically significantly shorter hospital stay (1.4 days) compared to the control group (4.0 days) (p = 0.0004, Mann-Whitney U-test). Patients in Group 1 required less postoperative narcotic analgesia than the other groups. Finally, a larger percentage of patients in Group 1 reported complete relief of back and radicular pain on postoperative Day 1 compared to other groups. Postoperative complications and functional outcome were not different between the groups. These results indicate that the combination of long-acting anesthetic agents and corticosteroids can reduce postoperative discomfort and subsequently the length of postoperative hospital stay. This double-blind randomized control study was conducted to evaluate whether a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) could act as an effective pain control method during first trimester suction abortion, and whether co-treatment of NSAID with misoprostol will decrease the efficacy of the cervical ripening effect of misoprostol. Subjects were randomized to receive misoprostol alone or misoprostol together with diclofenac sodium. Both groups of subjects suffered from similar incidence of preoperative side effects. Co-treatment of NSAID with misoprostol did not attenuate the cervical ripening efficacy of misoprostol. There was no significant pain reduction in the group treated with NSAID, except that a marginal benefit was found in the subgroup of multiparous women. About two thirds of the subjects in both treatment groups found that this was a satisfactory pain relief method during the procedure. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily (o.d.) with misoprostol 200 microg twice daily (b.i.d.), administered for 6 months to rheumatic patients who required long-term therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and who were at increased risk of developing gastrointestinal lesions.
                This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel group comparison study was performed with rheumatic patients (n = 515) who were likely to take NSAIDs continuously for at least 6 months. Patients were 55 years or older, at risk to develop gastrointestinal lesions, had less than five erosions/petechiae in the stomach and duodenum, no ulcers, no reflux esophagitis (endoscopy-proven), and gastrointestinal symptoms of at most moderate intensity. A minimum daily dose was defined for NSAIDs (COX-2 inhibitors were not available at the time). Patients were randomized to take either pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. (n = 257) or misoprostol 200 microg b.i.d. (n = 258) for 6 months while continuing NSAID therapy. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, 3, and 6 months.
                Pantoprazole was superior to misoprostol (p < 0.001) with regard to 'therapeutic failure' (occurrence of a peptic ulcer, ten or more erosions/petechiae in the stomach/duodenum, reflux esophagitis, severe gastrointestinal symptoms, and/or 'likely' or 'definitely' related adverse event leading to study termination). Estimated remission rates at 3 and 6 months (Kaplan-Meier life-table analysis) were, respectively, 93 and 89% (pantoprazole) and 79 and 70% (misoprostol). Pantoprazole was superior to misoprostol (p = 0.005) with regard to 'endoscopic failure' (occurrence of a peptic ulcer, ten or more erosions/petechiae in the stomach/duodenum, or reflux esophagitis) after 6 months. Estimated remission rates at 3 and 6 months were, respectively, 98 and 95% (pantoprazole) and 95 and 86% (misoprostol). Patients discontinuing the study early due to adverse events 'likely' or 'definitely' related to the study drug accounted for 13/257 (5%) in the pantoprazole and 33/258 (13%) in the misoprostol treatment groups.
                Pantoprazole 20 mg o.d. is superior to misoprostol 200 microg b.i.d. in the prevention of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms in patients on continuous long-term treatment with NSAIDs due to rheumatic diseases and at risk to develop such lesions or symptoms.
                Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel Although common treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain, such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), simple analgesics, and weak opioids, provide relief in some cases, they fail to control pain or are poorly tolerated in many cases. Strong opioids have been used to successfully treat several types of noncancer pain but have rarely been tested in controlled studies. Therefore, we tested the effects of transdermal fentanyl (TDF) in patients with moderate-to-severe OA pain, in a placebo-controlled study.
                The cohort comprised patients with radiologically confirmed OA of the hip or knee (meeting the American College of Rheumatology criteria) requiring joint replacement and with moderate-to-severe pain that had been inadequately controlled by weak opioids. The patients were randomized to receive TDF or placebo for 6 weeks after a 1-week pretreatment run-in phase. During study treatment, previously prescribed NSAIDs and simple analgesics were continued, but weak opioids were discontinued. All patients had access to paracetamol and metoclopramide. Pain was recorded on a visual analog scale (VAS), and function was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).
                Data were available for 399 patients (202 receiving TDF, 197 receiving placebo), of whom 199 (50%) completed the study. TDF provided significantly better pain relief than placebo, as demonstrated by the primary outcome measure (area under the curve for VAS scores -20 in the TDF group versus -14.6 in the placebo group; P = 0.007). TDF was also associated with significantly better overall WOMAC scores and pain scores. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and somnolence, and these occurred more often in the TDF group.
                TDF can reduce pain and improve function in patients with knee or hip OA. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of electroacupuncture and TENS for low back pain when the electroacupuncture is applied in a clinically realistic manner. The study was designed as an evaluator-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT). The study was performed at the Tsukuba College of Technology Clinic in Japan. Twenty subjects, who suffered from low back pain (LBP) without sciatica, were recruited, using leaflets in Tsukuba city. Subjects were allocated to either an electroacupuncture (EA) group (10 patients) or a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) group (10 patients). The procedure for EA was in accordance with standard practice at our clinic. The main outcome measures were a pain relief scale (100 mm visual analogue scale: VAS) and a LBP score recommended by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA Score). Mean VAS value during the 2-weeks experimental period of the EA group was significantly smaller than that of the TENS group (65 mm vs 86 mm; 95% CI, 4.126 - 37.953). JOA Score in the EA group improved significantly while that in the TENS group showed no change. Although some placebo effect may be included, EA appeared more useful than TENS in the short-term effect on low back pain. We suggest that more realistic acupuncture interventions based on standard practice should be employed in pragmatic RCTs. Studies that report prevention of ulcer recurrence among long-term users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that do not stratify for Helicobacter pylori status may not be generalizable to the large population of individuals without H pylori.
                This was a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled study among 537 patients without H pylori who were long-term users of NSAIDs and who had a history of endoscopically documented gastric ulcer. Patients were randomized to receive placebo, 200 microg of misoprostol 4 times a day, or 15 or 30 mg of lansoprazole once daily for 12 weeks. Ulcer status was determined by endoscopy at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
                Patients receiving lansoprazole (15 or 30 mg) remained free from gastric ulcer longer than those who received placebo (P<.001) but for a shorter time than those who received misoprostol. By week 12, the percentages of gastric ulcer-free patients were as follows: placebo, 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.1%-61.3%); misoprostol, 93% (95% CI, 87.2%-97.9%); 15-mg lansoprazole, 80% (95% CI, 72.5%-87.3%); and 30-mg lansoprazole, 82% (95% CI, 75.0%-89.6%). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the misoprostol group reported treatment-related adverse events and early withdrawal from the study. When the impact of withdrawals on ulcer development was considered (as failures), therapy was successful for 69% for each of the active treatment groups and 35% for the placebo group.
                Proton pump inhibitors such as lansoprazole are superior to placebo for the prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcers but not superior to misoprostol, 800 microg/d. When the poor compliance and potential adverse effects associated with misoprostol are considered, proton pump inhibitors and full-dose misoprostol are clinically equivalent. To assess the efficacy of cimetidine in treating and preventing gastric mucosal lesions associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy (NSAID gastropathy), we endoscopically studied 104 patients taking NSAIDs for a variety of rheumatic diseases. Fifty-six percent (22/43) of patients randomized to cimetidine 300 mg four times a day and 52% (22/42) of those randomized to placebo showed progression of endoscopic lesions during the eight-week short-term phase. Thirty-nine patients whose endoscopic lesions improved were then randomized to a ten-month maintenance regimen of either cimetidine 400 mg at bedtime or placebo. Fifty percent (7/14) of placebo-treated and 42% (5/12) of cimetidine-treated patients showed progression of lesions during the maintenance phase. The failure of cimetidine to offer any significant benefit under these protocol conditions reflects the fundamental difference in pathophysiologic features between classic acid-mediated ulcer disease and NSAID gastropathy.
The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low-back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared to traditional NSAIDs in the RCTs included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.