STUDY OBJECTIVE: In US emergency departments (EDs), patients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes among patients randomized to a 1-week course of naproxen+placebo versus naproxen+orphenadrine or naproxen+methocarbamol. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain were enrolled. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and 1 week later. All patients were given 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be used twice a day, as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive a 1-week supply of orphenadrine 100 mg, to be used twice a day as needed, methocarbamol 750 mg, to be used as 1 or 2 tablets 3 times per day as needed, or placebo. All patients received a standardized 10-minute low back pain educational session before discharge. RESULTS:Two hundred forty patients were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable. The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo improved by 10.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9 to 12.9). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+orphenadrine improved by 9.4 points (95% CI 7.4 to 11.5). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+methocarbamol improved by 8.1 points (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1). None of the between-group differences surpassed our threshold for clinical significance. Adverse events were reported by 17% (95% CI 10% to 28%) of placebo patients, 9% (95% CI 4% to 19%) of orphenadrine patients, and 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) of methocarbamol patients. CONCLUSION: Among ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, combining naproxen with either orphenadrine or methocarbamol did not improve functional outcomes compared with naproxen+placebo.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: In US emergency departments (EDs), patients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes among patients randomized to a 1-week course of naproxen+placebo versus naproxen+orphenadrine or naproxen+methocarbamol. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain were enrolled. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and 1 week later. All patients were given 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be used twice a day, as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive a 1-week supply of orphenadrine 100 mg, to be used twice a day as needed, methocarbamol 750 mg, to be used as 1 or 2 tablets 3 times per day as needed, or placebo. All patients received a standardized 10-minute low back pain educational session before discharge. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable. The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo improved by 10.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9 to 12.9). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+orphenadrine improved by 9.4 points (95% CI 7.4 to 11.5). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+methocarbamol improved by 8.1 points (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1). None of the between-group differences surpassed our threshold for clinical significance. Adverse events were reported by 17% (95% CI 10% to 28%) of placebo patients, 9% (95% CI 4% to 19%) of orphenadrinepatients, and 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) of methocarbamolpatients. CONCLUSION: Among ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, combining naproxen with either orphenadrine or methocarbamol did not improve functional outcomes compared with naproxen+placebo.
Authors: Benjamin W Friedman; Sean O'Mahony; Laura Mulvey; Michelle Davitt; Hong Choi; Shujun Xia; David Esses; Polly E Bijur; E John Gallagher Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Benjamin W Friedman; Lynne Holden; David Esses; Polly E Bijur; Hong K Choi; Clemecia Solorzano; Joseph Paternoster; E John Gallagher Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Maurits van Tulder; Dan Cherkin; Hiroshi Tsukayama; Lixing Lao; Bart Koes; Brian Berman Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Benjamin W Friedman; Eddie Irizarry; Clemencia Solorzano; Nauman Khankel; Jennifer Zapata; Eleftheria Zias; E John Gallagher Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Benjamin W Friedman; Eddie Irizarry; Clemencia Solorzano; Eleftheria Zias; Scott Pearlman; Andrew Wollowitz; Michael P Jones; Purvi D Shah; E John Gallagher Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Bethea A Kleykamp; Jerry Draper-Rodi; Jan Vollert; Jessica Chan; McKenzie Ferguson; Ewan McNicol; Jules Phalip; Scott R Evans; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Andrew S C Rice Journal: Pain Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Aidan G Cashin; Thiago Folly; Matthew K Bagg; Michael A Wewege; Matthew D Jones; Michael C Ferraro; Hayley B Leake; Rodrigo R N Rizzo; Siobhan M Schabrun; Sylvia M Gustin; Richard Day; Christopher M Williams; James H McAuley Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-07-07
Authors: Wendelien H van der Gaag; Pepijn Ddm Roelofs; Wendy Tm Enthoven; Maurits W van Tulder; Bart W Koes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-04-16