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.
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.
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.