Steven M. Weisman1*
Giovanni Ciavarra- 1Lumanity Clinical and Regulatory, Morristown, NJ, United States
- 2Princeton Spine and Joint Center, Princeton, NJ, United States
Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient’s condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.
Introduction
Prevalence and classification
Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits in the United States [1–3] and can be challenging to manage, since it is not a distinct disease entity and manifests with a diverse range of symptoms and severity. Healthcare providers play a pivotal role in guiding patients experiencing LBP toward effective treatment strategies.
An estimated up to 84% of adults will experience LBP [4], with a notable 25%–39% of U.S. adults reporting LBP episodes within the past 3 months [5, 6]. Ineffective management of LBP is associated with significant costs, since LBP is the leading cause of disability globally and ranks high among reasons for work absences and reduced productivity [7–11].
Acute LBP is usually considered non-specific, which means that it cannot be attributed to a specific disease or spinal pathology with certainty; it is often self-resolving [12], and individuals often manage their symptoms without seeking medical care [1, 13, 14]. LBP typically encompasses pain, stiffness, and/or discomfort in the lumbosacral region, commonly attributed to causes such as muscle sprains, ligament strains, herniated discs, osteoarthritis, scoliosis, traumatic injury, sciatica, and lumbar spinal stenosis. LBP may radiate to other parts of the body; individuals may experience symptoms such as muscle, hip, or leg pain, which can manifest as sharp, dull, aching, or burning sensations. The pain may vary in intensity and pattern, being intermittent, constant, or waxing/waning, and be accompanied by bilateral lower extremity paresthesia or exacerbated by movement [15–17].
LBP is classified according to its duration: acute (<4 weeks), subacute (4–12 weeks), and chronic (>12 weeks) [10, 16]. Acute LBP is the most common and often caused by mechanical issues or soft-tissue damage due to poor posture, prolonged sitting, improper lifting, muscle sprains, and injury or trauma. Patients with persistent symptoms often see continued improvement in the subacute phase; in primary care settings, an estimated 32% of patients transition from acute to chronic LBP [18]. This emphasizes the importance of effective treatment strategies during the acute and subacute periods to prevent the transition to chronic LBP, which accounts for much of the burden and costs of LBP.
Treatment options
Established guidelines recommend non-pharmacological approaches as the first line of treatment, followed by pharmacological treatments only if non-pharmacological methods are ineffective or based on patient preference [10, 19–22]. Non-pharmacological approaches can include education on proper body mechanics, clinician-directed exercise programs (including formal physical therapy), local heat, massage/manipulation, acupuncture, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, and cognitive behavior therapy [10].
Since many episodes of LBP are self-resolving, many individuals do not seek medical attention and may manage their symptoms over days to weeks using a combination of non-pharmacological and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmacological approaches. If these do not provide sufficient pain relief, they will often follow up with their healthcare professional. This provides an opportunity for healthcare professionals to assess and advise patients on appropriate pain relief options based on their distinct safety and efficacy profiles. This guidance can educate patients on proper dosing, precautions, and selection of the agent most suitable for their circumstances and needs. Both healthcare professionals and patients would benefit from an enhanced understanding of the benefits and risks of LBP treatment options, especially for those who are, or may be, at risk of adverse events or impacted by suboptimal treatment.
Acute and subacute LBP
Guidelines published by the American College of Physicians (ACP) and endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as first-line pharmacologic treatments for acute or subacute LBP [10, 23], as do the North American Spine Society and Department of Veterans Affairs [19, 20, 24]. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also support non-opioid medications, including NSAIDs, for LBP [25]. These guidelines do not distinguish between the various NSAIDs (e.g., naproxen, ibuprofen, and aspirin) [10, 19, 20, 24]. There are important differences between NSAIDs that can make one more suitable for an individual patient, as will be discussed later. Moreover, research across multiple types of pain models suggest that a single dose of naproxen is superior to other NSAIDs (ibuprofen and aspirin) and acetaminophen in terms of duration of pain relief [26–32], albeit there are studies suggesting that other NSAIDs may be superior to naproxen in some specific pain conditions [33, 34]. The occurrence of adverse events from OTC doses of naproxen is similar to that of placebo, with the most commonly reported mild-to-moderate adverse events related to the GI system [26–32]. In the context of managing LBP, naproxen alone demonstrated superior efficacy compared to combination therapies including: diazepam plus naproxen, cyclobenzaprine plus naproxen, oxycodone/acetaminophen plus naproxen, orphenadrine plus naproxen, or methocarbamol plus naproxen [35–38].
In a comprehensive review of 15 clinical practice guidelines containing recommendations for treating acute LBP, Oliveira et al. (2018) found a consensus highlighting NSAIDs as the primary choice for non-specific LBP [21]. Another analysis of clinical guidelines also found that they consistently recommend NSAIDs as the first-line pharmacological therapy [22], while international clinical practice guidelines provide conflicting recommendations for the use of SMRs [39].
Due to the lack of demonstration of meaningful effectiveness advantages with opioids in providing pain relief when compared to NSAIDs and the potential risks associated with long-term opioid use after treating acute pain, opioids are not recommended as first-line therapy for common acute pain conditions, including LBP [25, 40, 41], with one recent clinical study finding no significant difference in acute LBP severity between the opioid and placebo groups [42]. Opioids continue to serve an important role in managing pain related to severe traumatic injuries and major surgeries and in other instances when NSAIDs and other treatments are contraindicated or not likely to be effective.
Chronic LBP
For patients with an inadequate response to non-pharmacologic therapy, NSAIDs are recommended as the exclusive first-line pharmacologic therapy, and SMRs are not recommended for chronic LBP [10]. Although guidelines for second-line pharmacologic therapy vary, they consistently recommend that opioids be a last resort, after a careful discussion of risks and realistic benefits with patients—when other treatments have failed, contraindication to NSAIDs exist, or the potential benefits outweigh the risks [10, 19, 20, 24].
In their analyses of clinical practice guidelines containing recommendations for the treatment of chronic LBP, investigators found a consensus highlighting NSAIDs as the primary choice for managing chronic non-specific LBP [21, 22].
Pharmacological analgesics
The following sections provide an overview of the different pharmacological options for treating LBP, including acetaminophen, topical analgesics, NSAIDs, SMRs, opioids, antidepressants, systemic corticosteroids, and antiseizure medications. A focused discussion on the use of naproxen for LBP explores its efficacy evidence, safety profile, and potential benefits for managing LBP. The aim of the discussion is to provide a summary of available pharmacological options for LBP treatment, with an emphasis on assessing naproxen’s suitability based on its distinct pharmacological profile within the broader treatment landscape.
Acetaminophen
While acetaminophen has an established role in pain management, clinical guidelines do not recommend it for treating LBP based on studies showing that it is ineffective at improving LBP outcomes versus placebo [10, 19, 20, 24, 43]. This lack of efficacy may be due to acetaminophen being a weaker analgesic than NSAIDs and with minimal anti-inflammatory activity, despite some overlapping mechanisms with NSAIDs [44, 45].
Topical analgesics
Topical analgesic medications have a long history of use for managing a variety of acute and chronic pain conditions. Topical formulations provide localized delivery of active ingredients such as NSAIDs, anesthetics, and counterirritants such as menthol, methyl salicylate, and capsaicin. Studies indicate that topical NSAIDs, high concentration capsaicin, and lidocaine are effective for some pain conditions, with efficacy being highly dependent on the specific formulation and condition [46, 47]. By delivering high local drug concentrations at the site of pain while minimizing systemic absorption, they are optimal for pain confined to discrete areas like specific joints or skeletal muscles [48].
Since many non-specific LBP cases involve referred pain radiating from areas beyond the back itself, the effects of topical therapies directly applied to the low back can be limited. Currently, there is limited evidence supporting large or long-lasting analgesic effects from topical agents in treating LBP, especially relative to systemic pharmacological options like oral NSAIDs [49].
NSAIDs
NSAIDs are well-established for pain management. Comprehensive reviews and clinical guidelines consistently support the view that, relative to placebo, NSAIDs reduce pain and improve function in patients with acute and chronic LBP; as a result, they are recommended as the first-line pharmacological therapy for LBP [10, 19, 20, 24, 49–51]. Moreover, studies have confirmed that NSAIDs, including naproxen, are as or more effective compared to other drugs alone or in combination with NSAIDs for the treatment of LBP [35–37, 52, 53].
Non-selective NSAIDs, such as naproxen and ibuprofen, work primarily by reversibly inhibiting the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes COX-1 and COX-2, which convert arachidonic acid into various compounds such as prostaglandins F2α (PGF2α) and E2 (PGE2) that are responsible for the pain and inflammation associated with many conditions [54–57]. While COX-1 is constitutively expressed and has key roles in the kidneys, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and platelets, COX-2 expression is primarily induced during inflammation. This mechanism of action results in analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic effects that make NSAIDs highly effective in treating a variety of pain conditions [54, 55].
While prescription NSAID regimens require healthcare provider supervision and per-patient assessment due to their risks, OTC equivalent regimens have an improved safety profile such that healthcare professional supervision is only required in some cases. The lower OTC doses and shorter treatment durations are associated with fewer side effects that are typically reversible upon discontinuation. However, as with any medication, risk cannot be entirely eliminated [58]. NSAIDs available as OTC formulations, such as naproxen sodium, have an established role in managing various types of pain, including LBP.
As mentioned previously, there are important distinctions between NSAIDs that can determine the suitability of one over another for an individual patient. Notably, studies indicate that a single dose of naproxen is superior to other NSAIDs (ibuprofen and aspirin) and acetaminophen in terms of duration of pain relief across several pain conditions [26–30, 32]. Moreover, naproxen has a pharmacokinetic profile that allows for a dosing interval of 8–12 h to achieve a sustained therapeutic effect. In contrast, other OTC NSAIDs must be readministered at 4–6-h intervals, which aligns with their maximum daily dosage and half-life. Naproxen’s extended dosing time frame reduces an individual’s overall “pill burden,” which has been identified as a factor linked to enhanced patient adherence [59] and enhances the consistency of serum concentrations, thereby delivering continuous pain relief while mitigating potential adverse effects tied to local exposure, peak concentrations, and subtherapeutic phases associated with fluctuations in pharmacokinetics [60]. It is noted that some epidemiological data suggest a slightly increased risk of GI bleeding with the use of low-dose naproxen compared with low-dose ibuprofen [61], which may possibly be attributed in part to its longer half-life [62], although a more recent analysis of controlled studies is not in agreement, finding no difference in adverse event profiles, including GI adverse events, between these regimens [31].
With longer duration of pain relief and comparable safety profile to other OTC NSAIDs, combined with an improved dosing regimen, naproxen is an ideal choice for OTC NSAID LBP management. The following sections provide additional details on naproxen in that context.
Naproxen background
Naproxen’s safety and efficacy has been established in clinical studies and its history of use. Naproxen and naproxen sodium (the salt form) belong to the arylpropionic acid class of NSAIDs [63]; naproxen sodium is more rapidly absorbed after oral administration [64] and thus provides a faster onset of action, making it more suitable for treating acute pain. Naproxen sodium achieves maximum concentration (Tmax) in 1-2 h (similar to the rate of absorption for ibuprofen), which is faster than naproxen (Tmax 2–4 h) [65, 66].
Oral naproxen sodium was approved in the United States first as a prescription drug, (Anaprox®) in 1974 and as an OTC analgesic (Aleve®) in 1994. In the United States, Aleve® (≤660 mg/day) is indicated to temporarily relieve minor aches and pains associated with the common cold, headache, toothache, muscular aches, backache, arthritis, and menstrual cramps and to reduce fever in adults and children 12 years of age or older.
The U.S. OTC dosing of naproxen sodium is 220–440 mg as a single dose, every 8–12 h while symptoms persist, with a maximum total daily dose of 660 mg; however, in some countries, it is available with daily doses of 440–1,100 mg for OTC or prescription use. The approval of naproxen sodium for OTC administration was supported by more than 18 years of experience with prescription strength naproxen and naproxen sodium, and its efficacy and safety profile has been confirmed in a number of studies conducted before and after OTC approval.
Mechanism of action
Naproxen possesses the three properties now universally accepted as being characteristics of NSAIDs (analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic effects), with its primary mechanism of action being the inhibition of the COX-2 enzyme, although it also inhibits COX-1 and is considered a non-selective NSAID [56]. Naproxen has been demonstrated to block the production of prostaglandins, which are responsible for the pain and inflammation associated with many conditions, via reversible and non-selective inhibition of COX-1 and COX-2 [55, 57], which support the production of prostaglandins F2α (PGF2α) and E2 (PGE2). Generally, prostaglandins generated from the COX-1 pathway elicit cytoprotective and homeostatic responses, whereas those from the COX-2 pathway elicit inflammatory responses [55].
Efficacy in managing LBP
Individuals with LBP need a variety of options to reduce or alleviate their pain. In many cases, naproxen represents an effective, long-lasting option based on its 14-h half-life, making all day pain relief a possibility. LBP is a common manifestation of pain originating from the muscles, and acute exacerbations can be managed effectively with OTC naproxen sodium, which is consistent with its current labeling as it is indicated for the temporary relief of minor aches and pains due to both backache and muscular ache.
In addition to the LBP studies described below, it is important to note that studies using muscle injury and post-dental-surgery pain models also provide high-quality evidence that is relevant to an assessment of naproxen’s efficacy in LBP. These additional models are discussed in the next section.
In one study, investigators evaluated the efficacy of naproxen (250 mg, three times daily for a total daily dose of 750 mg) compared to loxoprofen in non-surgical cases of LBP over a period of 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated at the end of the first, second, and sixth weeks. While there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups at any time point, both groups showed significant improvements over baseline, with the largest improvement observed after the first week of treatment [53]. Furthermore, two studies found that among patients with acute LBP, combining SMRs or oxycodone/acetaminophen to naproxen (500 mg; twice daily) did not improve outcomes compared to naproxen plus placebo [35, 36].
Although these studies use daily doses that are higher than the recommended OTC dose, the effects are expected to be similar, since naproxen has been shown to be effective across a range of pain models and dosage levels, including OTC doses. Overall, these findings indicate that naproxen, as a standalone treatment, is effective for managing LBP.
Leveraging the muscle injury and post-dental-surgery pain models as a bridge to assessing analgesic efficacy in LBP management
The efficacy of analgesic treatments is commonly established using randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with a defined pain condition and severity. Notably, muscle injury and post-dental-surgery pain provide an invaluable bridge for assessing the efficacy of analgesics in managing LBP, bolstering the body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of NSAIDs for this condition. Since NSAIDs have both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, it comes as no surprise that they are effective for relieving pain across various pain conditions, including muscle soreness and dental pain [26, 30, 32, 53, 67–74]. This is consistent with the current labeling of OTC naproxen sodium which is indicated for the temporary relief of minor aches and pains due to both toothache and muscular ache.
Muscle injury model
Muscle injury studies are applicable to LBP due to their focus on muscle soreness, which is a key contributor to LBP. Studies indicate that OTC doses of NSAIDs effectively reduce muscle injury, strength loss, and soreness [67, 70].
In a double-blind, crossover study, investigators examined the effects of naproxen sodium (220 mg, three times daily for a total daily dose of 660 mg) on exercised-induced muscle dysfunction, damage, and soreness. Participants were given either naproxen sodium or a placebo for 10 days after performing eccentric knee exercises. The study concluded that naproxen sodium attenuated muscle injury, strength loss, and soreness [67]. In another double-blind crossover study, the effectiveness of naproxen sodium (660 mg/day) versus placebo on muscle injury and soreness was assessed; it was superior to the placebo in improving muscle measurements and reducing thigh soreness through 4 days of recovery. This improvement was likely due to an attenuated inflammatory response to muscle injury [70].
These findings suggest that NSAIDs may provide similar relief for LBP by targeting a key source of pain.
Post-dental-surgery model
The post-dental-surgery pain model is a frequent and cost-effective approach to evaluate the efficacy of analgesics and may have higher assay sensitivity compared to other acute pain models [75–78]. This dental pain model provides a means to extrapolate analgesic efficacy to LBP since both conditions share a prostaglandin-driven nociceptive mechanism that is activated in response to tissue injury and inflammation (often due to trauma, disease, or chemical/thermal irritation) and triggers the sensation of pain [79–82].
The post-dental-surgery pain model requires only local anesthesia, allows for recruiting diverse participants with relative ease, and can be conducted under controlled conditions to minimize confounding factors affecting pain perception and response to interventions. Pain is induced in a standardized, reproducible manner enabling quantitative assessment using validated scales, enhancing the reliability and validity of results [75, 77, 78]. Furthermore, prescreening participants based on tooth extraction number and location helps predict postoperative pain levels. Overall, this pain model provides an efficient, controlled means of evaluating analgesic efficacy.
Multiple studies confirm that OTC doses of NSAIDs, including naproxen sodium and ibuprofen, effectively relieve post-surgical dental pain [26, 30, 68, 71]. In one study, the analgesic efficacy of naproxen sodium (440 mg), acetaminophen (1,000 mg), and placebo were compared in a single-dose, randomized, double-blind, 12-h study with patients with at least moderate pain secondary to extraction of three or four-third molars. Time to re-medication was significantly longer with naproxen sodium than with either acetaminophen or placebo. Moreover, naproxen sodium was also superior to acetaminophen for peak pain intensity difference, summed pain intensity differences, total pain relief, peak pain relief, time to reduction of pain by 50%, and overall rating [30]. Another study evaluated the efficacy of naproxen sodium (220 mg, three times daily for a total daily dose of 660 mg) as compared to a novel extended-release (ER) formulation of naproxen sodium over 24 h after extraction of one or two impacted third molars. It was reported that naproxen sodium (220 mg tid) and the novel ER formulation (660 mg) comparably and significantly reduced moderate to severe dental pain as compared to placebo. Significant pain relief was experienced from 15 min and sustained over 24 h, resulting in a reduced need for rescue medication [71]. Cooper et al. (2022) compared a single dose of naproxen sodium (440 mg) against hydrocodone plus acetaminophen (10/650 mg) in post-impaction surgery pain. For moderate-to-severe postsurgical dental pain, a single dose of naproxen sodium was at least as effective as hydrocodone plus acetaminophen in the early hours, significantly more effective at reducing pain intensity and providing greater pain relief over 12 h, and was better tolerated [68]. Lastly, Cooper et al. (2019) found that the duration of pain relief in subjects with moderate-to-severe post-surgical dental pain after a single dose of naproxen sodium (440 mg) was significantly longer than after a single dose of ibuprofen (400 mg). Furthermore, significantly fewer naproxen sodium-treated subjects required rescue medication over a 24 h period [26].
Additionally, the post-dental-surgery pain exhibited no notable differences in the estimate of analgesic efficacy when compared to other postsurgical pain models [83], and Dworkin et al. (2011) developed a comprehensive framework that outlines the level of efficacy evidence necessary to extrapolate specific model findings to other types of pain [84]. Specifically, evidence of efficacy in three types of acute pain (postoperative pain; pain associated with non-surgical trauma; and disease-associated visceral pain) was established as the basis for extrapolation to other acute pain conditions. Evidence of efficacy in two different acute pain conditions is a well-established and accepted pathway for testing analgesic efficacy of a general pain reliever and is used to extrapolate to a general pain indication. Naproxen meets these criteria, providing additional support for the extrapolation of efficacy data across various pain models [27, 32, 70, 71, 85–87].
Safety profile
At OTC doses and durations, naproxen is typically well tolerated and safe [58], but its mechanism of action, which is shared with other NSAIDs, has been linked to GI, CV, and renal adverse effects. Several advisory committees recognized that naproxen, similar to all other NSAIDs, is associated with a small, yet noteworthy, elevated CV risk which is lower compared to ibuprofen at higher doses [88, 89]. However, no apparent differences are observed at OTC doses [31]. Nevertheless, the FDA issued a label mandate requiring all OTC NSAIDs to advise consumers to ask their doctor if they have a history of stomach problems, CV disease, or kidney disease. In specific underlying conditions or situations with an increased risk of bleeding, patients are advised to seek medical advice: advanced age, ulcers, bleeding problems, use of prescription NSAIDs, excessive alcohol consumption, or taking the product longer than directed [88, 90].
A comprehensive analysis of naproxen’s clinical pharmacology and CV safety highlighted that the low COX-2 selectivity of naproxen results in a lower CV risk compared to other NSAIDs, as CV risk is associated with COX-2 selectivity. Consequently, the authors concluded that “the over-the- counter use of naproxen is expected to pose minimal cardiovascular risk” [88]. Moreover, another review concluded that “Current evidence suggests that naproxen, a non-selective NSAID, is associated with the lowest risk of cardiovascular events. Therefore, naproxen is the NSAID of choice in patients with high cardiovascular risk” [91]. Notably, joint recommendations by several medical societies, including the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology, Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology, and Asia-Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy, now include naproxen as one of the preferred drugs for patients with high CV risk if NSAID use is unavoidable [92]. A recent observational study analyzing NSAID prescription claims post-myocardial infarction confirmed the association between increased CV and bleeding risks from NSAID use in this population. Among the NSAIDs, celecoxib and meloxicam exhibited the least increase in adverse outcomes, and therefore, it has been suggested that if NSAID use is medically necessary in this patient population, celecoxib or meloxicam may represent viable options [93, 94]. In addition, while there are reports suggesting that concomitant use of some non-aspirin NSAIDs interfere with the aspirin’s anti-platelet function and possibly reducing its CV benefits [95], there are data showing that aspirin retains its cardioprotective effects in the presence of naproxen, ibuprofen, meloxicam, and rofecoxib [96].
Observational studies indicate a higher risk of CV and renal events with higher NSAID doses and duration, while showing a significant decrease in CV events when comparing OTC doses and durations relative to prescription regimens [97]. For example, one study found that prescription naproxen use was not associated with an increased risk of major vascular events [90]. While these epidemiological data certainly support the CV and renal safety of OTC naproxen, these data must be interpreted with caution since they are are susceptible to confounding factors, like all observational studies. Recently, the PRECISION randomized controlled trial concluded that prescription doses of the three agents compared (naproxen, celecoxib, and ibuprofen), were associated with similar risks of major adverse cardiac events [89].
It is well established that COX-1 inhibition can lead to GI adverse effects, and OTC naproxen is associated with elevations in mild effects (constipation, diarrhea, dyspepsia, and nausea) but, in contrast with prescription dosages, the elevation is not significantly or clinically different. In a pooled analysis of naproxen studies with OTC dosages, GI adverse events were non-significantly elevated with naproxen versus placebo [98]. Similar to CV risk, evidence suggests that the risk of GI complications is minimized at OTC dosages and durations.
All NSAIDs can impair kidney function by inhibiting COX-1 and COX-2 in the kidneys [99]. It is thought that the increased CV risk among NSAID users stems from elevated blood pressure caused by COX-2 inhibition in the kidneys [88]. However, this effect is not seen at OTC doses, and since naproxen does not significantly raise systolic blood pressure, this may contribute to its more favorable safety profile compared to other NSAIDs [88].
Safety concerns related to naproxen primarily involve GI, CV, or renal risks when taken at prescription doses and for prolonged periods. However, at OTC dosages, the risk is lower as compared to prescription doses, and elevated risks identified in large cohort studies often did not reach statistical significance, including in participants with higher baseline risks. When assessing the suitability of naproxen for individuals with LBP, it is important to evaluate the balance between its benefits and risks on a case-by-case basis taking into account any preexisting conditions that might elevate risks for adverse events. Moreover, since naproxen is non-addictive, it offers a means for healthcare providers and individuals to steer clear of the effects linked to opioid dependency discussed in more detail in the following section.
Opioids
Guidelines recommend against opioids as first-line pharmacological therapy, yet these continue to be prescribed for LBP despite their unfavorable safety profile and general lack of evidence to support their effectiveness [40, 100–102]. Moreover, published studies have demonstrated that NSAIDs are as or more effective compared to opioids or opioids combined with NSAIDs for relief of LBP, despite the latter being associated with addiction and overdose-related mortality, a risk that has increased alongside prescription rates [40]. In one study, adding oxycodone/acetaminophen to naproxen 500 mg twice daily found no improvement in efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) over naproxen alone for acute LBP prompting the authors to conclude that “These findings do not support use of these additional medications [beyond naproxen] in this setting” [35]. Moreover, the SPACE RCT compared opioids against non-opioids (including NSAIDs) for improving pain-related function in subjects with hip/knee osteoarthritis and chronic back pain. Over a 12 months period, opioids did not exhibit superior improvements in pain-related function compared to non-opioids [52].
Opioids are not recommended as first-line treatment choice for many common acute pain conditions because of the potential risks associated with their long-term use post-treatment. Opioids for acute pain can inadvertently lead to prolonged usage if prescribers provide large supplies or prescriptions are continuously refilled, resulting in drug dependence [40, 103]. Limited evidence supports improved pain or function with long-term use of opioids for several chronic pain conditions for which they are commonly prescribed, including chronic non-specific LBP. In some cases, evidence indicates worse outcomes associated with prolonged opioid usage for these conditions [10, 104]. Moreover, studies that have assessed opioids for chronic LBP have not addressed the risk for addiction, abuse, or overdose, although data show a dose-dependent relationship between opioid use for chronic pain and serious harms [105]. Furthermore, an analysis of patients who visited an emergency department with LBP showed that they were significantly more likely to return within 6–12 months with LBP complaints if they were prescribed an opioid at discharge compared to patients who were not. Receiving opioids at discharge also doubled the odds of return within 12 months, while receiving NSAIDs reduced the odds by 60% [106].
Data from the CDC indicate that in 2021 there were 16,706 reported deaths involving prescription opioids; almost 5 times higher than in 1999 [107]. The use of opioids carries many possible adverse effects, some of which are serious and life-threatening. GI effects like constipation, nausea, and vomiting are well-known risks associated with long-term opioid use [108, 109]. Additional but less frequent adverse effects include cardiovascular depression (bradycardia, hypotension), headaches, hypothermia, inability to urinate, muscle and bladder spasms, muscle rigidity, flushing, and involuntary muscle twitching and/or jerking. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia, an effect that heightens rather than dulls pain, has also been reported as a potential adverse effect [110, 111].
To reduce dependence on opioids, it is important that healthcare providers prioritize non-opioid treatment approaches, explore comprehensive pain management strategies, and adhere to established clinical guidelines, which generally recommend non-pharmacological approaches as the initial treatment for LBP, followed by NSAIDs as the first-line pharmacological therapy. Opioids should be considered the last resort due to the uncertain efficacy and risks associated with addiction and overdose. It is important to establish an adequate treatment plan concordant with established guidelines to reduce the risk of opioid dependence or transitioning from acute/subacute pain to chronic pain.
Skeletal muscle relaxers
Centrally acting SMRs are approved for acute musculoskeletal conditions, and their prescribing doubled between 2005 and 2016 [112]. They are the third most commonly prescribed drug for LBP [39]. Although they are generally effective for acute LBP, the body of evidence originates from specific SMRs, their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, and evidence is lacking to support their use for chronic LBP [39, 113, 114]. Furthermore, it was shown that combining SMRs (i.e., orphenadrine or methocarbamol) to 500 mg by mouth naproxen (twice daily) for acute LBP did not increase efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) when compared to naproxen plus placebo [36].
Based on moderate-quality evidence, the ACP recommends NSAIDs or SMRs as first-line pharmacological treatment for acute LBP [10], although the evidence does not support the view that SMRs improve functional recovery [115]. Studies have shown that SMRs introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP [39, 116]. SMRs have well-established central nervous system adverse effects, such as drowsiness and dizziness, and, due to limited long-term efficacy and safety data coupled with the potential risk for abuse, dependence, and overdose, their use is generally recommended for a maximum of 2-3 weeks [117–119]. Despite these limitations, one estimate suggests that 18.5% of LBP patients receive an SMR (unfortunately, the investigators were not able to distinguish between acute and chronic LBP) [120] and SMR use was found to increase rapidly between 2005 and 2016 [112]. This trend that may have taken hold as healthcare providers and patients seek alternatives to opioids for the management of LBP and other conditions. Overall, it is important to exercise caution when recommending SMRs for LBP, since the evidence suggests they may only be effective for acute and subacute LBP, and caution is especially warranted for patients with comorbidities, underlying conditions, or a history of substance abuse [112, 121].
Antidepressants, systemic corticosteroids, and antiseizure medications
Although the data supporting antidepressants’ efficacy remains uncertain, estimates indicate that roughly 25% of U.S. primary care physicians prescribe them for LBP [122]. The rationale is that individuals with chronic LBP often exhibit concurrent depression, and addressing the depression can raise pain tolerance. Some antidepressants are believed to have analgesic mechanisms distinct from their mood-elevating ones, and their sedative effects are thought to ameliorate insomnia in patients with chronic LBP. Nevertheless, the evidence does not generally support antidepressants for LBP treatment, as several studies have observed only a marginal and clinically non-significant benefit, primarily with SNRIs [21, 122–125]. Furthermore, antidepressants are associated with a variety of side effects, including dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, dizziness, weight gain, and sexual issues, which collectively are a common reason for patients’ discontinuation of them [126, 127].
Corticosteroids possess both anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties, and their side effect profiles can be extensive and affect many organ systems [128]. In general, no differences in efficacy for pain have been reported between systemic corticosteroids and placebo; a small effect on function in patients with radicular LBP has been observed, but the effects in individuals with non-radicular LBP remain uncertain [10, 129, 130]. Before initiating corticosteroids for LBP, healthcare providers should consider their potential adverse effects and patients’ underlying comorbidities to ensure any potential benefits outweigh the harms.
Antiseizure medications are commonly prescribed to treat LBP despite inconclusive evidence for the treatment of LBP [10, 21, 123, 124, 131] despite their increased risk of adverse events, including suicidality [132–134].
Discussion
The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs, including naproxen, have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While there are a variety of prescription analgesic options, the evidence supporting their effectiveness is generally limited, and they carry risks of significant adverse effects. SMRs appear to be effective for acute LBP, but their risk for dependence and central nervous system side effects must be carefully considered.
Managing acute LBP with NSAIDs is supported by several clinical guideline recommendations, which endorse exhausting non-opioid options before considering opioids. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis.
While the recommendations do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain comparable to a common opioid in a dental pain model. Naproxen sodium’s 14-h half-life allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options.
Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient’s condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs. In conclusion, naproxen sodium offers an effective non-opioid pharmacological option for LBP with advantages compared to other OTC NSAIDs.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided by Bayer HealthCare, Whippany, United States. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Conflict of interest
SW and GiC are employed by Lumanity Clinical and Regulatory. GrC is employed by the Princeton Spine and Joint Center.
References
1. Atlas, SJ, and Deyo, RA. Evaluating and managing acute low back pain in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med (2001) 16(2):120–31. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.91141.x
2. Deyo, RA, and Phillips, WR. Low back pain. A primary care challenge. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (1996) 21(24):2826–32. doi:10.1097/00007632-199612150-00003
3. Hart, LG, Deyo, RA, and Cherkin, DC. Physician office visits for low back pain. Frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (1995) 20(1):11–9. doi:10.1097/00007632-199501000-00003
4. Walker, BF. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord (2000) 13(3):205–17. doi:10.1097/00002517-200006000-00003
5. Deyo, RA, Mirza, SK, and Martin, BI. Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. national surveys, 2002. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (2006) 31(23):2724–7. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000244618.06877.cd
6. Lucas, J, Connor, E, and Bose, J. Back, lower limb, and upper limb pain among U.S. adults, 2019. Hyattsville, MD, United States: National Center for Health Statistics (2021). Available from: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/107894 (Accessed July 10, 2023).
7. Chen, S, Chen, M, Wu, X, Lin, S, Tao, C, Cao, H, et al. Global, regional and national burden of low back pain 1990–2019: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2019. J Orthopaedic Translation (2022) 32:49–58. doi:10.1016/j.jot.2021.07.005
8. Vos, T, Abajobir, AA, Abate, KH, Abbafati, C, Abbas, KM, Abd-Allah, F, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet (2017) 390(10100):1211–59. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2
9. Hoy, D, March, L, Brooks, P, Blyth, F, Woolf, A, Bain, C, et al. The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis (2014) 73(6):968–74. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204428
10. Qaseem, A, Wilt, TJ, McLean, RM, and Forciea, MA. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of physicians. Ann Intern Med (2017) 166(7):514–30. doi:10.7326/m16-2367
11. Stewart, WF, Ricci, JA, Chee, E, Morganstein, D, and Lipton, R. Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce. JAMA (2003) 290(18):2443–54. doi:10.1001/jama.290.18.2443
12. Maher, C, Underwood, M, and Buchbinder, R. Non-specific low back pain. The Lancet (2017) 389(10070):736–47. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30970-9
13. Carey, TS, Evans, AT, Hadler, NM, Lieberman, G, Kalsbeek, WD, Jackman, AM, et al. Acute severe low back pain. A population-based study of prevalence and care-seeking. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (1996) 21(3):339–44. doi:10.1097/00007632-199602010-00018
14. van Tulder, MW, Assendelft, WJ, Koes, BW, and Bouter, LM. Spinal radiographic findings and nonspecific low back pain. A systematic review of observational studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (1997) 22(4):427–34. doi:10.1097/00007632-199702150-00015
15. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. National institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases. Bethesda, MD, United States: NIAMS (2017). Back Pain. Available from: https://www.niams.nih.gov/health-topics/back-pain (Accessed July 10, 2023).
16. Sherman, A. Musculoskeletal lower back pain - symptoms, diagnosis and treatment. BMJ Best Practice US (2020). Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-us/778 (Accessed July 6, 2023).
17. Zalatimo, O. American association of neurological surgeons (2023). Low Back Pain – Causes, Diagnosis and Treatment. Available from: https://www.aans.org/en/Patients/Neurosurgical-Conditions-and-Treatments/Low-Back-Pain (Accessed July 10, 2023).
18. Stevans, JM, Delitto, A, Khoja, SS, Patterson, CG, Smith, CN, Schneider, MJ, et al. Risk factors associated with transition from acute to chronic low back pain in US patients seeking primary care. JAMA Netw Open (2021) 4(2):e2037371. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37371
19. Department of Veterans Affairs. VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines: diagnosis and treatment of low back pain (LBP). Washington, DC, United States: Department of Veterans Affairs (2022). Report No.: Version 3.0. Available from: https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/pain/lbp/ (Accessed July 6, 2023).
20. Kreiner, DS, Matz, P, Bono, CM, Cho, CH, Easa, JE, Ghiselli, G, et al. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Spine J (2020) 20(7):998–1024. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2020.04.006
21. Oliveira, CB, Maher, CG, Pinto, RZ, Traeger, AC, Lin, CWC, Chenot, JF, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J (2018) 27(11):2791–803. doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2
22. Traeger, AC, Buchbinder, R, Elshaug, AG, Croft, PR, and Maher, CG. Care for low back pain: can health systems deliver? Bull World Health Organ (2019) 97(6):423–33. doi:10.2471/blt.18.226050
23. American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical practice guideline: low back pain. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain (2017). Available from: https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all-clinical-recommendations/back-pain.html (Accessed July 24, 2023).
24. Buelt, A, McCall, S, and Coster, J. Management of low back pain: guidelines from the VA/DoD. Am Fam Physician (2023) 107(4):435–7.
25. Dowell, D, Ragan, KR, Jones, CM, Baldwin, GT, and Chou, R. CDC clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids for pain — United States, 2022. MMWR Recomm Rep (2022) 71:1–95. doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr7103a1
26. Cooper, SA, Desjardins, P, Brain, P, Paredes-Diaz, A, Troullos, E, Centofanti, R, et al. Longer analgesic effect with naproxen sodium than ibuprofen in post-surgical dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose trial. Curr Med Res Opin (2019) 35(12):2149–58. doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1655257
27. Daniels, SE, Paredes-Diaz, A, An, R, Centofanti, R, and Tajaddini, A. Significant, long-lasting pain relief in primary dysmenorrhea with low-dose naproxen sodium compared with acetaminophen: a double-blind, randomized, single-dose, crossover study. Curr Med Res Opin (2019) 35(12):2139–47. doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1654987
28. Forbes, JA, Keller, CK, Smith, JW, Zeleznock, JR, Sevelius, H, and Beaver, WT. Analgesic effect of naproxen sodium, codeine, a naproxen-codeine combination and aspirin on the postoperative pain of oral surgery. Pharmacotherapy (1986) 6(5):211–8. doi:10.1002/j.1875-9114.1986.tb03479.x
29. Fricke, JR, Halladay, SC, and Francisco, CA. Efficacy and safety of naproxen sodium and ibuprofen for pain relief after oral surgery. Curr Ther Res (1993) 54(6):619–27. doi:10.1016/s0011-393x(05)80692-7
30. Kiersch, TA, Halladay, SC, and Hormel, PC. A single-dose, double-blind comparison of naproxen sodium, acetaminophen, and placebo in postoperative dental pain. Clin Ther (1994) 16(3):394–404.
31. Kyeremateng, K, Troullos, E, and Paredes-Diaz, A. Safety of naproxen compared with placebo, ibuprofen and acetaminophen: a pooled analysis of eight multiple-dose, short-term, randomized controlled studies. Curr Med Res Opin (2019) 35(10):1671–6. doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1612338
32. Polat, O, Karaman, AI, and Durmus, E. Effects of preoperative ibuprofen and naproxen sodium on orthodontic pain. Angle Orthod (2005) 75(5):791–6. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[791:EOPIAN]2.0.CO;2
33. Nie, W, Xu, P, Hao, C, Chen, Y, Yin, Y, and Wang, L. Efficacy and safety of over-the-counter analgesics for primary dysmenorrhea: a network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) (2020) 99(19):e19881. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000019881
34. Law, S, Derry, S, and Moore, RA. Naproxen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults. Cochrane database Syst Rev (2013) 2013(10):CD009455. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009455.pub2
35. Friedman, BW, Dym, AA, Davitt, M, Holden, L, Solorzano, C, Esses, D, et al. Naproxen with cyclobenzaprine, oxycodone/acetaminophen, or placebo for treating acute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA (2015) 314(15):1572–80. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13043
36. Friedman, BW, Cisewski, D, Irizarry, E, Davitt, M, Solorzano, C, Nassery, A, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naproxen with or without orphenadrine or methocarbamol for acute low back pain. Ann Emerg Med (2018) 71(3):348–56.e5. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.09.031
37. Friedman, BW, Irizarry, E, Solorzano, C, Khankel, N, Zapata, J, Zias, E, et al. Diazepam is no better than placebo when added to naproxen for acute low back pain. Ann Emerg Med (2017) 70(2):169–76.e1. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.10.002
38. Ashbrook, J, Rogdakis, N, Callaghan, MJ, Yeowell, G, and Goodwin, PC. The therapeutic management of back pain with and without sciatica in the emergency department: a systematic review. Physiotherapy (2020) 109:13–32. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2020.07.005
39. Cashin, AG, Folly, T, Bagg, MK, Wewege, MA, Jones, MD, Ferraro, MC, et al. Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (2021) 374:n1446. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1446
40. Deyo, RA, Von Korff, M, and Duhrkoop, D. Opioids for low back pain. BMJ (2015) 350:g6380. doi:10.1136/bmj.g6380
41. Fathi, M, Zare, MA, Bahmani, HR, and Zehtabchi, S. Comparison of oral oxycodone and naproxen in soft tissue injury pain control: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Am J Emerg Med (2015) 33(9):1205–8. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.05.021
42. Jones, CMP, Day, RO, Koes, BW, Latimer, J, Maher, CG, McLachlan, AJ, et al. Opioid analgesia for acute low back pain and neck pain (the OPAL trial): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet (2023) 402(304):304–12. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00404-x
43. Williams, CM, Maher, CG, Latimer, J, McLachlan, AJ, Hancock, MJ, Day, RO, et al. Efficacy of paracetamol for acute low-back pain: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet (2014) 384(9954):1586–96. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60805-9
44. Graham, GG, Davies, MJ, Day, RO, Mohamudally, A, and Scott, KF. The modern pharmacology of paracetamol: therapeutic actions, mechanism of action, metabolism, toxicity and recent pharmacological findings. Inflammopharmacology (2013) 21(3):201–32. doi:10.1007/s10787-013-0172-x
45. Ohashi, N, and Kohno, T. Analgesic effect of acetaminophen: a review of known and novel mechanisms of action. Front Pharmacol (2020) 11:580289. doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.580289
46. Derry, S, Wiffen, PJ, Kalso, EA, Bell, RF, Aldington, D, Phillips, T, et al. Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane database Syst Rev (2017) 5(5):CD008609. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008609.pub2
47. Maloney, J, Pew, S, Wie, C, Gupta, R, Freeman, J, and Strand, N. Comprehensive review of topical analgesics for chronic pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep (2021) 25(2):7. doi:10.1007/s11916-020-00923-2
48. McPherson, ML, and Cimino, NM. Topical NSAID formulations. Pain Med (2013) 14(Suppl. l_1):S35–9. doi:10.1111/pme.12288
49. Roelofs, PDDM, Deyo, RA, Koes, BW, Scholten, RJPM, and van Tulder, MW. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain. Cochrane database Syst Rev (2008) 2008(1):CD000396. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000396.pub3
50. Kolber, MR, Ton, J, Thomas, B, Kirkwood, J, Moe, S, Dugré, N, et al. PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Can Fam Physician (2021) 67(1):e20–30. doi:10.46747/cfp.6701e20
51. van der Gaag, WH, Roelofs, PD, Enthoven, WT, van Tulder, MW, and Koes, BW. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain. Cochrane database Syst Rev (2020) 4(4):CD013581. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013581
52. Krebs, EE, Gravely, A, Nugent, S, Jensen, AC, DeRonne, B, Goldsmith, ES, et al. Effect of opioid vs nonopioid medications on pain-related function in patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain: the SPACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA (2018) 319(9):872–82. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0899
53. Waikakul, S, and Soparat, K. Effectiveness and safety of loxoprofen compared with naproxen in nonsurgical low back pain. Clin Drug Invest (1995) 10(1):59–63. doi:10.2165/00044011-199510010-00010
54. Ghlichloo, I, and Gerriets, V. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing (2023).
55. Brutzkus, JC, Shahrokhi, M, and Varacallo, M. Naproxen. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing (2023).
56. Hersh, EV, Moore, PA, and Ross, GL. Over-the-counter analgesics and antipyretics: a critical assessment. Clin Ther (2000) 22(5):500–48. doi:10.1016/s0149-2918(00)80043-0
58. Rainsford, KD, Adesioye, J, and Dawson, S. Relative safety of NSAIDs and analgesics for non-prescription use or in equivalent doses. Inflammopharmacology (2000) 8(4):351–9. doi:10.1163/156856000750264410
59. Bangalore, S, Kamalakkannan, G, Parkar, S, and Messerli, FH. Fixed-dose combinations improve medication compliance: a meta-analysis. Am J Med (2007) 120(8):713–9. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.08.033
60. Grosser, T, Ricciotti, E, and FitzGerald, GA. The cardiovascular pharmacology of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trends Pharmacol Sci (2017) 38(8):733–48. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2017.05.008
61. Strom, BL, Schinnar, R, Bilker, WB, Feldman, H, Farrar, JT, and Carson, JL. Gastrointestinal tract bleeding associated with naproxen sodium vs ibuprofen. Arch Intern Med (1997) 157(22):2626–31. doi:10.1001/archinte.157.22.2626
62. Alberto García Rodríguez, L, and Hernández-Díaz, S. Relative risk of upper gastrointestinal complications among users of acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Epidemiology (2001) 12(5):570–6. doi:10.1097/00001648-200109000-00018
63. Davies, NM, and Anderson, KE. Clinical pharmacokinetics of naproxen. Clin Pharmacokinet (1997) 32(4):268–93. doi:10.2165/00003088-199732040-00002
64. DeArmond, B, Francisco, CA, Lin, JS, Huang, FY, Halladay, S, Bartizek, RD, et al. Safety profile of over-the-counter naproxen sodium. Clin Ther (1995) 17(4):587–601. discussion 586. doi:10.1016/0149-2918(95)80036-0
65. MOTRIN. Ibuprofen tablet (2023). Available from: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=6419cc78-27d4-7713-e053-2a91aa0a5a10 (Accessed August 7, 2023).
66. Sevelius, H, Runkel, R, Segre, E, and Bloomfield, SS. Bioavailability of naproxen sodium and its relationship to clinical analgesic effects. Br J Clin Pharmacol (1980) 10(3):259–63. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.1980.tb01753.x
67. Baldwin, AC, Stevenson, SW, and Dudley, GA. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy after eccentric exercise in healthy older individuals. Journals Gerontol Ser A: Biol Sci Med Sci (2001) 56(8):M510–513. doi:10.1093/gerona/56.8.m510
68. Cooper, SA, Desjardins, PJ, Bertoch, T, Paredes-Diaz, A, Troullos, E, Tajaddini, A, et al. Analgesic efficacy of naproxen sodium versus hydrocodone/acetaminophen in acute postsurgical dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Postgrad Med (2022) 134(5):463–70. doi:10.1080/00325481.2021.2008180
69. Derry, CJ, Derry, S, Moore, RA, and McQuay, HJ. Single dose oral naproxen and naproxen sodium for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane database Syst Rev (2009) 2009(1):CD004234. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004234.pub3
70. Dudley, GA, Czerkawski, J, Meinrod, A, Gillis, G, Baldwin, A, and Scarpone, M. Efficacy of naproxen sodium for exercise-induced dysfunction muscle injury and soreness. Clin J Sport Med (1997) 7(1):3–10. doi:10.1097/00042752-199701000-00002
71. Laurora, I, and An, R. Efficacy of single-dose, extended-release naproxen sodium 660 mg in postsurgical dental pain: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin (2016) 32(2):331–42. doi:10.1185/03007995.2015.1123680
72. Pini, LA, Del Bene, E, Zanchin, G, Sarchielli, P, Di Trapani, G, Prudenzano, MP, et al. Tolerability and efficacy of a combination of paracetamol and caffeine in the treatment of tension-type headache: a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, cross-over study versus placebo and naproxen sodium. J Headache Pain (2008) 9(6):367–73. doi:10.1007/s10194-008-0071-5
73. Schiff, M, and Minic, M. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy and safety of nonprescription doses of naproxen sodium and Ibuprofen in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol (2004) 31(7):1373–83.
74. Weisman, SM, and Brunton, S. Efficacy and safety of naproxen for acute pain. J Fam Pract (2020) 69(7 Suppl. l):S33–S38. doi:10.12788/jfp.0064
75. Cooper, SA, and Desjardins, PJ. The value of the dental impaction pain model in drug development. Methods Mol Biol (2010) 617:175–90. doi:10.1007/978-1-60327-323-7_15
76. Singla, NK, Desjardins, PJ, and Chang, PD. A comparison of the clinical and experimental characteristics of four acute surgical pain models: dental extraction, bunionectomy, joint replacement, and soft tissue surgery. Pain (2014) 155(3):441–56. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2013.09.002
77. Pergolizzi, JV, Magnusson, P, LeQuang, JA, Breve, F, Taylor, R, Wollmuth, C, et al. Can NSAIDs and acetaminophen effectively replace opioid treatment options for acute pain? Expert Opin Pharmacother (2021) 22(9):1119–26. doi:10.1080/14656566.2021.1901885
78. Bertoch, T. The dental impaction pain model: a versatile option in analgesic trials to avoid costly late-phase failure. Prescott, AZ, United States: CenExel Clinical Research (2019). Available from: https://cenexelresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Dental-Pain-Model-White-Paper_v6_06.12.19FINAL.pdf (Accessed June 21, 2023).
79. Bogduk, N. On the definitions and physiology of back pain, referred pain, and radicular pain. Pain (2009) 147(1):17–9. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.020
80. Burian, M, and Geisslinger, G. COX-dependent mechanisms involved in the antinociceptive action of NSAIDs at central and peripheral sites. Pharmacol Ther (2005) 107(2):139–54. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2005.02.004
81. Ong, CKS, and Seymour, RA. Pathogenesis of postoperative oral surgical pain. Anesth Prog (2003) 50(1):5–17.
82. Woolf, CJ. What is this thing called pain? J Clin Invest (2010) 120(11):3742–4. doi:10.1172/jci45178
83. Barden, J, Edwards, JE, McQuay, HJ, and Andrew Moore, R. Pain and analgesic response after third molar extraction and other postsurgical pain. Pain (2004) 107(1–2):86–90. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2003.09.021
84. Dworkin, RH, Turk, DC, Basch, E, Berger, A, Cleeland, C, Farrar, JT, et al. Considerations for extrapolating evidence of acute and chronic pain analgesic efficacy. Pain (2011) 152(8):1705–8. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.02.026
85. Couto, A, Troullos, E, Moon, J, Paredes-Diaz, A, and An, R. Analgesic efficacy and safety of non-prescription doses of naproxen sodium in the management of moderate osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Curr Med Res Opin (2018) 34(10):1747–53. doi:10.1080/03007995.2018.1437029
86. Kauppila, A, and Rönnberg, L. Naproxen sodium in dysmenorrhea secondary to endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol (1985) 65(3):379–83.
87. Sahin, I, Saraçoğlu, F, Kurban, Y, and Türkkani, B. Dysmenorrhea treatment with a single daily dose of rofecoxib. Int J Gynecol Obstet (2003) 83(3):285–91. doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(03)00260-1
88. Angiolillo, DJ, and Weisman, SM. Clinical pharmacology and cardiovascular safety of naproxen. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs (2017) 17(2):97–107. doi:10.1007/s40256-016-0200-5
89. Nissen, SE, Yeomans, ND, Solomon, DH, Lüscher, TF, Libby, P, Husni, ME, et al. Cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen for arthritis. N Engl J Med (2016) 375(26):2519–29. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1611593
90. Coxib and traditional NSAID Trialists' CNT Collaboration, Bhala, N, Emberson, J, Merhi, A, Abramson, S, Arber, N, Baron, JA, et al. Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet (2013) 382(9894):769–79. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60900-9
91. Perry, L, Mosler, C, Atkins, A, and Minehart, M. Cardiovascular risk associated with NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. US Pharmacist (2014) 39(3):35–8.
92. Szeto, CC, Sugano, K, Wang, JG, Fujimoto, K, Whittle, S, Modi, GK, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular, renal or gastrointestinal comorbidities: joint APAGE/APLAR/APSDE/APSH/APSN/PoA recommendations. Gut (2020) 69(4):617–29. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319300
93. Kang, DO, An, H, Park, GU, Yum, Y, Park, EJ, Park, Y, et al. Cardiovascular and bleeding risks associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol (2020) 76(5):518–29. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.017
94. Badimon, JJ, and Santos-Gallego, CG. Is increased cardiovascular and bleeding risk the price for pain relief? J Am Coll Cardiol (2020) 76(5):530–2. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.035
95. Saxena, A, Schrör, K, and Hohlfeld, T. High on treatment platelet reactivity against aspirin by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs--pharmacological mechanisms and clinical relevance. Thromb Haemost (2013) 109(5):825–33. doi:10.1160/th12-07-0532
96. Alqahtani, Z, and Jamali, F. Clinical outcomes of aspirin interaction with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a systematic review. J Pharm Pharm Sci (2018) 21(1s):48s–73s. doi:10.18433/jpps29854
97. White, WB, Kloner, RA, Angiolillo, DJ, and Davidson, MH. Cardiorenal safety of OTC analgesics. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther (2018) 23(2):103–18. doi:10.1177/1074248417751070
98. Moore, N, and Scheiman, JM. Gastrointestinal safety and tolerability of oral non-aspirin over-the-counter analgesics. Postgrad Med (2018) 130(2):188–99. doi:10.1080/00325481.2018.1429793
99. Weir, MR. Renal effects of nonselective NSAIDs and coxibs. Cleveland Clinic J Med (2002) 69(Suppl. 1):SI53–58. doi:10.3949/ccjm.69.suppl_1.si53
100. Deyo, RA, Smith, DHM, Johnson, ES, Donovan, M, Tillotson, CJ, Yang, X, et al. Opioids for back pain patients: primary care prescribing patterns and use of services. J Am Board Fam Med (2011) 24(6):717–27. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2011.06.100232
101. Sanger, N, Bhatt, M, Singhal, N, Ramsden, K, Baptist-Mohseni, N, Panesar, B, et al. Adverse outcomes associated with prescription opioids for acute low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Physician (2019) 22(2):119–38.
102. Tucker, HR, Scaff, K, McCloud, T, Carlomagno, K, Daly, K, Garcia, A, et al. Harms and benefits of opioids for management of non-surgical acute and chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med (2020) 54(11):664. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099805
103. Korff, MV, Saunders, K, Thomas Ray, G, Boudreau, D, Campbell, C, Merrill, J, et al. Defacto long-term opioid therapy for non-cancer pain. The Clin J Pain (2008) 24(6):521–7. doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e318169d03b
104. Chaparro, LE, Furlan, AD, Deshpande, A, Mailis-Gagnon, A, Atlas, S, and Turk, DC. Opioids compared with placebo or other treatments for chronic low back pain: an update of the Cochrane Review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (2014) 39(7):556–63. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000249
105. Chou, R, Deyo, R, Devine, B, Hansen, R, Sullivan, S, Jarvik, JG, et al. The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid treatment of chronic pain. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep (2014) 2014(218):1–219. doi:10.23970/AHRQEPCERTA218
106. Megalla, M, Ogedegbe, C, Sanders, AM, Cox, N, DiSanto, T, Johnson, H, et al. Factors associated with repeat emergency department visits for low back pain. Cureus (2022) 14(2):e21906. doi:10.7759/cureus.21906
107. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug overdose death rates (2023). Available from: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates (Accessed August 11, 2023).
108. Panchal, SJ, Müller-Schwefe, P, and Wurzelmann, JI. Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction: prevalence, pathophysiology and burden. Int J Clin Pract (2007) 61(7):1181–7. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01415.x
109. Swegle, JM, and Logemann, C. Management of common opioid-induced adverse effects. Am Fam Physician (2006) 74(8):1347–54.
110. Angst, MS, and Clark, JD. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia: a qualitative systematic review. Anesthesiology (2006) 104(3):570–87. doi:10.1097/00000542-200603000-00025
111. Mao, J. Opioid-induced abnormal pain sensitivity: implications in clinical opioid therapy. Pain (2002) 100(3):213–7. doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00422-0
112. Soprano, SE, Hennessy, S, Bilker, WB, and Leonard, CE. Assessment of physician prescribing of muscle relaxants in the United States, 2005-2016. JAMA Netw Open (2020) 3(6):e207664. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.7664
113. Abdel Shaheed, C, Maher, CG, Williams, KA, and McLachlan, AJ. Efficacy and tolerability of muscle relaxants for low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pain (2017) 21(2):228–37. doi:10.1002/ejp.907
114. van Tulder, MW, Touray, T, Furlan, AD, Solway, S, and Bouter, LM. Muscle relaxants for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (2003) 28(17):1978–92. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000090503.38830.ad
115. Bernstein, E, Carey, TS, and Garrett, JM. The use of muscle relaxant medications in acute low back pain. Spine (2004) 29(12):1346–51. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000128258.49781.74
116. Shaughnessy, AF. Evidence of benefit is lacking for low back pain relief with muscle relaxants. Am Fam Physician (2022) 105(1):95–6.
117. Chang, WJ. Muscle relaxants for acute and chronic pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North America (2020) 31(2):245–54. doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2020.01.005
118. Reeves, RR, and Burke, RS. Carisoprodol: abuse potential and withdrawal syndrome. Curr Drug Abuse Reviewse (2010) 3(1):33–8. doi:10.2174/1874473711003010033
119. Witenko, C, Moorman-Li, R, Motycka, C, Duane, K, Hincapie-Castillo, J, Leonard, P, et al. Considerations for the appropriate use of skeletal muscle relaxants for the management of acute low back pain. P T (2014) 39(6):427–35.
120. Luo, X, Pietrobon, R, Curtis, LH, and Hey, LA. Prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants for back pain in the United States. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (2004) 29(23):E531–537. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000146453.76528.7c
121. Fudin, J, and Raouf, M. A review of skeletal muscle relaxants for pain management (2017). Available from: https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/pharmacological/non-opioids/review-skeletal-muscle-relaxants-pain-management (Accessed July 17, 2023).
122. Urquhart, DM, Hoving, JL, Assendelft, WJ, Roland, M, and van Tulder, MW. Antidepressants for non-specific low back pain. Cochrane database Syst Rev (2008) 2008(1):CD001703. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001703.pub3
123. Chou, R, Deyo, R, Friedly, J, Skelly, A, Weimer, M, Fu, R, et al. Systemic pharmacologic therapies for low back pain: a systematic review for an American College of physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med (2017) 166(7):480–92. doi:10.7326/m16-2458
124. Corp, N, Mansell, G, Stynes, S, Wynne-Jones, G, Morsø, L, Hill, JC, et al. Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: a systematic review of guidelines. Eur J Pain (2021) 25(2):275–95. doi:10.1002/ejp.1679
125. Ferreira, GE, McLachlan, AJ, Lin, CWC, Zadro, JR, Abdel-Shaheed, C, O’Keeffe, M, et al. Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (2021) 372:m4825. doi:10.1136/bmj.m4825
126. Cartwright, C, Gibson, K, Read, J, Cowan, O, and Dehar, T. Long-term antidepressant use: patient perspectives of benefits and adverse effects. Patient Preference and Adherence (2016) 10:1401–7. doi:10.2147/ppa.s110632
127. Wang, SM, Han, C, Bahk, WM, Lee, SJ, Patkar, AA, Masand, PS, et al. Addressing the side effects of contemporary antidepressant drugs: a comprehensive review. Chonnam Med J (2018) 54(2):101–12. doi:10.4068/cmj.2018.54.2.101
128. Yasir, M, Goyal, A, and Sonthalia, S. Corticosteroid adverse effects. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing (2023).
129. Chou, R, Pinto, RZ, Fu, R, Lowe, RA, Henschke, N, McAuley, JH, et al. Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain. Cochrane database Syst Rev (2022) 10(10):CD012450. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012450.pub2
130. Eskin, B, Shih, RD, Fiesseler, FW, Walsh, BW, Allegra, JR, Silverman, ME, et al. Prednisone for emergency department low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Emerg Med (2014) 47(1):65–70. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.02.010
131. Enke, O, New, HA, New, CH, Mathieson, S, McLachlan, AJ, Latimer, J, et al. Anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ (2018) 190(26):E786–93. doi:10.1503/cmaj.171333
132. Arana, A, Wentworth, CE, Ayuso-Mateos, JL, and Arellano, FM. Suicide-related events in patients treated with antiepileptic drugs. N Engl J Med (2010) 363(6):542–51. doi:10.1056/nejmoa0909801
133. Gottlieb, M, Koyfman, A, and Long, B. Anticonvulsants for the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain. Acad Emerg Med (2020) 27(8):779–80. doi:10.1111/acem.13924
Keywords: opioids, low back pain (LBP), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), naproxen, over-the-counter (OTC)
Citation: Weisman SM, Ciavarra G and Cooper G (2024) What a pain in the … back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci 27:12384. doi: 10.3389/jpps.2024.12384
Received: 06 November 2023; Accepted: 24 January 2024;
Published: 07 February 2024.
Edited by:
Fakhreddin Jamali, Alberta Innovates—Health Solutions, CanadaCopyright © 2024 Weisman, Ciavarra and Cooper. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Steven M. Weisman, steven.weisman@lumanity.com