ResProt JMIR Res Protoc JMIR Research Protocols 1929-0748 JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada v10i1e22905 33480861 10.2196/22905 Protocol Protocol Efficacy and Safety of Medicines Targeting Neurotrophic Factors in the Management of Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Eysenbach Gunther Bailey Jeannie Vermeir Julie Yusif Salifu Rizzo Rodrigo R N MSc 1 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9624-6210 Ferraro Michael C BSc(Hons) 1 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0563-1832 Wewege Michael A MSc 1 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3283-2149 Cashin Aidan G BExPhys 2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4190-7912 Leake Hayley B BPhysio(Hons) 2 4 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6133-2186 O’Hagan Edel T MSc 2 3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1914-5918 Jones Matthew D PhD 1 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5534-755X Gustin Sylvia M PhD 2 5 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9613-9845 McAuley James H PhD 1
School of Medical Sciences University of New South Wales Wallace Wurth Building – UNSW Sydney 18 High Street, Kensington Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia 61 2 9399 1870 james.mcauley@unsw.edu.au
2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0550-828X School of Medical Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney Australia Centre for Pain IMPACT Neuroscience Research Australia Sydney Australia Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales Sydney Australia IIMPACT in Health University of South Australia Adelaide Australia School of Psychology University of New South Wales Sydney Australia Corresponding Author: James H McAuley james.mcauley@unsw.edu.au 1 2021 22 1 2021 10 1 e22905 18 8 2020 18 11 2020 22 11 2020 1 12 2020 ©Rodrigo R N Rizzo, Michael C Ferraro, Michael A Wewege, Aidan G Cashin, Hayley B Leake, Edel T O’Hagan, Matthew D Jones, Sylvia M Gustin, James H McAuley. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 22.01.2021. 2021

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

 Background

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Most people with LBP receive the diagnosis of nonspecific LBP or sciatica. Medications are commonly prescribed but have limited analgesic effects and are associated with adverse events. A novel treatment approach is to target neurotrophins such as nerve growth factor (NGF) to reduce pain intensity. NGF inhibitors have been tested in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in recent years, showing promise for the treatment of chronic LBP; however, their efficacy and safety need to be evaluated to guide regulatory actions.

 Objective

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medicines targeting neurotrophins in patients with LBP and sciatica.

 Methods

In this systematic review, we will include published and unpublished records of parallel RCTs and the first phase of crossover RCTs that compare the effects of medicines targeting neurotrophins with any control group. We will search the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, and WHO International Clinical Registry Platform databases from inception. Pairs of authors will independently screen the records for eligibility, and we will independently extract data in duplicate. We will conduct a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) with the studies that report sufficient data and compare the medicines of interest versus placebo. We will use random-effects models and calculate estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We will assess the risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and form judgments of confidence in the evidence according to GRADE recommendations. We will use the PRISMA statement to report the findings. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses by condition, type of medication, and time point. We will also assess the impact of a potential new trial on an existing meta-analysis. Data from studies that meet inclusion criteria but cannot be included in the meta-analysis will be reported narratively.

 Results

The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on May 19, 2020. As of December 2020, we have identified 1932 records.

 Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of NGF inhibitors for pain in patients with nonspecific LBP and sciatica. The inclusion of new studies and unpublished data may improve the precision of the effect estimates and guide regulatory actions of the medications for LBP and sciatica.

 Trial Registration

Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/b8adn/

 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/22905

 back pain analgesics drug therapy monoclonal antibodies nerve growth factor review meta-analysis antibodies pain back growth factor disability sciatica Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition globally and the leading cause of years lived with disability [1,2]. Approximately 5%-10% of people with LBP have radiating pain that follows a dermatomal pattern, which leads to the diagnosis of sciatica [3]. For 90% of people with LBP, the nociceptive source cannot be reliably identified, and the condition is classified as nonspecific LBP [4,5]. A substantial number of people with nonspecific LBP and sciatica (28%) experience severe levels of disability [2], and 65% of individuals still have some level of continuing or fluctuating pain 3 months after the first episode [6,7].

Analgesic medicines are commonly prescribed for LBP [8,9]. There is widespread use of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants, opioid analgesics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and antiepileptic drugs (eg, gabapentin) for all types of acute and chronic LBP [8]. These medicines have different proposed biological targets. Acetaminophen and NSAIDs likely exert their analgesic and anti-inflammatory actions by reducing prostaglandin synthesis [10]. Opioids mimic the actions of endogenous opioid peptides by interacting with presynaptic receptors; this interaction reduces neuronal excitability and inhibits nociceptive neurotransmitters in the central nervous system [11]. Antidepressants often involve reuptake inhibition of neurotransmitters involved in descending inhibition transmission of pain [12]. Gabapentin and pregabalin decrease the release of nociceptive transmitters by binding to calcium channels at different parts of the central nervous system [13]. In general, these medicines have limited analgesic effects and are often associated with negative side effects [14]. For example, opioids are associated with constipation, nausea, vomiting, itching, and somnolence, and only a minority of people have substantial pain relief [15-17]. Accordingly, research has focused on the investigation of other mechanisms and novel analgesic agents for chronic pain [18].

Neurotrophins constitute a group of structurally related proteins that include nerve growth factor (NGF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), neurotrophin-3, and neurotrophin-4 [19,20]. These molecules are expressed at different levels in the peripheral and central nervous system after injury, inflammation, or exposure to a noxious stimulus, and contribute to the persistence of pain [19,21,22]. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that levels of NGF are elevated in a variety of chronic pain conditions (eg, interstitial cystitis, prostatitis, arthritis, pancreatitis, chronic headaches, cancer pain, diabetic neuropathy, sciatica, and other noncancer pain) [23-25]. Experimental studies have demonstrated that NGF and BDNF can maintain peripheral and central pain sensitization [22,26].

Approaches have been developed to target neurotrophins, including anti-NGF agents, which are in the most advanced phases of clinical testing. NGF inhibitors (or anti-NGF) are considered biological agents because they are harvested from a living system instead of being synthesized chemically as is the case for conventional analgesics [27]. Biologic drugs are relatively large molecules, which may have more precise mechanisms compared to conventional medicines and result in fewer adverse effects compared to opioids [27]. However, biologic agents interfere with key molecules in the human physiology, which may produce adverse effects [28]. Anti-NGF medicines have been tested in some chronic pain conditions, particularly LBP and osteoarthritis [23,25,29]. Anti-NGF medicines are commonly administered to people with chronic pain via multiple subcutaneous and intravenous injections, delivered at least 1 week apart [30,31]. Anti-NGF medicines may target novel mechanisms for pain relief and reduce some of the risks associated with opioids, such as medication addiction, misuse, dependence, and other side effects [18]. Anti-NGF medicines have not yet received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), although the FDA recently accepted regulatory submission for tanezumab, an anti-NGF medicine, to treat patients with osteoarthritis [32]. The goal date for the FDA to make a decision is December 2020. The last systematic review with a meta-analysis that investigated the effect of anti-NGF medicines for LBP was published in 2014 [30]. Since then, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large numbers of participants have been conducted. Therefore, this systematic review will evaluate the effect and safety of medicines targeting neurotrophins in patients with LBP.

 Methods Protocol Registration and Design

The protocol for this review is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/b8adn). This protocol follows the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) reporting guidelines [33,34].

 Eligibility Criteria Study Design

We will include published and unpublished records of parallel RCTs and the first phase of crossover RCTs that compare the effect of medicines targeting neurotrophins with any control group. We will include secondary records of included trials (reporting additional results from the same trial) when authors provide additional results on outcomes or time points of interest. We will not include enriched-enrollment or cluster RCTs, or observational studies. We will include records reported in any language, except those for which a translator cannot be obtained.

 Participants

We will include studies on adults aged 18 years or over diagnosed with LBP or sciatica of any duration. LBP is defined as a primary area of pain between the 12th rib and gluteal fold with or without leg pain [35]. Sciatica is defined as radiating pain in one leg combined with a positive result on one or more neurological tests indicating nerve root tension or neurological deficit [3]. We will consider the following pain duration: acute (from the first episode to 6 weeks), subacute (from 6 weeks to 12 weeks), and chronic (12 weeks or more) [36]. We will include studies that randomized participants with heterogeneous pain conditions (eg, hip osteoarthritis and LBP) only if we are able to obtain separate data for participants with LBP. Participants may be experienced or naïve to the trial intervention. We will exclude interventions that are combined with surgery; however, studies that investigated the effect of medicines targeting neurotrophins to prevent surgical/operative interventions will be included in the review. We will exclude LBP that is attributed to a specific pathology other than sciatica, such as infection, neoplasm, metastasis, inflammatory disease (eg, ankylosing spondylitis), or fractures.

 Interventions

For this review, we will include any type of agent designed to target neurotrophins for the management of LBP. We expect to identify a larger number of medicines that target NGF than those targeting other neurotrophins. The medicines do not need to be listed on the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical system or licensed for current use, because biologic drugs are new to the management of pain and still need to show their efficacy and safety. Medicines may be delivered as monotherapy or combination therapy via any route of administration (eg, subcutaneous, epidural, oral, intravenous). We will consider separate doses given that biologic agents are not FDA-approved and there may be a dose-response effect.

 Comparators

We will include studies comparing the effect of a medicine targeting neurotrophins to any of the following interventions: (1) placebo/sham medicine, (2) waiting list or no treatment, (3) another dose or type of medicine targeting neurotrophins, and (4) other medicines. We will not exclude studies that assign nonpharmacological cointerventions to one or more of the intervention arms. We define the placebo intervention as any drug intervention that does not contain an active ingredient. We consider that waiting list or no treatment includes continuation of usual care or being placed on a waitlist.

 Outcome Measures Primary Outcomes

The primary outcomes are pain intensity and safety. Pain intensity reported in the lower back can be measured by any self-report scale such as the visual analog scale (VAS), numeric rating scale (NRS), or a rating scale within a composite measure of pain (eg, McGill Pain Questionnaire). We will assume that ordinal scales exhibit continuous properties [37].

Safety is defined as the number of participants who experience an adverse effect during the treatment period [38].

 Secondary Outcomes

The secondary outcomes include leg pain, back-specific function, and harm. Leg pain is defined as pain intensity in the leg due to sciatica as measured by any self-report scale. Leg pain has been used as a separate outcome for sciatica in previous studies [39].

Back-specific function can be measured by any self-report scale such as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), or a rating scale within a composite measure (eg, LBPRS-DI) [40].

Harm is defined as the number of participants who experience a serious adverse effect during the treatment period. A serious adverse event is defined according to the USA FDA as any event that results in death, is life threatening, requires inpatient hospitalization or causes prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, may have caused a congenital anomaly/birth defect, or requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage [38].

 Time Points of Outcomes Measures

We will consider outcomes measured at the time point closest to (1) 4 weeks, (2) 12 weeks, (3) 24 weeks, and (4) 48 weeks after randomization, regardless of the number of injections administered in the study.

 Search Strategy

We will search the following electronic databases from inception to present: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, and WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. We will manually search the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews to identify additionally eligible studies.

We will combine terms related to RCTs, LBP, and spinal disorders, and interventions of interest as recommended by the Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Pain Group [41] and Cochrane Handbook [42]. We reviewed previous studies and conducted a preliminary search to inform the search terms for drugs that target neurotrophic factors. The search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid) is detailed in Multimedia Appendix 1.

 Study Selection and Management

We will upload the records to Covidence [43], which will apply an automatic deduplication function to remove remaining duplicate records. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for title and abstract eligibility. We will retrieve full texts of all records where exclusion could not be determined from title and abstract screening. Two reviewers (RR and one or more reviewers) will independently screen the full text of these records for eligibility. Reviewers will give reasons for exclusion, and disagreements will be resolved through discussion or arbitration from a third author (JM) if required. We will search and identify related records (eg, other journal articles, conference abstracts, and trial registries). We will link related records for each included trial and follow this order for data extraction: (1) journal article of the trial, (2) conference abstract, (3) trial registration, (4) other records. We will summarize the search process using an adapted PRISMA flow diagram [44].

 Data Management and Extraction

Two reviewers (RR and one or more reviewers) will independently extract and enter data from the included trials into standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved through discussion or arbitration from a third author (JM) if necessary.

We will extract data for (1) trial characteristics, including country, setting, number of trial sites, sample size, and study duration; (2) participants, including diagnosis, duration of LBP, age, male/female ratio, arm-level pain intensity at baseline (mean and SD), and experience or naivety with the trial intervention; (3) interventions, including medicine tested, control, duration of intervention, dosage regimen, routes of administration, and usage of rescue medication; and (4) outcomes, including type and dimensions of the scale/measure and the time from randomization at which the outcome data were measured. For adverse events, we will extract the definition used in each study, and extract the type and number of adverse events in each intervention group.

If studies report more than one measure for pain, we will prioritize extraction in the following order: 100-mm VAS, 10-cm VAS, 11-point NRS, rating scale for pain intensity from a composite measure of pain (eg, McGill Pain Questionnaire), ordinal scale. If studies report more than one measure for function, we will prioritize extraction in the following order: ODI, RMDQ, rating scale for functional ability from a composite measure, ordinal scale. For both pain intensity and function, we will preferentially extract the outcome score and measure of variance at the end of treatment (or closest time point) for each group, followed by the change from baseline and measure of variance. If data are not available for each trial arm, we will extract the between-group statistics at the end of treatment. We will consider a minimally important difference of 10 mm (100-mm VAS) between groups [45]. We will extract data from graphs only if the extraction from tables, text, or after contacting authors is not possible. We will manage data in Microsoft Excel and conduct the analyses in R (version 4.0.3) [46].

 Missing Data

We will contact a trial’s corresponding author up to three times via email to request missing data, which will be considered unobtainable if no reply is received within 6 weeks. If data for outcomes of pain and function are not presented in an appropriate form for meta-analysis (such as median and range instead of SDs, standard errors, t statistics, or P values), we will attempt to impute these using established methods [47,48]. We will conduct sensitivity analyses for pain at end of treatment if we impute missing data for either of these outcomes.

 Assessing Risk of Bias

Two reviewers (RR and one or more reviewers) will independently appraise the risk of bias for each trial using the Cochrane risk of bias tool described in Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 [41,49]. We will resolve disagreements through discussion or arbitration from a third author (JHM). The Cochrane risk of bias tool assesses the following domains: selection, performance, attrition, detection, reporting, and other sources of bias (eg, conflict of interest, baseline imbalance between groups) [41]. Each domain will receive one of the following judgments: low risk, high risk, or unclear risk of bias. Reviewers will judge items at the study level, which prioritizes information regarding the primary outcome (pain intensity and safety).

 Data Synthesis

We will conduct a quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) for studies that report sufficient data and compare the medicine targeting neurotrophins versus placebo. We will convert different instruments that measure pain and the associated estimate of precision into a single, most familiar instrument [45]. The meta-analysis will use random-effects models in R [46]. Results will be presented in forest plots. Data from studies that we are not able to use in the quantitative analysis or data from other comparisons (eg, anti-NGF versus tramadol) will be reported narratively.

 Subgroup Analysis

Subgroup analysis will be conducted by condition (sciatica or chronic LBP), duration of pain (acute or chronic), type of medication (eg, anti-NGF versus placebo or only a type of anti-NGF such as tanezumab versus placebo), time point (4 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, and 48 weeks after the first dose), risk of bias (removing studies classified as having a high risk of bias), and number of participants (excluding studies with less than 10 participants per group).

 Assessment of Heterogeneity

We will evaluate the presence of heterogeneity in the meta-analysis using the Q statistic (α<10%). The magnitude of heterogeneity will be assessed using the estimate of between-study variance (τ2). We will calculate 95% prediction intervals for pooled effects and interpret prediction intervals spanning greater than 15 points on a 0 to 100 scale on either side of the pooled effect as indicative of important heterogeneity [50]. The distributions of the effect sizes in forest plots will be inspected visually and the I2 value will be calculated to indicate the proportion of observed variance due to heterogeneity. Important heterogeneity will be investigated using meta-regression, subgroup analysis, or sensitivity analysis (depending on the availability of data).

 Sensitivity Analysis

We will assess the influence on the effect estimates of the following factors: studies where the definition of the condition is not clear, studies where measures of variance have been imputed, and studies where treatment effects are presented as medians [41,49].

 Extended Funnel Plot

We will construct an extended funnel plot to explore the potential impact of a new trial on the meta-analysis and evaluate whether performing a new trial is worthwhile [51,52].

 Confidence in Cumulative Evidence

Two reviewers (RR and one or more reviewers) will assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) [53] working group methodology to grade the recommendations. Once this systematic review is limited to include RCTs only, the quality of evidence will be classified as “high” (further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect) and possibly downgraded to “moderate” (further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate), “low” (further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate), or “very low” (any estimate of effect is very uncertain) [53]. The recommended domains will be assessed using arbitrary percentages that have been used in previous systematic reviews [50].

For risk of bias, we will downgrade the quality of evidence recommendations by one level if >25% but <50% of the participants in our analysis were included in trials that we evaluated to be at “high” risk of bias, and we will downgrade the recommendations by two levels if >50% of the participants were from trials we evaluated to be at “high” risk of bias. For inconsistency, we will downgrade the quality of evidence recommendations by one level if we identify significant heterogeneity. We will assess heterogeneity using the between-study variance parameter (τ2) and the proportion of study variance not due to sampling error (I2). For indirectness, the downgrade will be related to the characteristics of participants in the study. Studies may include participants with sciatica and nonspecific LBP. We will only downgrade the evidence quality if the differences are considered sufficient to make a difference in outcome. For imprecision, we will downgrade the quality of evidence recommendations by one level if the total number of participants is <400 or based on the width of the confidence intervals (for continuous variables as pain intensity and function) by crossing either the null or the threshold for a clinically meaningful effect (10 points on a 0 to 100 scale), and by two levels if the interval spans both. For dichotomous variables (eg, safety), we will downgrade the recommendations by one level if the interval spans the null. For publication bias, we will downgrade the quality of evidence recommendations by a single level if we strongly detect publication bias. We will assess publication bias by visually assessing a funnel plot and by performing a sensitivity analysis. The strength of recommendations will be graded as strong or weak.

 Results

The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (osf.io/b8adn) on May 19, 2020. As of December 2020, we have identified 1932 records.

 Discussion

There has been a growing number of RCTs investigating the effect of medicines designed to inhibit the nociceptive effect of NGF for osteoarthritis and LBP. This systematic review with meta-analysis will assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of NGF inhibitors for pain in patients with nonspecific LBP and sciatica. The inclusion of new studies and unpublished data may improve the precision of the effect estimates and guide regulatory actions of the medication for LBP and sciatica.

Search terms.

 Abbreviations BDNF

brain-derived neurotrophic factor

 FDA

US Food and Drug Administration

 GDNF

glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor

 GRADE

Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation

 LBP

low back pain

 NGF

nerve growth factor

 NRS

numeric rating scale

 NSAID

nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug

 ODI

Oswestry Disability Index

 PRISMA-P

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols

 RCT

randomized controlled trial

 RMDQ

Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire

 VAS

visual analog scale

RRNR, MCF, and MAW developed the review protocol. RRNR drafted the manuscript, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

None declared.

 Global Burden of Disease 2016 Study Collaborators 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 Lancet 2017 10 16 390 10100 1211 1259 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 28919117 S0140-6736(17)32154-2 PMC5605509 Hartvigsen J Hancock MJ Kongsted A Louw Q Ferreira ML Genevay S Hoy D Karppinen J Pransky G Sieper J Smeets RJ Underwood M Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention Lancet 2018 06 09 391 10137 2356 2367 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X 29573870 S0140-6736(18)30480-X Koes BW van Tulder MW Peul WC Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica BMJ 2007 07 23 334 7607 1313 1317 10.1136/bmj.39223.428495.BE 17585160 334/7607/1313 PMC1895638 Koes BW van Tulder M Lin CC Macedo LG McAuley J Maher C An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care Eur Spine J 2010 12 19 12 2075 2094 10.1007/s00586-010-1502-y 20602122 PMC2997201 Jarvik JG Deyo RA Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging Ann Intern Med 2002 10 01 137 7 586 597 10.7326/0003-4819-137-7-200210010-00010 12353946 200210010-00010 da C Menezes Costa L Maher CG Hancock MJ McAuley JH Herbert RD Costa LOP The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis CMAJ 2012 08 07 184 11 E613 E624 10.1503/cmaj.111271 22586331 cmaj.111271 PMC3414626 Kongsted A Kent P Axen I Downie AS Dunn KM What have we learned from ten years of trajectory research in low back pain? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016 05 21 17 220 10.1186/s12891-016-1071-2 27209166 10.1186/s12891-016-1071-2 PMC4875630 Ivanova JI Birnbaum HG Schiller M Kantor E Johnstone BM Swindle RW Real-world practice patterns, health-care utilization, and costs in patients with low back pain: the long road to guideline-concordant care Spine J 2011 07 11 7 622 632 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.03.017 21601533 S1529-9430(11)00220-8 Mathieson S Valenti L Maher CG Britt H Li Q McLachlan AJ Lin CC Worsening trends in analgesics recommended for spinal pain in primary care Eur Spine J 2018 05 27 5 1136 1145 10.1007/s00586-017-5178-4 28639074 10.1007/s00586-017-5178-4 Cashman JN The mechanisms of action of NSAIDs in analgesia Drugs 1996 52 Suppl 5 13 23 10.2165/00003495-199600525-00004 8922554 Bovill JG Mechanisms of actions of opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl 1997 05 15 9 15 10.1097/00003643-199705001-00003 9202932 Obata H Analgesic Mechanisms of Antidepressants for Neuropathic Pain Int J Mol Sci 2017 12 21 18 11 2483 10.3390/ijms18112483 29160850 ijms18112483 PMC5713449 Kukkar A Bali A Singh N Jaggi AS Implications and mechanism of action of gabapentin in neuropathic pain Arch Pharm Res 2013 03 36 3 237 251 10.1007/s12272-013-0057-y 23435945 Abdel Shaheed C Maher CG Williams KA Day R McLachlan AJ Efficacy, Tolerability, and Dose-Dependent Effects of Opioid Analgesics for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis JAMA Intern Med 2016 07 01 176 7 958 968 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1251 27213267 2522397 Kalso E Edwards JE Moore RA McQuay HJ Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety Pain 2004 12 112 3 372 380 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.019 15561393 S0304-3959(04)00447-6 Busse JW Wang L Kamaleldin M Craigie S Riva JJ Montoya L Mulla SM Lopes LC Vogel N Chen E Kirmayr K De Oliveira K Olivieri L Kaushal A Chaparro LE Oyberman I Agarwal A Couban R Tsoi L Lam T Vandvik PO Hsu S Bala MM Schandelmaier S Scheidecker A Ebrahim S Ashoorion V Rehman Y Hong PJ Ross S Johnston BC Kunz R Sun X Buckley N Sessler DI Guyatt GH Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis JAMA 2018 12 18 320 23 2448 2460 10.1001/jama.2018.18472 30561481 2718795 PMC6583638 Häuser W Tölle T Moore A Meta-analysis of Opioids for Chronic Pain JAMA 2019 05 21 321 19 1934 1935 10.1001/jama.2019.2177 31112253 2733963 Burgess G Williams D The discovery and development of analgesics: new mechanisms, new modalities J Clin Invest 2010 12 120 11 3753 3759 10.1172/JCI43195 21041957 43195 PMC2966322 Malfait A Miller RE Block JA Targeting neurotrophic factors: Novel approaches to musculoskeletal pain Pharmacol Ther 2020 07 211 107553 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107553 32311372 S0163-7258(20)30081-4 Ossipov MH Growth factors and neuropathic pain Curr Pain Headache Rep 2011 07 15 3 185 192 10.1007/s11916-011-0183-5 21327569 Schäfers M Svensson CI Sommer C Sorkin LS Tumor necrosis factor-alpha induces mechanical allodynia after spinal nerve ligation by activation of p38 MAPK in primary sensory neurons J Neurosci 2003 05 01 23 7 2517 2521 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-07-02517.2003 12684435 23/7/2517 PMC6742090 Woolf CJ Phenotypic modification of primary sensory neurons: the role of nerve growth factor in the production of persistent pain Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1996 03 29 351 1338 441 448 10.1098/rstb.1996.0040 8730783 Chang DS Hsu E Hottinger DG Cohen SP Anti-nerve growth factor in pain management: current evidence J Pain Res 2016 9 373 383 10.2147/JPR.S89061 27354823 jpr-9-373 PMC4908933 Le Maitre CL Hoyland JA Freemont AJ Catabolic cytokine expression in degenerate and herniated human intervertebral discs: IL-1beta and TNFalpha expression profile Arthritis Res Ther 2007 9 4 R77 10.1186/ar2275 17688691 ar2275 PMC2206382 Dimitroulas T Lambe T Raphael JH Kitas GD Duarte RV Biologic Drugs as Analgesics for the Management of Low Back Pain and Sciatica Pain Med 2019 09 01 20 9 1678 1686 10.1093/pm/pny214 30576566 5253939 Sikandar S Minett MS Millet Q Santana-Varela S Lau J Wood JN Zhao J Brain-derived neurotrophic factor derived from sensory neurons plays a critical role in chronic pain Brain 2018 04 01 141 4 1028 1039 10.1093/brain/awy009 29394316 4831043 PMC5888992 Chessell IP Dudley A Billinton A Biologics: the next generation of analgesic drugs? Drug Discov Today 2012 08 17 15-16 875 879 10.1016/j.drudis.2012.03.005 22464946 S1359-6446(12)00086-4 de Camargo MC Barros BCA Fulone I Silva MT Silveira MSDN de Camargo IA Barberato-Filho S Del Fiol FDS Lopes LC Adverse Events in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis Receiving Long-Term Biological Agents in a Real-Life Setting Front Pharmacol 2019 10 965 10.3389/fphar.2019.00965 31572173 PMC6749844 Bannwarth B Kostine M Targeting nerve growth factor (NGF) for pain management: what does the future hold for NGF antagonists? Drugs 2014 05 74 6 619 626 10.1007/s40265-014-0208-6 24691709 Leite VF Buehler AM El Abd O Benyamin RM Pimentel DC Chen J Hsing WT Mazloomdoost D Amadera JED Anti-nerve growth factor in the treatment of low back pain and radiculopathy: a systematic review and a meta-analysis Pain Physician 2014 17 1 E45 E60 24452657 Schnitzer TJ Marks JA A systematic review of the efficacy and general safety of antibodies to NGF in the treatment of OA of the hip or knee Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015 01 23 Suppl 1 S8 S17 10.1016/j.joca.2014.10.003 25527221 S1063-4584(14)01295-3 Lilly U.S. FDA Accepts Regulatory Submission for Tanezumab, a Potential First-in-Class Treatment for Patients with Chronic Pain Due to Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis Lilly Investors 2020 2020-12-30 https://investor.lilly.com/node/42791/pdf Shamseer L Moher D Clarke M Ghersi D Liberati A Petticrew M Shekelle P Stewart LA PRISMA-P Group Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation BMJ 2015 01 02 350 g7647 10.1136/bmj.g7647 25555855 Kumarasamy C Devi A Jayaraj R Prognostic value of microRNAs in head and neck cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol Syst Rev 2018 10 02 7 1 150 10.1186/s13643-018-0812-8 30285880 10.1186/s13643-018-0812-8 PMC6169036 Dionne CE Dunn KM Croft PR Nachemson AL Buchbinder R Walker BF Wyatt M Cassidy JD Rossignol M Leboeuf-Yde C Hartvigsen J Leino-Arjas P Latza U Reis S Gil Del Real MT Kovacs FM Oberg B Cedraschi C Bouter LM Koes BW Picavet HSJ van Tulder MW Burton K Foster NE Macfarlane GJ Thomas E Underwood M Waddell G Shekelle P Volinn E Von Korff M A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008 01 01 33 1 95 103 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e7f94 18165754 00007632-200801010-00016 van Tulder M Becker A Bekkering T Breen A del Real MTG Hutchinson A Koes B Laerum E Malmivaara A COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain in Primary Care Chapter 3. European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care Eur Spine J 2006 03 15 Suppl 2 S169 S191 10.1007/s00586-006-1071-2 16550447 PMC3454540 Haefeli M Elfering A Pain assessment Eur Spine J 2006 01 15 Suppl 1 S17 S24 10.1007/s00586-005-1044-x 16320034 PMC3454549 What is a Serious Adverse Event? US Food and Drug Administration 2016 2020-03-10 https://www.fda.gov/safety/reporting-serious-problems-fda/what-serious-adverse-event Haugen AJ Grøvle L Brox JI Natvig B Keller A Soldal D Grotle M Estimates of success in patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation depend upon outcome measure Eur Spine J 2011 10 20 10 1669 1675 10.1007/s00586-011-1809-3 21516463 PMC3175874 Chiarotto A Boers M Deyo RA Buchbinder R Corbin TP Costa LOP Foster NE Grotle M Koes BW Kovacs FM Lin CWC Maher CG Pearson AM Peul WC Schoene ML Turk DC van Tulder MW Terwee CB Ostelo RW Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain Pain 2018 03 159 3 481 495 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001117 29194127 PMC5828378 Furlan AD Malmivaara A Chou R Maher CG Deyo RA Schoene M Bronfort G van Tulder MW Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back‚ Neck Group 2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015 12 40 21 1660 1673 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001061 26208232 Lefebvre C Glanville J Briscoe S Littlewood A Marshall C Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 60 (updated July 2019): Cochrane 2019 2020-05-17 https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04 Innovation VH Covidence systematic review software Covidence 2020-05-18 https://www.covidence.org Liberati A Altman DG Tetzlaff J Mulrow C Gøtzsche PC Ioannidis JPA Clarke M Devereaux PJ Kleijnen J Moher D The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration PLoS Med 2009 07 21 6 7 e1000100 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 19621070 PMC2707010 Busse JW Bartlett SJ Dougados M Johnston BC Guyatt GH Kirwan JR Kwoh K Maxwell LJ Moore A Singh JA Stevens R Strand V Suarez-Almazor ME Tugwell P Wells GA Optimal Strategies for Reporting Pain in Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 Workshop J Rheumatol 2015 10 42 10 1962 1970 10.3899/jrheum.141440 25979719 jrheum.141440 The R Foundation R: A language and environment for statistical computing ‪R Core Team 2019 2020-03-10 https://www.R-project.org Higgins J Thomas J Chandler J Cumpston M Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6.0 (updated July 2019) The Cochrane Collaboration 2019 2020-05-18 https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current Wan X Wang W Liu J Tong T Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 12 19 14 135 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 25524443 1471-2288-14-135 PMC4383202 Higgins J Green S Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 updated March 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration 2011 2020-03-10 https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ Bagg MK McLachlan AJ Maher CG Kamper SJ Williams CM Paracetamol, NSAIDS and opioid analgesics for chronic low back pain: a network meta-analysis (Protocol) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 6 1 26 10.1002/14651858.CD013045 PMC6513465 Ferreira ML Herbert RD Crowther MJ Verhagen A Sutton AJ When is a further clinical trial justified? BMJ 2012 10 13 345 e5913 10.1136/bmj.e5913 22977141 Langan D Higgins JPT Gregory W Sutton AJ Graphical augmentations to the funnel plot assess the impact of additional evidence on a meta-analysis J Clin Epidemiol 2012 05 65 5 511 519 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.009 22342263 S0895-4356(11)00327-1 Guyatt GH Oxman AD Vist GE Kunz R Falck-Ytter Y Alonso-Coello P Schünemann HJ GRADE Working Group GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 2008 05 26 336 7650 924 926 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD 18436948 336/7650/924 PMC2335261