Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
ImportanceStricter opioid prescribing guidelines have increased prescriptions of skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) for chronic pain, but the efficacy of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain is unknown.ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness or efficacy of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain.Evidence ReviewTwo reviewers systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane through December 4, 2023. They included articles published in English, Spanish, or Italian. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with comparator groups evaluating at least 1-month duration of SMRs for chronic pain were included. The reviewers dually reviewed data abstraction, risk-of-bias, and quality. They characterized studies by chronic pain syndrome: low back pain, fibromyalgia, headaches, painful cramps or spasticity, and other syndromes.FindingsA total of 30 RCTs with 1314 participants and 14 cohort studies with 1168 participants assessed SMRs for chronic pain. Studies were primarily short-term (4-6 weeks). Nine unique SMRs were represented by the studies identified. Eleven studies (25%) examined baclofen, 8 (18%) examined tizanidine, and 7 (16%) examined cyclobenzaprine. Evidence for effectiveness was strongest for SMRs used for trigeminal neuralgia, neck pain, and painful cramps; evidence suggested SMRs for fibromyalgia, low back pain, and other syndromes were not more beneficial than placebo. The most common adverse effects were sedation and dry mouth. RCTs had a low to moderate risk of bias, and the quality of cohort studies was fair to good.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic review of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain, findings suggest that their long-term use may benefit patients with painful spasms or cramps and neck pain; their long-term use for low back pain, fibromyalgia, and headaches did not appear to be beneficial. Clinicians should be vigilant for adverse effects and consider deprescribing if pain-related goals are not met.
ImportanceStricter opioid prescribing guidelines have increased prescriptions of skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) for chronic pain, but the efficacy of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain is unknown.ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness or efficacy of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain.Evidence ReviewTwo reviewers systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane through December 4, 2023. They included articles published in English, Spanish, or Italian. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with comparator groups evaluating at least 1-month duration of SMRs for chronic pain were included. The reviewers dually reviewed data abstraction, risk-of-bias, and quality. They characterized studies by chronic pain syndrome: low back pain, fibromyalgia, headaches, painful cramps or spasticity, and other syndromes.FindingsA total of 30 RCTs with 1314 participants and 14 cohort studies with 1168 participants assessed SMRs for chronic pain. Studies were primarily short-term (4-6 weeks). Nine unique SMRs were represented by the studies identified. Eleven studies (25%) examined baclofen, 8 (18%) examined tizanidine, and 7 (16%) examined cyclobenzaprine. Evidence for effectiveness was strongest for SMRs used for trigeminal neuralgia, neck pain, and painful cramps; evidence suggested SMRs for fibromyalgia, low back pain, and other syndromes were not more beneficial than placebo. The most common adverse effects were sedation and dry mouth. RCTs had a low to moderate risk of bias, and the quality of cohort studies was fair to good.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic review of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain, findings suggest that their long-term use may benefit patients with painful spasms or cramps and neck pain; their long-term use for low back pain, fibromyalgia, and headaches did not appear to be beneficial. Clinicians should be vigilant for adverse effects and consider deprescribing if pain-related goals are not met.
Background: The need to determine physical compatibility of intravenous admixtures is directly related to patient safety and patient outcomes. While the provision of multi-modal analgesic strategies has increased over the past decade, a paucity of data exists regarding physical compatibility of select medications. Objectives: To evaluate the physical compatibility of methocarbamol in Lactated Ringer’s (LR), 0.45% normal saline (0.45% NaCl), and Plasma-Lyte A (PLA) at concentrations of 4, 10, and 20 mg/mL. Methods: Admixtures were prepared and evaluated using previously validated methods under a laminar flow hood using aseptic technique. Samples were prepared in a triplicate manner, 3 mL aliquots were placed into polymethyl methacrylate cuvettes for evaluation at time points 0, 1, 5, 8, and 24 hours. Visual inspection of samples included assignment of a number: 0—no precipitation, 1—trace evidence of precipitation, 2—slight haze, 3—medium haze, and 4—heavy precipitation. Any evidence of precipitation was considered significant. A variable wavelength spectrophotometer set at 547 nanometers was used to measure absorbance. A change in absorbance of ±0.010 was considered significant. A change in pH of ±0.1 was considered significant. Results: No significant changes occurred relating to visual inspection or absorbance across all concentrations and time points for LR; however, there was a significant change in pH across all concentrations at hour 5. In 0.45% NaCl and PLA, no remarkable changes occurred across all concentrations and time points regarding visual observation, spectrophotometric absorbance, and pH analysis. Conclusions: Methocarbamol at concentrations of 4, 10, and 20 mg/mL is physically compatible for up to 1 hour in LR. Methocarbamol is physically compatible in 0.45% NaCl and PLA for up to 24 hours. Chemical stability tests are warranted to confirm these findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.