Increased nerve growth factor levels are associated with chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (LBP). This study examined safety and analgesic efficacy of tanezumab, a humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, in adults with chronic LBP. Patients received intravenous tanezumab 200 μg/kg plus oral placebo (n=88), intravenous placebo plus oral naproxen 500 mg twice a day (n=88), or intravenous placebo plus oral placebo (n=41). Primary outcome was average LBP intensity (aLBPI) at Week 6. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with ≥30% or ≥50% reduction in aLBPI, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory-short form scores, Patients' Global Assessment of LBP, Patients' Global Evaluation of study medication, and rescue medication use. Mean aLBPI change from baseline to Week 6 was greater with tanezumab vs naproxen (P=0.004) and placebo (P<0.001). Greater proportions of patients reported ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in aLBPI with tanezumab vs naproxen (P≤0.013) and placebo (P<0.001), and greater improvements in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (P<0.001) and other secondary outcomes except rescue medication use. Tanezumab was associated with adverse events (AEs) of abnormal peripheral sensation that were generally mild and resolved before study completion; however, there were no serious AEs. Nine patients (4 of whom were tanezumab-treated) discontinued due to AEs. In conclusion, tanezumab resulted in analgesic efficacy that was clinically and statistically superior to placebo and naproxen in patients with chronic LBP. Tanezumab clinical development is on regulatory hold due to AEs in osteoarthritis patients.
OBJECTIVE: The present randomized, double-blinded, crossover study compared the efficacy and safety of a seven-day buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) and placebo in patients with low back pain of moderate or greater seventy for at least six weeks. METHODS: Prestudy analgesics were discontinued the evening before random assignment to 5 µg/h BTDS or placebo, with acetaminophen 300 mg/codeme 30 mg, one to two tablets every 4 h to 6 h as needed, for rescue analgesia. The dose was titrated to effect weekly, if tolerated, to 10 µg/h and 20 µg/h BTDS. Each treatment phase was four weeks. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (28 men, 25 women, mean [± SD] age 54-5 ± 12.7 years) were evaluable for efficacy (completed two weeks or more in each phase). Baseline pain was 62.1 ± 15.5 mm (100 mm visual analogue scale) and 2.5 ± 0.6 (five-point ordinal scale). BTDS resulted in lower mean daily pain scores than in the placebo group (37.6 ± 20.7 mm versus 43.6 ± 21 2 mm on a visual analogue scale, P = 0.0487; and 1.7 ± 0.6 versus 2.0 ± 0.7 on the ordinal scale, P = 0 0358) Most patients titrated to the highest dose of BTDS (59% 20 µg/h, 31% 10 µg/h and 10% 5 µg/h) There were improvements from baseline in pain and disability (Pain Disability Index), Pain and Sleep (visual analogue scale), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Short-Form 36 Health Survey scores for both BTDS and placebo groups, without significant differences between treatments. While there were more opioid-related side effects with BTDS treatment than with placebo, there were no serious adverse events. A total of 82% of patients chose to continue BTDS in a long-term open-label evaluation, in whom improvements in pain intensity, functionality and quality of life were sustained for up to six months without analgesic tolerance. CONCLUSION: BTDS (5 µg/h to 20 µg/h) represents a new treatment option for initial opioid therapy in patients with chronic low back pain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Imbalance of serotonin and norepinephrine within modulatory pain pathways has been implicated in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Duloxetine, a selective reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine, has demonstrated clinical efficacy in 3 distinct chronic pain conditions: diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain because of osteoarthritis. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind trial, adult nondepressed patients with a non-neuropathic CLBP and a weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain score>or=4 at baseline (0-10 scale) were treated with either duloxetine or placebo for 13 weeks. The dose of duloxetine during first 7 weeks was 60 mg once daily. At week 7, patients reporting<30% pain reduction had their dose increased to 120 mg. The primary outcome measure was the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24-hour average pain rating. Secondary measures included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire-24; Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement; Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S); BPI-Severity and -Interference (BPI-I); and weekly means of the 24-hour average pain, night pain, and worst pain scores from patient diaries. Quality-of-life, safety, and tolerability outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: Compared with placebo-treated patients (least-squares mean change of -1.50), patients on duloxetine (least-squares mean change of -2.32) had a significantly greater reduction in the BPI 24-hour average pain from baseline to endpoint (P=0.004 at week 13). Additionally, the duloxetine group significantly improved on Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement; Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire-24; BPI-Severity and average BPI-Interference; weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain, night pain, and worst pain. Significantly more patients in the duloxetine group (13.9%) compared with placebo (5.8%) discontinued because of adverse events (P=0.047). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the duloxetine group included nausea, dry mouth, fatigue, diarrhea, hyperhidrosis, dizziness, and constipation. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine significantly reduced pain and improved functioning in patients with CLBP. The safety and tolerability were similar to those reported in earlier studies.
BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a mixed-activity, partial micro-opioid agonist. Its lipid solubility makes it well suited for transdermal administration. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of a 7-day buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) in adult (age >18 years) patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain previously treated with >/=1 tablet daily of an opioid analgesic. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, followed by an open-label extension phase. After a 2- to 7-day washout of previous opioid therapy, eligible patients were randomized to receive BTDS 10 µg/h or matching placebo patches. The dose was titrated weekly using 10- and 20-µg/h patches (maximum, 40 µg/h) based on efficacy and tolerability. After 4 weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative treatment for another 4 weeks. Patients who completed the double-blind study were eligible to enter the 6-month open-label phase. Rescue analgesia was provided as acetaminophen 325 mg to be taken as 1 or 2 tablets every 4 to 6 hours as needed. The primary outcome assessments were daily pain intensity, measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), from no pain to excruciating pain, and a 5-point ordinal scale, from 0 = none to 4 = excruciating. Secondary outcome assessments included the Pain and Sleep Questionnaire (100-mm VAS, from never to always), Pain Disability Index (ordinal scale, from 0 = no disability to 11 = total disability), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (categorical scale, from 0 = no difficulty to 5 = unable to do), and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Patients and investigators assessed overall treatment effectiveness at the end of each phase; they assessed treatment preference at the end of double-blind treatment. After implementation of a precautionary amendment, the QTc interval was measured 3 to 4 days after randomization and after any dose adjustment. All assessments performed during the double-blind phase were also performed every 2 months during the openlabel extension. Adverse events were collected by nondirected questioning throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 78 randomized patients, 52 (66.7%) completed at least 2 consecutive weeks of treatment in each study phase without major protocol violations (per-protocol [PP] population: 32 women, 20 men; mean [SD] age, 51.3 [11.4] years; mean weight, 85.5 [19.5] kg; 94% white, 4% black, 2% other). The mean (SD) dose of study medication during the last week of treatment was 29.8 (12.1) µg/h for BTDS and 32.9 (10.7) µg/h for placebo (P = NS). During the last week of treatment, BTDS was associated with significantly lower mean (SD) pain intensity scores compared with placebo on both the VAS (45.3 [21.3] vs 53.1 [24.3] mm, respectively; P = 0.022) and the 5-point ordinal scale (1.9 [0.7] vs 2.2 [0.8]; P = 0.044). The overall Pain and Sleep score was significantly lower with BTDS than with placebo (177.6 [125.5] vs 232.9 [131.9]; P = 0.027). There were no treatment differences on the Pain Disability Index, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, or SF-36; however, BTDS was associated with significant improvements compared with placebo on 2 individual Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale items (get out of bed: P = 0.042; sit in a chair for several hours: P = 0.022). Of the 48 patients/physicians in the PP population who rated the effectiveness of treatment, 64.6% of patients (n = 31) rated BTDS moderately or highly effective, as did 62.5% of investigators (n = 30). Among the 50 patients in the PP population who answered the preference question, 66.0% of patients (n = 33) preferred the phase in which they received BTDS and 24.0% (n = 12) preferred the phase in which they received placebo (P = 0.001), with the remainder having no preference; among investigators, 60.0% (n = 30) and 28.0% (n = 14) preferred the BTDS and placebo phases, respectively (P = 0.008), with the remainder having no preference. The mean placebo-adjusted change from baseline in the QTc interval ranged from -0.8 to +3.8 milliseconds (P = NS). BTDS treatment was associated with a significantly higher frequency of nausea (P < 0.001), dizziness (P < 0.001), vomiting (P = 0.008), somnolence (P = 0.020), and dry mouth (P = 0.003), but not constipation. Of the 49 patients completing 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, 40 (81.6%) entered the 6-month, open-label extension study and 27 completed it. Improvements in pain scores achieved during the double-blind phase were maintained in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the 8-week, double-blind portion of this study, BTDS 10 to 40 µg/h was effective compared with placebo in the management of chronic, moderate to severe low back pain in patients who had previously received opioids. The improvements in pain scores were sustained throughout the 6-month, open-label extension. (Current Controlled Trials identification number: ISRCTN 06013881)
BACKGROUND: Duloxetine has demonstrated analgesic effect in chronic pain states. This study assesses the efficacy of duloxetine in chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: Adult patients with non-radicular CLBP entered this 13-week, double-blind, randomized study comparing duloxetine 20, 60 or 120 mg once daily with placebo. The primary measure was comparison of duloxetine 60 mg with placebo on weekly mean 24-h average pain. Secondary measures included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24), Patient s Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Four hundred four patients were enrolled, 267 completed. No significant differences existed between any dose of duloxetine and placebo on reduction in weekly mean 24-h average pain at end-point. Duloxetine 60 mg was superior to placebo from weeks 3-11 in relieving pain, but not at weeks 12-13. Duloxetine 60 mg demonstrated significant improvement on PGI-I, RMDQ-24, BPI-average pain and BPI-average interference. Significantly more patients taking duloxetine 120 mg (24.1%) discontinued because of adverse events, versus placebo (8.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine was superior to placebo on the primary objective from weeks 3-11, but superiority was not maintained at end-point. Duloxetine was superior to placebo on many secondary measures, and was well-tolerated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: The clinical effects of piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin (PBC) in sachet form have been surveyed in patients with osteoarthritic or acute pain in western countries, but scarcely studied in those with chronic low back pain (LBP), and never investigated in the field of postural sway. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects of PBC in sachet form prescribed in patients with chronic backache in local Asian when compared with those of plain piroxicam.
METHODS: After randomized allocation and experimental exclusion, a total of 42 eligible patients were randomized into two groups, the sachet group (n = 23) and the piroxicam tablet group (n = 19). Both groups were administered the same dosage, orally per day (daily dose = 20 mg). The duration of trial was 28 days. Efficacy was assessed with pain score, disability index and postural sway.
RESULTS: The patients in sachet group showed greater improvement in pain score and disability index than those who took piroxicam tablets. There were significantly lower sway velocity and intensity at almost all different conditions than baseline profiles in both groups (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference of sway velocity and intensity in the piroxicam tablets group with regard to eyes open or eyes closed in 20 degrees dorsiflexion.
CONCLUSIONS: Piroxicam-beta-cyclodextrin (PBC) sachet may have greater improvement in the treatment of chronic LBP and possess the extended effects on postural abnormality relevant to chronic LBP.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of tramadol ER 300 mg and 200 mg versus placebo once daily in the treatment of chronic low back pain, using an open-label run-in followed by, without washout, a randomized controlled study design.
METHODS: Adults with scores > or = 40 on a pain intensity visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain; 100 = extreme pain) received open-label tramadol ER, initiated at 100 mg once daily and titrated to 300 mg once daily during a three-week open-label run-in. Patients completing run-in were randomized to receive tramadol ER 300 mg, 200 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks.
RESULTS: Of 619 patients enrolled, 233 (38 percent) withdrew from the run-in, primarily because of adverse event (n = 128) or lack of efficacy (n = 41). A total of 386 patients were then randomized to receive either 300 mg (n = 128), 200 mg (n = 129), or placebo (n = 129). Following randomization, mean scores for pain intensity VAS since the previous visit, averaged over the 12-week study period, increased more in the placebo group (12.2 mm) than in the tramadol ER 300-mg (5.2 mm, p = 0.009) and 200-mg (7.8 mm, p = 0.052) groups. Secondary efficacy scores for current pain intensity VAS, patient global assessment, Roland Disability Index, and overall sleep quality improved significantly (p < or = 0.029 each) in the tramadol ER groups compared with placebo. The most common adverse events during the double-blind period were nausea, constipation, headache, dizziness, insomnia, and diarrhea.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients who tolerated and obtained pain relief from tramadol ER, continuation of tramadol ER treatment for 12 weeks maintained pain relief more effectively than placebo. Adverse events were similar to those previously reported for tramadol ER.
Increased nerve growth factor levels are associated with chronic pain conditions, including chronic low back pain (LBP). This study examined safety and analgesic efficacy of tanezumab, a humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, in adults with chronic LBP. Patients received intravenous tanezumab 200 μg/kg plus oral placebo (n=88), intravenous placebo plus oral naproxen 500 mg twice a day (n=88), or intravenous placebo plus oral placebo (n=41). Primary outcome was average LBP intensity (aLBPI) at Week 6. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with ≥30% or ≥50% reduction in aLBPI, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory-short form scores, Patients' Global Assessment of LBP, Patients' Global Evaluation of study medication, and rescue medication use. Mean aLBPI change from baseline to Week 6 was greater with tanezumab vs naproxen (P=0.004) and placebo (P<0.001). Greater proportions of patients reported ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in aLBPI with tanezumab vs naproxen (P≤0.013) and placebo (P<0.001), and greater improvements in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (P<0.001) and other secondary outcomes except rescue medication use. Tanezumab was associated with adverse events (AEs) of abnormal peripheral sensation that were generally mild and resolved before study completion; however, there were no serious AEs. Nine patients (4 of whom were tanezumab-treated) discontinued due to AEs. In conclusion, tanezumab resulted in analgesic efficacy that was clinically and statistically superior to placebo and naproxen in patients with chronic LBP. Tanezumab clinical development is on regulatory hold due to AEs in osteoarthritis patients.
