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.
Opioid-experienced (N = 250) patients with chronic, moderate to severe low back pain (LBP) were converted from their prestudy opioid(s) to an approximately equianalgesic dose of OPANA ER (oxymorphone extended release). Patients continued slow titration, with 56% stabilized within 1 month to a dose of OPANA ER that reduced average pain to <40 mm on a visual analog scale with good tolerability. Stabilized patients (n = 143) were randomized to placebo or their stabilized dose of OPANA ER every 12 hours for a 12-week double-blind period. Pain intensity increased significantly more for patients randomized to placebo than for patients who continued their stabilized dose of OPANA ER; the increase from baseline (at randomization) to final visit was 31.6 mm for placebo versus 8.7 mm with OPANA ER (P < .0001). During double-blind treatment, placebo patients were approximately 8-fold more likely than OPANA ER patients to discontinue because of lack of efficacy (P < .001). Discontinuations as a result of adverse events were similar between groups, 10% with placebo and 11% with OPANA ER. Opioid-related adverse events included constipation (6%), somnolence (3%), and nausea (3%). Fifty-seven percent of opioid-experienced patients with chronic, moderate to severe LBP achieved a stable dose of OPANA ER that was efficacious and generally well-tolerated for up to 12 weeks. PERSPECTIVE: In a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in opioid-experienced patients with chronic, moderate to severe LBP, OPANA ER provided efficacious, long-term analgesia and was generally well-tolerated. OPANA ER may provide clinicians with a new treatment option for patients experiencing suboptimal analgesic responses or poor tolerability with other opioids. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVE: Although antidepressants are widely prescribed as analgesics in chronic back pain, their clinical pharmacology is not well established. Norepinephrine transporter blockade seems to be essential for analgesia, but optimal concentrations are unknown. Fixed-dose studies of serotonin reuptake inhibitors are generally negative, but such studies cannot be interpreted clearly because efficacy might be detected if concentration-response relationships were known. We evaluated (1) the feasibility of conducting a controlled-concentration study of a norepinephrine (desipramine) and a serotonin reuptake (fluoxetine) inhibitor and (2) the relationship between achieved concentrations and analgesic response. METHODS: This single-center, 12-week, double-blind, prospective, controlled-concentration study randomized 121 chronic back pain patients without major depression to active placebo (benztropine mesylate) or to predetermined low, medium, or high concentrations of desipramine (targets were 50, 110, and 150 ng/mL, respectively) or fluoxetine (targets were 100, 200, and 400 ng/mL, respectively). Of these, 83 completed the trial: 38 withdrew primarily due to side effects. RESULTS: Manipulation check revealed significant overlap of assigned and achieved concentrations related to drug intolerability. Completers' analysis of achieved concentrations revealed reduction in pain intensity was significantly greater for low-concentration desipramine (<60 ng/mL, mean Descriptor Differential Scale [DDS], 4.5) compared with placebo (DDS 6.2), higher concentrations of desipramine (>60 ng/mL, DDS 7.9), and all concentrations of fluoxetine (P < 0.05, DDS 7.1). Significant improvement in everyday function mirrored findings for pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence for a low-concentration "therapeutic window" for noradrenergic analgesia may warrant additional study. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Clinical trials of the efficacy of antidepressant drugs in patients with chronic low back pain have had mixed results, possibly because of the different mechanisms of action of the drugs that have been studied. Because bupropion has a mechanism of action that differs from other antidepressants and has shown efficacy in neuropathic pain, a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover trial was conducted to evaluate its efficacy in subjects with chronic low back pain. The primary efficacy variable was mean daily diary pain intensity ratings, and secondary pain intensity and relief outcomes included weekly pain intensity ratings, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) Present Pain Intensity scale, pain relief ratings, and satisfaction with pain relief ratings. Adverse events were also assessed throughout the trial. Analyses were performed of an intention-to-treat sample of 44 patients, only 3 of whom met criteria for neuropathic low back pain. Daily and weekly pain intensity ratings, the MPQ Present Pain Intensity scale, and pain relief ratings were not significantly different following treatment with bupropion sustained release (SR) vs. placebo. These results suggest that bupropion SR was not significantly better than placebo in the treatment of patients with nonneuropathic chronic low back pain. PERSPECTIVE: Antidepressant medications that have both noradrenergic and serotonergic effects appear to have greater efficacy in patients with chronic low back pain than those with only serotonergic activity. We studied bupropion because it inhibits the reuptake of both norepinephrine and dopamine, but found no evidence of efficacy in patients with non-neuropathic chronic low back pain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of tramadol 37.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (tramadol/APAP) combination tablets for treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP).
METHODS: This 91 day, multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study enrolled 338 patients with chronic LBP requiring daily medication for > or = 3 months. Patients with at least moderate pain [pain visual analog scale (VAS) with scores > or = 40/100 mm] after washout were randomized to tramadol/APAP or placebo. After a 10 day titration, patients received 1 or 2 tablets QID. Primary outcome measure was final pain VAS score. Secondary measures included pain relief, quality of life and physical functioning, efficacy failure, and overall medication assessments.
RESULTS: In total, 336 intent-to-treat patients received tramadol/APAP (n = 167) or placebo (n = 169). Mean baseline pain VAS score was 67.8. Intent-to-treat analysis showed significantly better mean final pain VAS scores (47.4 vs 62.9; p < 0.001) and mean final pain relief scores (1.8 vs 0.7; p < 0.001) for tramadol/APAP than for placebo. Roland Disability Questionnaire scores and physical-related subcategories of the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 Health Survey were significantly better for tramadol/APAP patients. More patients rated tramadol/APAP as "very good" or "good" than placebo (63.6 vs 25.2%; p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative discontinuation rates due to efficacy failures were 22.9% (tramadol/APAP) vs 54.7% (placebo; p < 0.001). The most common treatment related adverse events with tramadol/APAP were nausea (12.0%), dizziness (10.8%), and constipation (10.2%). Average daily dose of tramadol/APAP was 4.2 tablets (tramadol 158 mg/APAP 1369 mg).
CONCLUSION: Tramadol 37.5 mg/APAP 325 mg combination tablets show efficacy in pain reduction, in measures of physical functioning and quality of life, and in overall medication assessments, with a tolerability profile comparable with other opioids used for the treatment of chronic LBP.
BACKGROUND: Valdecoxib, a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 specific inhibitor, is indicated for relief of the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and primary dysmenorrhea. Therapeutic doses of COX-2 specific inhibitors are as effective as nonspecific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in reducing inflammatory pain while sparing the gastrointestinal and platelet toxicity associated with nonspecific COX-1 inhibition. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of valdecoxib 40 mg/d compared with placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: This 4-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 37 centers across the United States and 5 centers in Canada. Patients aged > or =18 years with chronic low back pain in flare were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive valdecoxib 40-mg/d or placebo tablets, once daily for 4 weeks. Patients rated low back pain intensity on a visual analog scale and completed the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the modified Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (mBPI-SF) at each visit. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-three patients were enrolled. The valdecoxib group comprised 148 patients (81 women, 67 men; mean [SD] age, 48.6 [13.3] years; mean [SD] body weight, 86.6 [20.9] kg), and the placebo group included 145 patients (85 women, 60 men; mean [SD] age, 48.7 [12.6] years; mean [SD] body weight, 85.6 [19.9] kg). Of the enrolled patients, 249 completed the study: 134 patients (91%) who received valdecoxib and 115 patients (79%) who received placebo. No statistically significant differences in patient baseline characteristics were noted between treatment groups, except in response to 1 mBPI-SF question; patients in the valdecoxib group reported significantly greater interference in relations with other people due to pain than did those in the placebo group (P = 0.048). Changes from baseline in low back pain intensity were significantly greater in valdecoxib-treated patients at each assessment (all, P < 0.001 vs placebo). Pain scores on the mBPI-SF indicated significantly greater pain relief with valdecoxib at each assessment (all, P < or = 0.014 vs placebo). Improvements in mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score with valdecoxib were significantly greater than with placebo at each assessment (all, P < or = 0.003). Although the overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly higher among patients receiving valdecoxib than those receiving placebo (35.1% vs 24.1%, respectively; P = 0.042), no significant differences were found between groups for the incidence of any individual AE. Most AEs (89% [77/87 total events]) were mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with chronic low back pain, valdecoxib 40 mg/d provided rapid relief (within 1 week) and consistent relief (over 4 weeks). In addition, significant improvement in function and decreased disability were found with valdecoxib compared with placebo.
We evaluated etoricoxib, a novel COX-2-specific inhibitor, in 319 patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to a 60 mg dose (n = 103) or 90 mg dose (n = 107) of etoricoxib, or placebo (n = 109), daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was low back pain intensity scale (Visual Analog Scale of 0- to 100-mm) time-weighted average change from baseline over 4 weeks. Other endpoints included evaluation over 3 months of low back pain intensity scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), low back pain bothersomeness scale, patient- and investigator-global assessments, Patient Health Survey (MOS SF-12), rescue acetaminophen use, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. Etoricoxib provided significant improvement from baseline versus placebo in pain intensity (4 weeks: 12.9 mm and 10.3 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P <.001 for each; 12 weeks: 10.5 mm and 7.5 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P =.001 and.018, respectively). Etoricoxib at either dose led to significant improvement in other endpoints, including RMDQ scores, bothersomeness scores and global assessments. Etoricoxib given once daily provided significant relief of symptoms, and disability associated with chronic LBP that was observed 1 week after initiating therapy, was maximal at 4 weeks, and was maintained over 3 months.
STUDY DESIGN: Two replicate, 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trials of rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg versus placebo for chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of two doses of rofecoxib compared to placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly prescribed for chronic low back pain, their efficacy is unproven and toxicity can be serious. These studies evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1:1 to rofecoxib 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo once daily. Primary endpoint: Low Back Pain Intensity. Secondary endpoints: Pain Bothersomeness, Global Assessments of Response to Therapy, Global Assessment of Disease Status, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-12 Health Survey, Use of Rescue Acetaminophen, and Discontinuations Due to Lack of Efficacy. RESULTS: Combining both studies, 690 patients were randomized to placebo (N = 228), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 233), or rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 229). Mean (+/- SD) age was 53.4 (+/- 12.9) years, pain duration 12.1 (+/- 11.8) years, 62.3% female. Both rofecoxib groups improved significantly. Mean differences from placebo in pain intensity were -13.50 mm, -13.81 mm (25, 50 mg doses) respectively (P < 0.001). Both regimens were superior to placebo in eight of nine secondary endpoints. Fifty mg provided no advantage over 25 mg. Both rofecoxib regimens were well tolerated, although 25 mg had a slightly better safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib significantly reduced chronic low back pain in adults and was well tolerated.
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.
