OBJECTIVE: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a widespread ailment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of topiramate in the treatment of CLBP and the changes in anger status and processing, body weight, subjective pain-related disability and health-related quality of life during the course of treatment.
METHODS: We conducted a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of topiramate in 96 (36 women) patients with CLBP. The subjects were randomly assigned to topiramate (n=48) or placebo (n=48). Primary outcome measures were changes on the McGill Pain Questionnaire, State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and SF-36 Health Survey scales, and in body weight.
RESULTS: In comparison with the placebo group (according to the intent-to-treat principle), significant changes on the pain rating index of McGill Pain Questionnaire (Ps<0.001), State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory Scales (all Ps<0.001), Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (P<0.001), and SF-36 Health Survey scales (all P<0.001, except on the role-emotional scale) were observed after 10 weeks in the patients treated with topiramate. Weight loss was also observed and was significantly more pronounced in the group treated with topiramate than in those treated with placebo (P<0.001). Most patients tolerated topiramate relatively well but 2 patients dropped out because of side effects.
DISCUSSION: Topiramate seems to be a relatively safe and effective agent in the treatment of CLBP. Significantly positive changes in pain sensitivity, anger status and processing, subjective disability, health-related quality of life, and loss of weight were observed.
UNLABELLED: Chronic lumbar radicular pain is the most common neuropathic pain syndrome. This was a double-blind, randomized, 2-period crossover trial of topiramate (50 to 400 mg) and diphenhydramine (6.25 to 50 mg) as active placebo to assess the efficacy of topiramate. Each period consisted of a 4-week escalation, a 2-week maintenance at the highest tolerated dose, and a 2-week taper. Main outcome was the mean daily leg pain score on a 0 to 10 scale during the maintenance period. Global pain relief was assessed on a 6-level category scale. In the 29 of 42 patients who completed the study, topiramate reduced leg pain by a mean of 19% (P = .065). Global pain relief scores were significantly better on topiramate (P < .005). Mean doses were topiramate 200 mg and diphenhydramine 40 mg. We concluded that topiramate treatment might reduce chronic sciatica in some patients but causes frequent side effects and dropouts. We would not recommend topiramate unless studies of alternative regimens showed a better therapeutic ratio.
PERSPECTIVE: The anticonvulsant topiramate might reduce chronic lumbar nerve root pain through effects such as blockade of voltage-gated sodium channels and AMPA/kainite glutamate receptors, modulation of voltage-gated calcium channels, and gamma-aminobutyric acid agonist-like effects.
This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial was conducted to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone extended release (ER) with placebo and oxycodone controlled release (CR) in ambulatory patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain requiring opioid therapy. Patients (N = 213) aged 18 to 75 years were randomized to receive oxymorphone ER (10 to 110 mg) or oxycodone CR (20 to 220 mg) every 12 hours during a 7- to 14-day dose-titration phase. Patients achieving effective analgesia at a stable opioid dose entered an 18-day double-blind treatment phase and either continued opioid therapy or received placebo. With stable dosing throughout the treatment phase, oxymorphone ER (79.4 mg/day) and oxycodone CR (155 mg/day) were superior to placebo for change from baseline in pain intensity as measured on a visual analog scale; the LS mean differences were -18.21 and 18.55 (95% CI, -25.83 to -10.58 and -26.12 to -10.98, respectively; P = .0001). Use of rescue medication was 20 mg per day. Adverse events for the active drugs were similar; the most frequent were constipation and sedation. Oxymorphone ER and oxycodone CR were generally safe and effective for controlling low back pain. Oxymorphone ER was equianalgesic to oxycodone CR at half the milligram daily dosage, with comparable safety. PERSPECTIVE: Definitive studies of long-acting opioids in patients with chronic low back pain are lacking. We report the results of a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluating the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone ER and oxycodone CR in opioid-experienced patients with chronic low back pain.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, single (investigator) blind, comparative efficacy trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy (40 C, 8 hours/day) with that of ibuprofen (1200 mg/day) and acetaminophen (4000 mg/day) in subjects with acute nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of topical heat methods, as compared with oral analgesic treatment of low back pain, has not been established. METHODS: Subjects (n = 371) were randomly assigned to heat wrap (n = 113), acetaminophen (n = 113), or ibuprofen (n = 106) for efficacy evaluation, or to oral placebo (n = 20) or unheated back wrap (n = 19) for blinding. Outcome measures included pain relief, muscle stiffness, lateral trunk flexibility, and disability. Efficacy was measured over two treatment days and two follow-up days. RESULTS: Day 1 pain relief for the heat wrap (mean, 2) was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.51; P = 0.0007) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.32; P = 0.0001). Extended mean pain relief (Days 3 to 4) for the heat wrap (mean, 2.61) also was higher than for ibuprofen (mean, 1.68; P = 0.0001) or acetaminophen (mean, 1.95; P = 0.0009). Lateral trunk flexibility was improved with the heat wrap (mean change, 4.28 cm) during treatment (P </= 0.009 vs acetaminophen [mean change, 2.93 cm], P </= 0.001 vs ibuprofen [mean change, 2.51 cm]). The results were similar on Day 4. Day 1 reduction in muscle stiffness with the heat wrap (mean, 16.3) was greater than with acetaminophen (mean, 10.5; P = 0.001). Disability was reduced with the heat wrap (mean, 4.9), as compared with ibuprofen (mean, 2.7; P = 0.01) and acetaminophen (mean, 2.9; P = 0.0007), on Day 4. None of the adverse events were serious. The highest rate (10.4%) was reported in the ibuprofen group. CONCLUSION: Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was superior to both acetaminophen and ibuprofen for treating low back pain.
Aim: To establish the effect of oral gabapentin on background, movement and referred pain in human subjects. Method: A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled study of 80 adult patients with low back pain and associated referred leg pain. Baseline pain scores were measured; active treatment was with a dose of gabapentin increasing to 1200 mg daily over a six week period, the placebo group receiving an equal number of inactive capsules. 0-10 numerical pain scores were recorded daily throughout the study period (background, movement and referred pain), along with a measure of mobility and concomitant analgesic consumption. Results: 65 subjects provided results. There was no change in pain scores from baseline recordings to week 8 in terms of background pain. Gabapentin reduced referred pain by 0.45 after 8 weeks (p < 0.05) and movement pain by 0.47 (p < 0.05). There were no changes in mobility scores and analgesic consumption was only marginally reduced by use of gabapentin (0.45 tablets per day, p = 0.05). Conclusion: Gabapentin in a dose increasing to 1200 mg per day has no effect on background pain and only a marginal effect on referred pain and pain on movement.
Two separate trials compared controlled-release (CR) oral oxycodone (administered every 12 hours) with immediate-release (IR) oxycodone (4 times a day) to determine whether patients with chronic pain could be titrated to stable pain control as readily with the CR as with the IR formulation. In one study, 48 patients with cancer pain were randomized to open-label titration with either CR or IR oxycodone (maximum dose, 400 mg/day) for a period of up to 21 days. In a study of similar design, 57 patients with low back pain were titrated with either CR or IR oxycodone (maximum dose, 80 mg/day) for a period of up to 10 days. The majority of patients in both studies were converted to oxycodone from other opioid analgesics. Results of both studies showed no difference between CR and IR oxycodone with respect to both the percentage of patients achieving stable pain control, the time to achieve stable pain control, and the degree of pain control achieved. Among cancer patients, 85% achieved stable analgesia, 92% with the CR formulation and 79% with the IR formulation. Among noncancer patients, 91% achieved stable pain control, 87% with the CR formulation and 96% with the IR formulation. The most commonly reported adverse effects in both studies were similar for the two formulations and were those anticipated with opioids: nausea, vomiting, constipation, somnolence, dizziness, and pruritus. Nausea and vomiting were the most frequently cited reasons for treatment discontinuations. These studies suggest that dose titration can be accomplished as readily with oral CR oxycodone as with IR oxycodone in patients with chronic, moderate to severe pain.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, open, long-term, repeated-dose comparison of an anti-inflammatory drug and two opioid regimens in 36 patients with back pain.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the long-term safety and efficacy of chronic opioid therapy in a randomized trial of patients with back pain.
METHODS: All participants underwent a 4-week washout period of no opioid medication before being randomly assigned to one of three treatment regimens for 16 weeks: 1) naproxen only, 2) set-dose oxycodone, or 3) titrated-dose oxycodone and sustained-release morphine sulfate. All patients then were assigned to a titrated dose of opioids for 16 weeks and then gradually tapered off their medication for 12 weeks. Finally, all participants were monitored for a 1-month posttreatment washout period. Each patient was called once a week for a report on pain, activity, mood, medication, hours awake, and adverse effects and was monitored carefully for signs of abuse and noncompliance.
RESULTS: Weekly reports during the experimental phase showed the titrated-dose group to have less pain (P < 0.001) and less emotional distress (P < 0.001) than the other two groups. Both opioid groups were significantly different from the naproxen-only group. During the titration phase, patients also reported significantly less pain and improved mood. Few differences were found in activity or hours asleep, or between average pretreatment and posttreatment phone-interview and questionnaire variables. No adverse events occurred, and only one participant showed signs of abuse behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that opioid therapy has a positive effect on pain and mood but little effect on activity and sleep. Opioid therapy for chronic back pain was used without significant risk of abuse. However, tapered-off opioid treatment is palliative and without long-term benefit.
This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study was designed to examine the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a newly developed tramadol slow-release (SR) tablet in comparison with immediate-release tramadol capsules in patients with chronic low back pain which had persisted despite intervention with other pharmacological and/or nonpharmacological measures. 103 patients were treated with tramadol SR tablets twice daily (2 x 100 mg/day) and 102 patients with capsules 4 times daily (4 x 50 mg/day) over a period of 3 weeks. The medication in both groups (verum/placebo) was administered 4 times daily to ensure the double-blind character of the study ('double-dummy technique'). In case of insufficient pain relief the patients received 2 x 200 mg SR/day as an escape medication (open design). Daily pain intensity was assessed by patients on a 4-step verbal rating scale. At the end of the study retrograde assessment of analgesia was done by the patient using a 5-step classification. Sufficient pain relief could be achieved in approximately 60% of the patients (116 patients) who completed the 3-week treatment period. There was no difference in pain relief (SR 59% and capsules 59%) and in course of pain intensity between both groups. Furthermore, 30 patients (15.3%) were satisfactorily treated with the escape medication. Adverse events were reported at a similar rate in both groups (54.4% with the SR tablet formulation and 52.9% with the capsules). The main adverse events were nausea (l6.6%), dizziness (14.1%), vomiting (9.8%), tiredness (7.8%), diaphoresis (6.3%), headache (6.3%), constipation (6.3%) and dry mouth (6.3%). With the exception of diaphoresis, constipation and dry mouth, adverse events decreased in incidence during the study. The results confirmed the equivalence with regard to efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily administration of tramadol SR tablets compared with 4-times-daily administration of tramadol capsules.
A total of 395 male infantry recruits were evaluated in a prospective study of possible risk factors for overexertional back pain and the efficacy of drug treatment regimens for this syndrome. Recruits were classified into subgroups of lumbar or thoracic, and paraspinal or spinous process pain. Recruits were divided into three treatment groups: Ibuprofen, Paracetamol, and no drug treatment. Of the recruits, 18% were diagnosed as having overexertional back pain during the course of 14 weeks of training. By multivariate analysis low body mass index was found to be a risk factor for overexertional lumbar pain (p = 0.005) and increased lumbar lordosis a risk factor for overexertional thoracic pain (p = 0.005). Of recruits with overexertional back pain, 65% were asymptomatic by the end of basic training. There was no statistically significant difference between cure rates according to treatment groups.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a widespread ailment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of topiramate in the treatment of CLBP and the changes in anger status and processing, body weight, subjective pain-related disability and health-related quality of life during the course of treatment.
METHODS:
We conducted a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of topiramate in 96 (36 women) patients with CLBP. The subjects were randomly assigned to topiramate (n=48) or placebo (n=48). Primary outcome measures were changes on the McGill Pain Questionnaire, State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and SF-36 Health Survey scales, and in body weight.
RESULTS:
In comparison with the placebo group (according to the intent-to-treat principle), significant changes on the pain rating index of McGill Pain Questionnaire (Ps<0.001), State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory Scales (all Ps<0.001), Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (P<0.001), and SF-36 Health Survey scales (all P<0.001, except on the role-emotional scale) were observed after 10 weeks in the patients treated with topiramate. Weight loss was also observed and was significantly more pronounced in the group treated with topiramate than in those treated with placebo (P<0.001). Most patients tolerated topiramate relatively well but 2 patients dropped out because of side effects.
DISCUSSION:
Topiramate seems to be a relatively safe and effective agent in the treatment of CLBP. Significantly positive changes in pain sensitivity, anger status and processing, subjective disability, health-related quality of life, and loss of weight were observed.
