Dataset Information

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of eszopiclone for the treatment of insomnia in patients with chronic low back pain.

ABSTRACT: Insomnia, which is very common in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP), has long been viewed as a pain symptom that did not merit specific treatment. Recent data suggest that adding insomnia therapy to pain-targeted treatment should improve outcome; however, this has not been empirically tested in LBP or in any pain condition treated with a standardized pain medication regimen. We sought to test the hypothesis that adding insomnia therapy to pain-targeted treatment might improve sleep and pain in LBP.Double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 1-mo trial.Duke University Medical Center Outpatient Sleep Clinic.Fifty-two adult volunteers with LBP of at least 3 mo duration who met diagnostic criteria for insomnia (mean age: 42.5 y; 63% females).Subjects were randomized to eszopiclone (ESZ) 3 mg plus naproxen 500 mg BID or matching placebo plus naproxen 500 mg twice a day.ESZ SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED TOTAL SLEEP TIME (MEAN INCREASE: ESZ, 95 min; placebo, 9 min) (primary outcome) and nearly all sleep measures as well as visual analog scale pain (mean decrease: ESZ, 17 mm; placebo, 2 mm) (primary pain outcome), and depression (mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale improvement ESZ, 3.8; placebo, 0.4) compared with placebo. Changes in pain ratings were significantly correlated with changes in sleep.The addition of insomnia-specific therapy to a standardized naproxen pain regimen significantly improves sleep, pain, and depression in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). The findings indicate the importance of administering both sleep and pain-directed therapies to patients with LBP in clinical practice and provide strong evidence that improving sleep disturbance may improve pain.clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00365976.

SUBMITTER: Goforth HW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4015379 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of eszopiclone for the treatment of insomnia in patients with chronic low back pain.

Goforth Harold W HW Preud'homme Xavier A XA Krystal Andrew D AD

Sleep 20140601 6

<h4>Study objectives</h4>Insomnia, which is very common in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP), has long been viewed as a pain symptom that did not merit specific treatment. Recent data suggest that adding insomnia therapy to pain-targeted treatment should improve outcome; however, this has not been empirically tested in LBP or in any pain condition treated with a standardized pain medication regimen. We sought to test the hypothesis that adding insomnia therapy to pain-targeted treatment ...[more]

PMID: 24882900

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in chronic low back pain (CLBP). We examined the predictors of response to duloxetine for CLBP. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 4 double-blind, ran-domized, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (60 mg/day for 12-14 weeks) in adult patients with CLBP. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with ?30% reduction in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain ("pain reduction") at 12-14 weeks. The proportion of patients with ?30% and ?50% (secondary outcome) pain reduction in duloxetine and placebo groups was compared. Variables for responder analyses were early improvement (?15% pain reduction at Week 2), sex, age, baseline BPI average pain score, duration of CLBP, and number of painful body sites according to the Michigan Body Map (?2 vs 1 [isolated CLBP]; 1 trial); relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS:Compared with placebo (n = 653), a greater proportion of duloxetine-treated patients (n = 642) achieved ?30% (59.7% vs 47.8%; P < 0.001) and ?50% pain reduction (48.6% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001). Among duloxetine-treated patients, early improvement was associated with greater likelihood of ?30% (RR [95% CI], 2.91 [2.30-3.67]) or ?50% (3.24 [2.44-4.31]) pain reduction. Women were slightly more likely than men to achieve ?30% (RR [95% CI], 1.14 [1.00-1.30]) or ?50% (1.17 [0.99-1.38]) pain reduction. Response rates were similar between age, CLBP duration, and baseline BPI average pain score subgroups. Patients with ?2 painful sites were more likely to respond to duloxetine 60 mg relative to placebo than patients with isolated CLBP (RR, duloxetine vs placebo [95% CI]: ?30% reduction, ?2 painful sites 1.40 [1.18-1.66], isolated CLBP 1.07 [0.78-1.48]; ?50% reduction, ?2 painful sites 1.51 [1.20-1.89], isolated CLBP 1.23 [0.81-1.88]). CONCLUSION:Early pain reduction was indicative of overall response. Patients with multiple painful sites had more benefit from duloxetine than patients with isolated CLBP.

Project description:A 14-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study of Japanese patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who were randomized to either duloxetine 60?mg once daily or placebo.This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine monotherapy in Japanese patients with CLBP.In Japan, duloxetine is approved for the treatment of depression, diabetic neuropathic pain, and pain associated with fibromyalgia; however, no clinical study of duloxetine has been conducted for CLBP.The primary efficacy measure was the change in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score from baseline to Week 14. Secondary efficacy measures included BPI pain (worst pain, least pain, pain right now), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, among other measures, and safety and tolerability.In total, 458 patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine (n?=?232) or placebo (n?=?226). The BPI average pain score improved significantly in the duloxetine group compared with that in the placebo group at Week 14 [-2.43?±?0.11 vs. -1.96?±?0.11, respectively; between-group difference (95% confidence interval),?-?0.46 [-0.77 to-0.16]; P?=?0.0026]. The duloxetine group showed significant improvement in many secondary measures compared with the placebo group, including BPI pain (least pain, pain right now) (between-group difference: -1.69?±?0.10, P?=?0.0009; -2.42?±?0.12, P P?=?0.0230, respectively), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (2.46?±?0.07, P?=?0.0026), Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (-1.46?±?0.06, P?=?0.0019), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (-3.86?±?0.22, P?=?0.0439). Adverse events occurring at a significantly higher incidence in the duloxetine group were somnolence, constipation, nausea, dizziness, and dry mouth, most of which were mild or moderate in severity and were resolved or improved.Duloxetine 60?mg was effective and well tolerated in Japanese CLBP patients.2.

Project description:BackgroundMultisite pain, including low-back and knee pain, is a major health issue that greatly decreases quality of life.ObjectivesThis study analyzed the effects of l-serine, which provides necessary components for nerve function, and EPA, which exerts anti-inflammatory properties, on pain scores of adults with pain in at least the low back and knee for ≥3 mo.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The Japan Low Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JLEQ) and Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM) were applied as primary outcomes. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and safety evaluation were secondary outcomes. We enrolled 120 participants aged ≥20 y (36 men and 84 women: mean ± SD age = 40.8 ± 10.9 y). The participants were randomly allocated to either the active group (daily ingestion of 594 mg l-serine and 149 mg EPA) or placebo group. The study period consisted of 8-wk dosing and 4-wk posttreatment observation. ANCOVA between groups for each time point was conducted using the baseline scores as covariates.ResultsThe JLEQ scores (active compared with placebo: 14.2 ± 11.2 compared with 19.0 ± 10.2) at week 8 were lower in the active group (P < 0.001). The JKOM scores at week 4 (11.7 ± 9.0 compared with 13.9 ± 7.9), week 8 (10.4 ± 7.9 compared with 13.1 ± 7.1), and week 12 (10.3 ± 7.4 compared with 13.8 ± 7.5) were lower in the active group (P ≤ 0.04). Additionally, the active group had 11-27% better scores compared with the placebo group for BPI1 (worst pain), BPI3 (average pain), and BPI5D (pain during moving) at week 4 (P ≤ 0.028) and week 8 (P ≤ 0.019), respectively, and BPI5D was 23% better in the active group at week 12 (P = 0.007). No adverse events were observed.Conclusionsl-Serine and EPA were effective for pain relief in adults with low-back and knee pain after multiplicity adjustment.This trial was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000035056.

Project description:AbstractThis randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (56-week treatment; 24-week follow-up) assessed tanezumab in patients with chronic low back pain and history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics (NCT02528253). Patients received placebo, subcutaneous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg every 8 weeks), or oral tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day). Primary endpoint was change in low back pain intensity (LBPI) at week 16 for tanezumab vs placebo. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of patients with ≥50% decrease in LBPI at week 16, change in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 16, and change in LBPI at week 2 for tanezumab vs placebo. Adverse events and joint safety were assessed through weeks 56 and 80, respectively. Tanezumab 10 mg met the primary endpoint by significantly improving LBPI at week 16 vs placebo; least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) difference = -0.40 (-0.76 to -0.04; P = 0.0281). Tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved all key secondary endpoints. Tanezumab 5 mg did not meet the primary endpoint (LS mean [95% CI] treatment difference vs placebo = -0.30 [-0.66 to 0.07; P = 0.1117]), preventing formal testing of key secondary endpoints for this dose. The proportion of patients with ≥50% improvement in LBPI at week 16 was 37.4% in the placebo group, 43.3% in the tanezumab 5 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.28 [0.97 to 1.70; P = 0.0846]), and 46.3% in the tanezumab 10 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.45 [1.09 to 1.91; P = 0.0101]). Prespecified joint safety events were more frequent with tanezumab 10 mg (2.6%) than tanezumab 5 mg (1.0%), tramadol (0.2%), or placebo (0%). Seven patients, all in the tanezumab 10 mg group (1.4%), underwent total joint replacement. In conclusion, tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved pain and function vs placebo in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic low back pain. Tanezumab was associated with a low rate of joint safety events, some requiring joint replacement.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy of three months of antibiotic treatment compared with placebo in patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and vertebral endplate changes (Modic changes). DESIGN:Double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled, multicentre trial. SETTING:Hospital outpatient clinics at six hospitals in Norway. PARTICIPANTS:180 patients with chronic low back pain, previous disc herniation, and type 1 (n=118) or type 2 (n=62) Modic changes enrolled from June 2015 to September 2017. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomised to three months of oral treatment with either 750 mg amoxicillin or placebo three times daily. The allocation sequence was concealed by using a computer generated number on the prescription. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score (range 0-24) at one year follow-up in the intention to treat population. The minimal clinically important between group difference in mean RMDQ score was predefined as 4. RESULTS:In the primary analysis of the total cohort at one year, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the amoxicillin group and the placebo group was -1.6 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.0, P=0.04). In the secondary analysis, the difference in the mean RMDQ score between the groups was -2.3 (-4.2 to-0.4, P=0.02) for patients with type 1 Modic changes and -0.1 (-2.7 to 2.6, P=0.95) for patients with type 2 Modic changes. Fifty patients (56%) in the amoxicillin group experienced at least one drug related adverse event compared with 31 (34%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS:In this study on patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes at the level of a previous disc herniation, three months of treatment with amoxicillin did not provide a clinically important benefit compared with placebo. Secondary analyses and sensitivity analyses supported this finding. Therefore, our results do not support the use of antibiotic treatment for chronic low back pain and Modic changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE:In US emergency departments (EDs), patients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes among patients randomized to a 1-week course of naproxen+placebo versus naproxen+orphenadrine or naproxen+methocarbamol. METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain were enrolled. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and 1 week later. All patients were given 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be used twice a day, as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive a 1-week supply of orphenadrine 100 mg, to be used twice a day as needed, methocarbamol 750 mg, to be used as 1 or 2 tablets 3 times per day as needed, or placebo. All patients received a standardized 10-minute low back pain educational session before discharge. RESULTS:Two hundred forty patients were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable. The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo improved by 10.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9 to 12.9). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+orphenadrine improved by 9.4 points (95% CI 7.4 to 11.5). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+methocarbamol improved by 8.1 points (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1). None of the between-group differences surpassed our threshold for clinical significance. Adverse events were reported by 17% (95% CI 10% to 28%) of placebo patients, 9% (95% CI 4% to 19%) of orphenadrine patients, and 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) of methocarbamol patients. CONCLUSION:Among ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, combining naproxen with either orphenadrine or methocarbamol did not improve functional outcomes compared with naproxen+placebo.

Dataset Information

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of eszopiclone for the treatment of insomnia in patients with chronic low back pain.

Publications

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of eszopiclone for the treatment of insomnia in patients with chronic low back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure