Dataset Information

Double-blind, randomized, double-dummy clinical trial comparing the efficacy of ketorolac trometamol and naproxen for acute low back pain.

ABSTRACT: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most common type of medication used in the treatment of acute pain. Ketorolac trometamol (KT) is a nonnarcotic, peripherally acting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with analgesic effects comparable to certain opioids.The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of KT and naproxen (NA) in the treatment of acute low back pain (LBP) of moderate-to-severe intensity.In this 10-day, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial, participants with acute LBP of moderate-to-severe intensity as determined through a visual analog scale (VAS) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sublingual KT 10 mg three times daily or oral NA 250 mg three times daily. From the second to the fifth day of treatment, if patient had VAS >40 mm, increased dosage to four times per day was allowed. The primary end point was the reduction in LBP as measured by VAS. We also performed a post hoc superiority analysis.KT was not inferior to NA for the reduction in LBP over 5 days of use as measured by VAS scores (P=0.608 for equality of variance; P=0.321 for equality of means) and by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (P=0.180 for equality of variance test; P=0.446 for equality of means) using 95% confidence intervals. The percentage of participants with improved pain relief 60 minutes after receiving the first dose was higher in the KT group (24.2%) than in the NA group (6.5%; P=0.049). The most common adverse effects were heartburn, nausea, and vomiting.KT is not inferior in efficacy and delivers faster pain relief than NA.

SUBMITTER: Plapler PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4918732 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Double-blind, randomized, double-dummy clinical trial comparing the efficacy of ketorolac trometamol and naproxen for acute low back pain.

Plapler Pérola Grinberg PG Scheinberg Morton Aaron MA Ecclissato Christina da Cunha Cda C Bocchi de Oliveira Monalisa Fernanda MF Amazonas Roberto Bleuel RB

Drug design, development and therapy 20160617

<h4>Background</h4>Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most common type of medication used in the treatment of acute pain. Ketorolac trometamol (KT) is a nonnarcotic, peripherally acting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with analgesic effects comparable to certain opioids.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of KT and naproxen (NA) in the treatment of acute low back pain (LBP) of moderate-to-severe intensity.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>In this ...[more]

PMID: 27382251

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Acute postoperative pain following knee arthroscopy is common in orthopedic surgeries. Managing pain postoperatively combines usage of opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The aim of this clinical study was to assess the efficacy of two different analgesic treatment regimens: intravenous (IV) ibuprofen and IV ketorolac for the treatment of postoperative pain pertaining to arthroscopic knee surgery. Methods: This was a single center, randomized, double-blind, parallel, active comparator clinical pilot study. Subjects were randomized to receive either IV ibuprofen, administered as two 800 mg doses or IV ketorolac, administered as a single 30 mg dose. Subjects in the ibuprofen group received 800 mg of IV ibuprofen within 2 h prior to surgery and a repeated second dose 4 h after the initial dose if they had not been discharged. Subjects in the ketorolac group received IV ketorolac 30 mg at the end of surgery, as per the manufacturer's recommendations. Pain assessments and opioid consumption data were collected up to 24 h postoperatively. Results: Of 53 randomized subjects, 51 completed the study. There were 20 subjects in the ibuprofen group and 31 subjects in the ketorolac group. The median (IQR) visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at resting upon post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) arrival was 33 (12, 52) vs. 9 (2, 25) (p = 0.0064) for the ketorolac and ibuprofen group, respectively. The median (IQR) visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at movement upon PACU arrival was 38 (20, 61) vs. 15 (6, 31) (p = 0.0018) for the ketorolac and ibuprofen group, respectively. Median VAS pain scores during movement taken at subsequent 30 min intervals in the ibuprofen group were less than half that of those reported in the ketorolac group for up to 90 min after arriving in PACU. The median VAS pain scores at rest and movement in the course of 120 min-24 h after PACU arrival was not statistically significant in both groups. Rescue opioid medication during PACU stay was required in 55.0% (N = 11) and 83.9% (N = 26), with a mean amount of narcotic consumption (oral morphine conversion) of 5.53 ± 5.89 mg vs. 19.92 ± 15.63 mg for the ibuprofen and ketorolac group, respectively (P < 0.001). However, opioid consumption during the first 24 h after PACU discharge was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.637). The mean time to first rescue medication was 77.62 ± 33.03 and 55.78 ± 35.37 for the ibuprofen and ketorolac group, respectively (p-value = 0.0456). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction and documented adverse events during the first 24 h. Conclusion: This pilot study showed that the use of preemptive IV ibuprofen 800 mg could be considered to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Future prospective clinical trials using similar regimens should be conducted in order to gain a better understanding of how to best provide perioperative analgesic regimens. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01650519.

Project description:Study objectiveIn 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsTwo 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.ConclusionAmong 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP38) induces headache in healthy volunteers but the precise mechanisms by which PACAP38 leads to headache are unclear. We investigated the headache preventive effect of sumatriptan and ketorolac on PACAP38-induced headache in healthy volunteers. In addition, we explored contribution of vascular mechanisms to PACAP38-induced headache using high resolution magnetic resonance angiography. METHODS:Thirty-four healthy volunteers were divided in two groups (A and B) and received infusion of PACAP38 (10 picomol/kg/min) over 20?min. Group A was pretreated with intravenous sumatriptan (4?mg) or ketorolac (30?mg) 20?min before infusion of PACAP38. Group B received infusion of sumatriptan or ketorolac as post-treatment 90?min after infusion of PACAP38. In both experiments, we used a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. We recorded headache characteristics and circumference of extra-intracerebral arteries. RESULTS:We found no difference in AUC (0-6 h) of PACAP38-induced headache in group A, pretreated with sumatriptan or ketorolac (p?=?0.297). There was no difference between sumatriptan and ketorolac in PACAP38-induced circumference change (AUCBaseline-110 min) of MMA (p?=?0.227), STA (p?=?0.795) and MCA (p?=?0.356). In group B, post-treatment with ketorolac reduced PACAP38-headache compared to sumatriptan (p?<?0.001). Post-treatment with sumatriptan significantly reduced the circumference of STA (p?=?0.039) and MMA (p?=?0.015) but not of MCA (p?=?0.981) compared to ketorolac. In an explorative analysis, we found that pre-treatment with sumatriptan reduced PACAP38-induced headache compared to no treatment (AUC0-90min). CONCLUSIONS:Post-treatment with ketorolac was more effective in attenuating PACAP38-induced headache compared to sumatriptan. Ketorolac exerted its effect without affecting PACAP38-induced arterial dilation, whereas sumatriptan post-treatment attenuated PACAP38-induced dilation of MMA and STA. Pre-treatment with sumatriptan attenuated PACAP38-induced headache without affecting PACAP38-induced arterial dilation. Our findings suggest that ketorolac and sumatriptan attenuated PACAP38-induced headache in healthy volunteers without vascular effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03585894). Registered 13 July 2018.

Project description:Chronic non-specific low back pain is a major socioeconomic public health issue worldwide and, despite the volume of research in the area, it is still a difficult-to-treat condition. The conservative analgesic therapy usually comprises a variety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies, such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. The neuromatrix pain model and the new findings on the process of chronicity of pain point to a higher effectiveness of treatments that address central rather than peripheral structures. The transcranial direct current stimulation is a noninvasive technique of neuromodulation that has made recent advances in the treatment of chronic pain. The simultaneous combination of these two electrostimulation techniques (cerebral and peripheral) can provide an analgesic effect superior to isolated interventions. However, all the evidence on the analgesic efficacy of these techniques, alone or combined, is still fragmented. This is a protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate whether cerebral electrical stimulation combined with peripheral electrical stimulation is more effective in relieving pain than the isolated application of electrical stimulations in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.Ninety-two patients will be randomized into four groups to receive transcranial direct current stimulation (real/sham)?+ transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (real/sham) for 12 sessions over a period of four weeks. The primary clinical outcome (pain intensity) and the secondary ones (sensory and affective aspects of pain, physical functioning and global perceived effect) will be recorded before treatment, after four weeks, in Month 3 and in Month 6 after randomization. Confounding factors such as anxiety and depression, the patient's satisfaction with treatment and adverse effects will also be listed. Data will be collected by an examiner unaware of (blind to) the treatment allocation.The results of this study may assist in clinical decision-making about the combined use of cerebral and peripheral electrical stimulation for pain relief in patients with chronic low back pain.NCT01896453.

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.

Dataset Information

Double-blind, randomized, double-dummy clinical trial comparing the efficacy of ketorolac trometamol and naproxen for acute low back pain.

Publications

Double-blind, randomized, double-dummy clinical trial comparing the efficacy of ketorolac trometamol and naproxen for acute low back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets