Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of nicoboxil/nonivamide ointment for the treatment of acute pain in the low back - A randomized, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Until now, nonivamide/nicoboxil ointment has not been tested in a randomized trial for the treatment of acute non-specific low back pain.This phase III randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial investigated efficacy, safety and tolerability of topical nicoboxil 2.5%/nonivamide 0.4% for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain [primary endpoint: pain intensity (PI) difference between pre-dose baseline and 8 h after the first application].Patients (n = 805), 18-74 years of age were treated for up to 4 days with nicoboxil 2.5%/nonivamide 0.4%, nicoboxil 2.5%, nonivamide 0.4% or placebo ointment. Pre-dose baseline pain intensity (6.6 on a 0- to 10-point numerical rating scale) was reduced by 1.049 points with placebo, by 1.428 points with nicoboxil, by 2.252 points with nonivamide and by 2.410 points with nicoboxil/nonivamide after 8 h (p < 0.0001 for nicoboxil/nonivamide vs. placebo, nicoboxil; p = 0.4171 for nicoboxil/nonivamide vs. nonivamide). At the end of treatment, the combination provided more pronounced PI reduction (3.540 points) compared with nicoboxil (2.371, p < 0.0001), nonivamide (3.074, p = 0.0259) and placebo (1.884, p < 0.0001). Low back mobility scores on Day 1 were better for the combination compared with all other treatments (p < 0.044); on Day 2-4, scores were better than for placebo and nicoboxil (p < 0.003). Patients assessed efficacy of the combination as greater than of the comparators (p ? 0.0129). All treatments were tolerated well. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.Nicoboxil/nonivamide ointment is an effective, well-tolerated medication for the treatment of acute non-specific low back pain.

SUBMITTER: Gaubitz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5029595 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of nicoboxil/nonivamide ointment for the treatment of acute pain in the low back - A randomized, controlled trial.

Gaubitz M M Schiffer T T Holm C C Richter E E Pisternick-Ruf W W Weiser T T

European journal of pain (London, England) 20150430 2

<h4>Background</h4>Until now, nonivamide/nicoboxil ointment has not been tested in a randomized trial for the treatment of acute non-specific low back pain.<h4>Methods</h4>This phase III randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial investigated efficacy, safety and tolerability of topical nicoboxil 2.5%/nonivamide 0.4% for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain [primary endpoint: pain intensity (PI) difference between pre-dose baseline and 8 h after the fir ...[more]

PMID: 25929250

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chronic back pain is a major public health problem and the primary reason patients seek acupuncture treatment. Therefore, an objective assessment of acupuncture efficacy is critical for making informed decisions about its appropriate role for patients with this common condition. This study addresses methodological shortcomings that have plagued previous studies evaluating acupuncture for chronic low back pain.A total of 640 participants (160 in each of four arms) between the ages of 18 and 70 years of age who have low back pain lasting at least 3 months will be recruited from integrated health care delivery systems in Seattle and Oakland. They will be randomized to one of two forms of Traditional Chinese Medical (TCM) acupuncture needling (individualized or standardized), a "control" group (simulated acupuncture), or to continued usual medical care. Ten treatments will be provided over 7 weeks. Study participants and the "Diagnostician" acupuncturists who evaluate participants and propose individualized treatments will be masked to the acupuncture treatment actually assigned each participant. The "Therapist" acupuncturists providing the treatments will not be masked but will have limited verbal interaction with participants. The primary outcomes, standard measures of dysfunction and bothersomeness of low back pain, will be assessed at baseline, and after 8, 26, and 52 weeks by telephone interviewers masked to treatment assignment. General health status, satisfaction with back care, days of back-related disability, and use and costs of healthcare services for back pain will also be measured. The primary analysis comparing outcomes by randomized treatment assignment will be analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value. For both primary outcome measures, this trial will have 99% power to detect the presence of a minimal clinically significant difference among all four treatment groups and over 80% power for most pairwise comparisons. Secondary analyses will compare the proportions of participants in each group that improve by a clinically meaningful amount.Results of this trial will help clarify the value of acupuncture needling as a treatment for chronic low back pain.Clinical Trials.gov NCT00065585.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain is a common problem and is associated with high costs, including those related to health care and indirect costs due to absence at work or reduced productivity. Previous studies have demonstrated that acupuncture or electroacupuncture can relieve low back pain. Electronic acupuncture shoes (EAS) are a novel device designed in this study. This device combines the properties of acupuncture and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for clinical use.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of EAS in patients with chronic low back pain.MethodsIn this prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study, the data of 83 patients who experienced chronic low back pain were analyzed. Patients came to our clinic for 20 visits and underwent assessment and treatment. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either EAS plus placebo nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (EAS group, n=42) or sham EAS plus NSAIDs (NSAID group, n=41). The visual analog scale (VAS) score and range of motion were assessed at baseline, before and after each EAS treatment, and 2 weeks after the last treatment. The time for achieving pain remission was recorded. Quality of life was assessed at the 2nd, 14th, and 20th visits.ResultsAfter 6 weeks of treatment, the treatment success rate in each visit in the EAS group was higher than that in the NSAID group, as revealed by the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, but significant differences were observed only during the 16th visit in the ITT analysis (EAS group: 31/37, 84% and NSAID group: 21/34, 62%; P=.04). The change in the VAS score from baseline in each visit in the EAS group was greater than that in the NSAID group, as revealed by the ITT and PP analyses, and significant differences were observed in the 5th visit and 9th visit in the ITT analysis (P=.048 and P=.048, respectively). Significant differences were observed in the left rotation in the 2nd visit and 4th visit (P=.049 and P=.03, respectively). No significant differences were observed in the VAS score before and after treatment in each visit and in the quality of life in both groups.ConclusionsEAS might serve as a reliable alternative therapeutic tool for patients with chronic low back pain who are contraindicated for oral NSAIDs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02468297 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02468297.

Project description:ImportanceAntidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy.ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain.Design, setting, and participantsA double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out.InterventionLow-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire.ResultsOf the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95).Conclusions and relevanceThis trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.

Project description:Study objectivePatients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and skeletal muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes and pain among patients with acute low back pain who were randomized to a 1-week course of ibuprofen plus placebo versus ibuprofen plus 1 of 3 skeletal muscle relaxants: baclofen, metaxalone, and tizanidine.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 4-arm study conducted in 2 urban emergency departments (EDs). Patients with nonradicular low back pain for less than or equal to 2 weeks were eligible if they had a score greater than 5 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, a 24-item inventory of functional impairment caused by low back pain. All participants received 21 tablets of ibuprofen 600 mg, to be taken 3 times a day as needed. Additionally, they were randomized to baclofen 10 mg, metaxalone 400 mg, tizanidine 2 mg, or placebo. Participants were instructed to take 1 or 2 of these capsules 3 times a day as needed. All participants received a 10-minute educational session. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire between ED discharge and 1week later. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity 1 week after ED discharge (severe, moderate, mild, or none).ResultsThree hundred twenty patients were randomized. One week later, the mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score of patients randomized to placebo improved by 11.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.0 to 13.3), baclofen by 10.6 points (95% CI 8.6 to 12.7), metaxalone by 10.1 points (95% CI 8.0 to 12.3), and tizanidine by 11.2 points (95% CI 9.2 to 13.2). At 1-week follow-up, 30% of placebo patients (95% CI 21% to 41%) reported moderate to severe low back pain versus 33% of baclofen patients (95% CI 24% to 44%), 37% of metaxalone patients (95% CI 27% to 48%), and 33% of tizanidine patients (95% CI 23% to 44%).ConclusionAdding baclofen, metaxalone, or tizanidine to ibuprofen does not appear to improve functioning or pain any more than placebo plus ibuprofen by 1 week after an ED visit for acute low back pain.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of nicoboxil/nonivamide ointment for the treatment of acute pain in the low back - A randomized, controlled trial.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of nicoboxil/nonivamide ointment for the treatment of acute pain in the low back - A randomized, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets