Dataset Information

Efficacy of Low-Dose Amitriptyline for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Antidepressants 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

A 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.

Intervention

Low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months.

Main outcomes and measures

The 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.

Results

Of 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 relevance

This 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 registration

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.

SUBMITTER: Urquhart DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6248203 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:There have been no full-scale trials of the optimal number of visits for the care of any condition with spinal manipulation.To identify the dose-response relationship between visits to a chiropractor for spinal manipulation and chronic low back pain (cLBP) outcomes and to determine the efficacy of manipulation by comparison with a light massage control.Practice-based randomized controlled trial.Four hundred participants with cLBP.The primary cLBP outcomes were the 100-point modified Von Korff pain intensity and functional disability scales evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included days with pain and functional disability, pain unpleasantness, global perceived improvement, medication use, and general health status.One hundred participants with cLBP were randomized to each of four dose levels of care: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of spinal manipulation from a chiropractor. Participants were treated three times per week for 6 weeks. At sessions when manipulation was not assigned, they received a focused light massage control. Covariate-adjusted linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 18, 24, 39, and 52 weeks.For the primary outcomes, mean pain and disability improvement in the manipulation groups were 20 points by 12 weeks and sustainable to 52 weeks. Linear dose-response effects were small, reaching about two points per six manipulation sessions at 12 and 52 weeks for both variables (p<.025). At 12 weeks, the greatest differences from the no-manipulation control were found for 12 sessions (8.6 pain and 7.6 disability points, p<.025); at 24 weeks, differences were negligible; and at 52 weeks, the greatest group differences were seen for 18 visits (5.9 pain and 8.8 disability points, p<.025).The number of spinal manipulation visits had modest effects on cLBP outcomes above those of 18 hands-on visits to a chiropractor. Overall, 12 visits yielded the most favorable results but was not well distinguished from other dose levels.

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:Low Back Pain is a major public health problem all over the western world. Active approaches including exercise in the treatment of low back pain results in better outcomes for patients, but it is not known exactly which types of back exercises are most beneficial or whether general physical activity provide similar benefits. Nordic Walking is a popular and fast growing type of exercise in Northern Europe. Initial studies have demonstrated that persons performing Nordic Walking are able to exercise longer and harder compared to normal walking thereby increasing their cardiovascular metabolism. Until now no studies have been performed to investigate whether Nordic Walking has beneficial effects in relation to low back pain. The primary aim of this study is to investigate whether supervised Nordic Walking can reduce pain and improve function in a population of chronic low back pain patients when compared to unsupervised Nordic Walking and advice to stay active. In addition we investigate whether there is an increase in the cardiovascular metabolism in persons performing supervised Nordic Walking compared to persons who are advised to stay active. Finally, we investigate whether there is a difference in compliance between persons receiving supervised Nordic Walking and persons doing unsupervised Nordic Walking.One hundred and fifty patients with low back pain for at least eight weeks and referred to a specialized secondary sector outpatient back pain clinic are included in the study. After completion of the standard back centre treatment patients are randomized into one of three groups: A) Nordic Walking twice a week for eight weeks under supervision of a specially trained instructor; B) Unsupervised Nordic Walking for eight weeks after one training session with an instructor; C) A one hour motivational talk including advice to stay active. Outcome measures are pain, function, overall health, cardiovascular ability and activity level.No results available at this point.This study will investigate the effect of Nordic Walking on pain and function in a population of people with chronic LBP.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is prevalent, especially among military veterans. Many cLBP treatment options have limited benefits and are accompanied by side effects. Major efforts to reduce opioid use and embrace nonpharmacological pain treatments have resulted. Research with community cLBP patients indicates that yoga can improve health outcomes and has few side effects. The benefits of yoga among military veterans were examined. DESIGN:Participants were randomized to either yoga or delayed yoga treatment in 2013-2015. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months. Intention-to-treat analyses occurred in 2016. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifty military veterans with cLBP were recruited from a major Veterans Affairs Medical Center in California. INTERVENTION:Yoga classes (with home practice) were led by a certified instructor twice weekly for 12 weeks, and consisted primarily of physical postures, movement, and breathing techniques. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores after 12 weeks. Pain intensity was identified as an important secondary outcome. RESULTS:Participant characteristics were mean age 53 years, 26% were female, 35% were unemployed or disabled, and mean back pain duration was 15 years. Improvements in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores did not differ between the two groups at 12 weeks, but yoga participants had greater reductions in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores than delayed treatment participants at 6 months -2.48 (95% CI= -4.08, -0.87). Yoga participants improved more on pain intensity at 12 weeks and at 6 months. Opioid medication use declined among all participants, but group differences were not found. CONCLUSIONS:Yoga improved health outcomes among veterans despite evidence they had fewer resources, worse health, and more challenges attending yoga sessions than community samples studied previously. The magnitude of pain intensity decline was small, but occurred in the context of reduced opioid use. The findings support wider implementation of yoga programs for veterans. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02524158.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic 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. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of EAS in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS:In 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. RESULTS:After 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. CONCLUSIONS:EAS might serve as a reliable alternative therapeutic tool for patients with chronic low back pain who are contraindicated for oral NSAIDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02468297 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02468297.

Project description:ObjectiveChronic low back pain represents a substantial cost to employers through benefits coverage and days missed due to incapacity. We sought to explore the effectiveness of Naturopathic care on chronic low back pain.MethodsThis study was a randomized clinical trial. We randomized 75 postal employees with low back pain of longer than six weeks duration to receive Naturopathic care (n = 39) or standardized physiotherapy (n = 36) over a period of 12 weeks. The study was conducted in clinics on-site in postal outlets. Participants in the Naturopathic care group received dietary counseling, deep breathing relaxation techniques and acupuncture. The control intervention received education and instruction on physiotherapy exercises using an approved education booklet. We measured low back pain using the Oswestry disability questionnaire as the primary outcome measure, and quality of life using the SF-36 in addition to low back range of motion, weight loss, and Body Mass Index as secondary outcomes.ResultsSixty-nine participants (92%) completed eight weeks or greater of the trial. Participants in the Naturopathic care group reported significantly lower back pain (-6.89, 95% CI. -9.23 to -3.54, p = <0.0001) as measured by the Oswestry questionnaire. Quality of life was also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care in all domains except for vitality. Differences for the aggregate physical component of the SF-36 was 8.47 (95% CI, 5.05 to 11.87, p = <0.0001) and for the aggregate mental component was 7.0 (95% CI, 2.25 to 11.75, p = 0.0045). All secondary outcomes were also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care: spinal flexion (p<0.0001), weight-loss (p = 0.0052) and Body Mass Index (-0.52, 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.08, p = 0.01).ConclusionsNaturopathic care provided significantly greater improvement than physiotherapy advice for patients with chronic low back pain.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN41920953.

Project description:ImportanceTherapeutic aquatic exercise is frequently offered to patients with chronic low back pain, but its long-term benefits are unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the long-term effects of therapeutic aquatic exercise on people with chronic low back pain.Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-month, single-blind randomized clinical trial with a 12-month follow-up period was performed from September 10, 2018, to March 12, 2019, and the trial follow-up was completed March 17, 2020. A total of 113 people with chronic low back pain were included in the experiment.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to either the therapeutic aquatic exercise or the physical therapy modalities group. The therapeutic aquatic exercise group received aquatic exercise, whereas the physical therapy modalities group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and infrared ray thermal therapy. Both interventions were performed for 60 minutes twice a week for 3 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was disability level, which was measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe disability. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, quality of life, sleep quality, recommendation of intervention, and minimal clinically important difference. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed.ResultsOf the 113 participants, 59 were women (52.2%) (mean [SD] age, 31.0 [11.5] years). Participants were randomly allocated into the therapeutic aquatic exercise group (n = 56) or the physical therapy modalities group (n = 57), and 98 patients (86.7%) completed the 12-month follow-up. Compared with the physical therapy modalities group, the therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed greater alleviation of disability, with adjusted mean group differences of -1.77 (95% CI, -3.02 to -0.51; P = .006) after the 3-month intervention, -2.42 (95% CI, -4.13 to -0.70; P = .006) at the 6-month follow-up, and -3.61 (95% CI, -5.63 to -1.58; P = .001) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group × time interaction). At the 12-month follow-up point, improvements were significantly greater in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group vs the physical therapy modalities group in the number of participants who met the minimal clinically important difference in pain (at least a 2-point improvement on the numeric rating scale) (most severe pain, 30 [53.57%] vs 12 [21.05%]; average pain, 14 [25%] vs 11 [19.30%]; and current pain, 22 [39.29%] vs 10 [17.54%]) and disability (at least a 5-point improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) (26 [46.43%] vs 4 [7.02%]). One of the 56 participants (1.8%) in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group vs 2 of the 57 participants (3.5%) in the physical therapy modalities group experienced low back pain and other pains related to the intervention.Conclusions and relevanceThe therapeutic aquatic exercise program led to greater alleviation in patients with chronic low back pain than physical therapy modalities and had a long-term effect up to 12 months. This finding may prompt clinicians to recommend therapeutic aquatic exercise to patients with chronic low back pain as part of treatment to improve their health through active exercise rather than relying on passive relaxation.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1800016396.

Project description:We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of two different forms of dry pulsatile cupping in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) compared to medication on demand only in a three-armed randomized trial.110 cLBP patients were randomized to regular pulsatile cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n =?37), minimal cupping with 8 treatments plus paracetamol on demand (n =?36) or the control group with paracetamol on demand only (n?=?37). Primary outcome was the pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100 mm) after 4 weeks, secondary outcome parameter included VAS pain intensity after 12 weeks, back function as measured with the 'Funktionsfragebogen Hannover Rücken' (FFbH-R) and health related quality of life questionnaire Short form 36 (SF-36) after 4 and 12 weeks.The mean baseline-adjusted VAS after 4 weeks was 34.9 mm (95% CI: 28.7; 41.2) for pulsatile cupping, 40.4 (34.2; 46.7) for minimal cupping and 56.1 (49.8; 62.4) for control group, resulting in statistically significant differences between pulsatile cupping vs. control (21.2 (12.2; 30.1); p <?0.001) and minimal cupping vs. control (15.7 (6.9; 24.4); p =?0.001). After 12 weeks, mean adjusted VAS difference between pulsatile cupping vs. control was 15.1 ((3.1; 27.1); p =?0.014), and between minimal cupping vs. control 11.5 ((-?0.44; 23.4); p =?0.059). Differences of VAS between pulsatile cupping and minimal cupping showed no significant differences after 4 or 12 weeks. Pulsatile cupping was also better (-?5.8 (-?11.5;-0.1); p =?0.045) compared to control for back function after 4 weeks, but not after 12 weeks (-?5.4 (-?11.7;0.8); p =?0.088), pulsatile cupping also showed better improvements on SF-36 physical component scale compared to control at 4 and 12 weeks (-?5.6 (-?9.3;-2.0); p =?0.003; -?6.1 (-?9.9;-2.4); p =?0.002). For back function and quality of life minimal cupping group was not statistically different to control after 4 and 12 weeks. Paracetamol intake did not differ between the groups (cupping vs. control (7.3 (-?0.4;15.0); p =?0.063); minimal cupping vs. control (6.3 (-?2.0;14.5); p =?0.133).Both forms of cupping were effective in cLBP without showing significant differences in direct comparison after four weeks, only pulsatile cupping showed effects compared to control after 12 weeks.The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02090686 ).