Duloxetine for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hirase T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8140818 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5533563 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5113250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify the efficacy of auricular acupressure on pain and disability for chronic LBP by systematic review.A search of randomized controlled trials was conducted in four English medical electronic databases and three Chinese databases. Two reviewers independently retrieved related studies, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted data with a standardized data form. Meta-analyses were performed using all time-points meta-analysis.A total of 7 trials met the inclusion criteria, of which 4 had the low risk of bias. The findings of this study showed that, for the immediate effect, auricular acupressure had large, significant effects in improving pain within 12 weeks. As for the follow-up effect, the pooled estimates also showed promising effect at 4-week follow-up after 4-week intervention (standardized mean difference = -1.13, 95% CI (-1.70, -0.56), P < 0.001). But, for the disability level, the therapeutic effect was not significant (mean difference = -1.99, 95% CI (-4.93, 0.95), P = 0.18). No serious adverse effects were recorded.The encouraging evidence of this study indicates that it is recommended to provide auricular acupressure to patients with chronic low back pain. However, a more accurate estimate of the effect will require further rigorously designed large-scale RCTs on chronic LBP for improving pain and disability.
| S-EPMC5539928 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search.Study selectionPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients.SynthesisA total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria.ConclusionExercise, oral NSAIDs, and SNRIs (duloxetine) provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain, with exercise being the only intervention that demonstrated sustained benefit after the intervention ended. Future high-quality trials that report responder analyses are required to provide a better understanding of the benefits and harms of interventions for patients with chronic low back pain.
| S-EPMC7822613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.
| S-EPMC1208896 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP).MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement standard. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and websites up to April 30, 2021, and examining reference lists. We selected RCTs that compared ESWT, in unimodal or multimodal therapeutic approaches, with sham ESWT or other active therapies. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The main outcomes were pain intensity and disability status, examined as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool and Jadad score, and GRADE was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Heterogeneity was explored using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.ResultsTen RCTs, including a total of 455 young to middle-aged individuals (29.2-55.8 years), were identified. Compared with control, the ESWT group showed lower pain intensity at month 1 (SMD = -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42), as well as lower disability score at month 1 (SMD = -1.45, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.22) and at month 3 (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.31). No serious shockwave-related adverse events were reported.ConclusionThe use of ESWT in CLBP patients results in significant and quantifiable reductions in pain and disability in the short term. However, further well-conducted RCTs are necessary for building high-quality evidence and promoting the application of ESWT in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8617566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Pain is common in multiple sclerosis (MS). Duloxetine has a potential therapeutic role in treating MS-related pain. METHODS: Thirty-eight MS patients were randomized 1:1 to receive duloxetine (n = 18) or matched placebo (n = 20). The dosing regimen was 30 mg daily for 1 week, then 60 mg daily for 5 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change in worst pain for week 6 relative to baseline recorded on a daily pain diary. RESULTS: Of 38 randomized patients, 14 (78%) patients randomized to duloxetine and 18 (90%) randomized to placebo completed treatment per protocol. These participants had an average age of 55.5 years, 25% were male, and 66% had relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). Baseline characteristics were similar. Discontinuations were due primarily to drug intolerance. Among those who completed treatment, worst pain at 6 weeks was reduced by 29% (±20%) for duloxetine versus 12% (±18%) for placebo (P = .016). Average daily pain at 6 weeks was reduced by 39% (±29%) in the duloxetine group compared to 10% (±18.8%) in the placebo group (P = .002). There were no significant changes (week 6 vs. baseline) or between-group differences for subject global impression, Beck Depression Inventory, 36-item Short Form Health Status Survey (SF-36), or sleep quality score. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer patients could tolerate duloxetine compared to placebo. Among patients who completed 6 weeks of treatment, there were significant reductions in average and worst daily pain scores with duloxetine compared to placebo. This study suggests that duloxetine has a direct pain-relieving effect in MS.
| S-EPMC4399771 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and objectiveChronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is very common, with a lifetime prevalence between 51% and 80%. In majority, it is nonspecific in nature and multifactorial in etiology. Pregabalin (PG) and Gabapentin (GB) are gabapentinoids that have demonstrated benefit in neuropathic pain conditions. Despite no clear rationale, they are increasingly used for nonspecific CLBP. They necessitate prolonged use and are associated with adverse effects and increased cost. Recent guidelines from the National Health Service (NHS), England, expressed concerns on their off-label use, in addition to the risk of misuse. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of gabapentinoids in adult CLBP patients.MethodsElectronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched from their inception until December 20th, 2016. We included randomized control trials reporting the use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of CLBP of >3 months duration, in adult patients. Study selection and data extraction was performed independently by paired reviewers. Outcomes were guided by Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials guidelines, with pain relief and safety as the primary outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 in percentage representing the percentage variability in effect estimates that could be explained by heterogeneity. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence.ResultsOut of 1,385 citations, eight studies were included. Based on the interventions and comparators, studies were analyzed in 3 different groups. GB compared with placebo (3 studies, n = 185) showed minimal improvement of pain (MD = 0.22 units, 95% CI [-0.5 to 0.07] I2 = 0%; GRADE: very low). Three studies compared PG with other types of analgesic medication (n = 332) and showed greater improvement in the other analgesic group (MD = 0.42 units, 95% CI [0.20 to 0.64] I2 = 0; GRADE: very low). Studies using PG as an adjuvant (n = 423) were not pooled due to heterogeneity, but the largest of them showed no benefit of adding PG to tapentadol. There were no deaths or hospitalizations reported. Compared with placebo, the following adverse events were more commonly reported with GB: dizziness-(RR = 1.99, 95% CI [1.17 to 3.37], I2 = 49); fatigue (RR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.12 to 3.05], I2 = 0); difficulties with mentation (RR = 3.34, 95% CI [1.54 to 7.25], I2 = 0); and visual disturbances (RR = 5.72, 95% CI [1.94 to 16.91], I2 = 0). The number needed to harm with 95% CI for dizziness, fatigue, difficulties with mentation, and visual disturbances were 7 (4 to 30), 8 (4 to 44), 6 (4 to 15), and 6 (4 to 13) respectively. The GRADE evidence quality was noted to be very low for dizziness and fatigue, low for difficulties with mentation, and moderate for visual disturbances. Functional and emotional improvements were reported by few studies and showed no significant improvements.Conclusions and relevanceExisting evidence on the use of gabapentinoids in CLBP is limited and demonstrates significant risk of adverse effects without any demonstrated benefit. Given the lack of efficacy, risks, and costs associated, the use of gabapentinoids for CLBP merits caution. There is need for large high-quality trials to more definitively inform this issue.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016034040.
| S-EPMC5557428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effectiveness of injection therapy for low-back pain is still debatable. We compared the efficacy of local injections of the homeopathic preparation Disci/Rhus toxicodendron compositum (verum) with placebo injections and with no treatment in patients with chronic low back pain.In a randomized controlled partly double blind multicenter trial patients with chronic low back pain from 9 German outpatient clinics were enrolled and randomly allocated in a 1?1?1 ratio to receive subcutaneous injections (verum or placebo) into painful sites on the lower back over 12 treatment sessions within eight weeks, or no treatment (rescue pain medication with paracetamol or NSAIDs). All trial personnel and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the average pain intensity over the last seven days on a visual analogue scale (0-100 mm, 0?=?no pain, 100?=?worst imaginable pain) after eight weeks. Follow-up was 26 weeks. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Between August 2007 and June 2008, 150 patients were randomly allocated to three groups (51 verum, 48 placebo and 51 no treatment). The mean baseline-adjusted low back pain intensity at week eight was: verum group 37.0 mm (97.5% CI 25.3;48.8), no treatment group 53.0 (41.8;64.2), and placebo group 41.8 (30.1;53.6). The verum was significantly superior to no treatment (P?=?0.001), but not to placebo (P?=?0.350). No significant side effects were reported.The homeopathic preparation was not superior to placebo. Compared to no treatment injections resulted in significant and clinical relevant chronic back pain relief.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567736.
| S-EPMC3210748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDuloxetine is efficacious for chronic low back pain (CLBP). This post hoc analysis of a Japanese randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01855919) assessed whether patients with CLBP with early pain reduction or treatment-related adverse events of special interest (TR-AESIs; nausea, somnolence, constipation) have enhanced responses to duloxetine.Patients and methodsPatients (N = 456) with CLBP for ≥6 months and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score of ≥4 were randomized (1:1) to duloxetine 60 mg/day or placebo for 14 weeks. Primary outcome was change from baseline in BPI average pain severity score (pain reduction). Subgroup analyses included early pain reduction (≥30%, 10%-30%, or <10% at Week 4) and early TR-AESIs (with or without TR-AESIs by Week 2). Measures included changes from baseline in BPI average pain severity score and BPI Interference scores (quality of life; QOL), and response rate (≥30% or ≥50% pain reduction at Week 14).ResultsPatients with ≥30% early pain reduction (n = 108) or early TR-AESIs (n = 50) had significantly greater improvements in pain and QOL than placebo-treated patients (n = 226), whereas patients with 10%-30% (n = 63) or <10% (n = 48) pain reduction did not; patients without early TR-AESIs (n = 180) had significant improvements in pain at Week 14. Response rates (≥30%/≥50% pain reduction) were 94.4%/82.4%, 66.7%/49.2%, and 25.0%/18.8% for patients with ≥30%, 10%-30%, and <10% early pain reduction, respectively, 74.0%/64.0% for patients with early TR-AESIs, 67.2%/54.4% for patients without early TR-AESIs, and 52.2%/39.4% for placebo.ConclusionEarly pain reduction or TR-AESIs may predict which CLBP patients are most likely to respond to duloxetine with improvements in pain and QOL.
| S-EPMC5590685 | biostudies-literature