Sex-Specific Pharmacotherapy for Back Pain: A Proof-of-Concept Randomized Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Preventing transition to chronic back pain (CBP) is a long-sought strategy that could rescue patients from prolonged suffering. Recent rodent and human brain imaging studies suggest involvement of sexually dimorphic, dopaminergic-motivational, mesolimbic circuits in the transition to chronic pain (tCBP), and hint that the combination of carbidopa/levodopa and naproxen (LDP + NPX) may block tCBP. Here we evaluated, in people with recent-onset back pain, whether a 3-month treatment with LDP + NPX is safe, blocks tCBP, and whether its efficacy is sex-dependent.Methods
A total of 72 participants were enrolled and stratified by risk for tCBP using brain-imaging biomarkers. Low-risk participants entered a no-treatment arm. Others were randomized to placebo + naproxen or LDP + NPX for 3 months.Results
Both treatments resulted in more than 50% pain relief for approximately 75% of participants. A strong sex by treatment interaction was observed for daily pain intensity (phone NRS, P = 0.007), replicated on 4-week average pain (Pain/4w, P = 0.00001), and in intent-to-treat analysis (Pain/4w, P = 0.000004). Nucleus accumbens functional connectivity with medial prefrontal cortex, a predefined objective biomarker, showed sex dependence at baseline (P = 0.03) and sex-by-treatment interaction effect 3 months after treatment cessation (P = 0.031). Treatment modified the psychological profile of participants, and disrupted brain modeling-based predicted back pain intensity trajectories. Forty participants were queried 3.3 years from trial start; back pain ratings were similar between end of treatment and at 3.3 years (P = 0.62), indicating persistence of relief for this duration.Conclusions
These results provide the first evidence for preventing transition to chronic back pain using sex-specific pharmacotherapy. These provocative observations require confirmation in a larger study. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01951105.
SUBMITTER: Reckziegel D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586405 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEndocannabinoid dysfunction in animal models of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and accumulating, albeit anecdotal, evidence for efficacy in humans motivated this placebo-controlled double-blind comparison of two oral cannabinoid solutions in 150 participants (age 5-21 years) with ASD.MethodsWe tested (1) BOL-DP-O-01-W, a whole-plant cannabis extract containing cannabidiol and ?9-tetrahydrocannabinol at a 20:1 ratio and (2) BOL-DP-O-01, purified cannabidiol and ?9-tetrahydrocannabinol at the same ratio. Participants (N?=?150) received either placebo or cannabinoids for 12-weeks (testing efficacy) followed by a 4-week washout and predetermined cross-over for another 12 weeks to further assess tolerability. Registered primary efficacy outcome measures were improvement in behavioral problems (differences between whole-plant extract and placebo) on the Home Situation Questionnaire-ASD (HSQ-ASD) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale with disruptive behavior anchor points (CGI-I). Secondary measures were Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) and Autism Parenting Stress Index (APSI).ResultsChanges in Total Scores of HSQ-ASD (primary-outcome) and APSI (secondary-outcome) did not differ among groups. Disruptive behavior on the CGI-I (co-primary outcome) was either much or very much improved in 49% on whole-plant extract (n?=?45) versus 21% on placebo (n?=?47; p?=?0.005). Median SRS Total Score (secondary-outcome) improved by 14.9 on whole-plant extract (n?=?34) versus 3.6 points after placebo (n?=?36); p?=?0.009). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. Common adverse events included somnolence and decreased appetite, reported for 28% and 25% on whole-plant extract, respectively (n?=?95); 23% and 21% on pure-cannabinoids (n?=?93), and 8% and 15% on placebo (n?=?94). Limitations Lack of pharmacokinetic data and a wide range of ages and functional levels among participants warrant caution when interpreting the results.ConclusionsThis interventional study provides evidence that BOL-DP-O-01-W and BOL-DP-O-01, administrated for 3 months, are well tolerated. Evidence for efficacy of these interventions are mixed and insufficient. Further testing of cannabinoids in ASD is recommended. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02956226. Registered 06 November 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02956226.
| S-EPMC7860205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:NEO6860 is a TRPV1 antagonist when activated by capsaicin but not by heat or pH, developed to relieve pain without the adverse events reported with non-modality-selective TRPV1 antagonists. Objective:The primary Objective of this study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of NEO6860 after 1 day oral dosing in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence stage I, II or III osteoarthritis of the knee. Method:This randomized, double-blinded, 3-period crossover, phase II study compared 1 day (2 doses) of NEO6860 (500 mg twice a day), placebo, and naproxen in 54 patients with osteoarthritis knee pain. Primary endpoint was reduction in pain intensity (PI) on Numerical Rating Scale after exercise, using the staircase test, 8 hours after dose. Results:Level of PI, compared with baseline, was numerically lower during NEO6860 and naproxen periods vs placebo at 3 and 24 hours, but not at 8 hours after first dose. A statistically significant effect for naproxen and a trend for NEO6860 were observed at 3 and 24 hours. Least square means' (95% confidence interval) change in PI at 24 hours was -0.67 (-1.09 to -0.26), -0.97 (-1.39 to -0.55), -0.29 (-0.71 to 0.13) for NEO6860, naproxen, and placebo, respectively. NEO6860 exposure was ?1.6 times higher compared with previous phase I. In this study, NEO6860 safety profile was less favorable than naproxen or placebo. Possibly NEO6860-related adverse events included: feel hot, headache, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, hypoaesthesia, and increased blood pressure. Conclusion:In this exploratory study, NEO6860 did not statistically significantly outperform placebo but showed an analgesic trend, without impacting body temperature and heat pain perception. Further studies are warranted to explore the potential of NEO6860 in other pain indications. We intent to optimize the dose and evaluate analgesic synergism with other mechanism.
| S-EPMC6344137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-specific low back pain is a common condition with significant global prevalence and socio-economic impact. Back School programs, which combine exercise and educational interventions, have been used to address back pain. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a Back School-based intervention on non-specific low back pain in adults. Secondary objectives included evaluating the impact of the program on disability, quality of life, and kinesiophobia.MethodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 40 participants with non-specific low back pain, who were divided into two groups. The experimental group underwent an 8-week Back School-based program. The program comprised 14 practical sessions focusing on strengthening and flexibility exercises, along with two theoretical sessions covering anatomy and concepts related to a healthy lifestyle. The control group maintained their usual lifestyle. Assessment instruments included the Visual Analogue Scale, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, Short-Form Health Survey-36, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia.ResultsThe experimental group showed significant improvements in the Visual Analogue Scale, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, physical components of the Short-Form Health Survey-36, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. However, there were no significant improvements in the psychosocial components of the Short-Form Health Survey-36. In contrast, the control group did not show significant results in any of the study variables.ConclusionsThe Back School-based program has positive effects on pain, low back disability, physical components of quality of life, and kinesiophobia in adults with non-specific low back pain. However, it does not appear to improve the participants' psychosocial components of quality of life. Healthcare professionals can consider implementing this program to help reduce the significant socio-economic impact of non-specific low back pain worldwide.Trial registrationNCT05391165 (registered prospectively in ClinicalTrials.gov: 25/05/2022).
| S-EPMC10332072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:We evaluated the selective M1 muscarinic positive allosteric modulator, MK-7622, as adjunctive cognitive enhancing therapy in individuals with Alzheimer's disease. Methods:A randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept trial was performed. Participants with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, being treated with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, were randomized 1:1 to 45 mg of MK-7622 or placebo for 24 weeks. Endpoints included the mean change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog11) at 12 weeks and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory at 24 weeks. Results:Two hundred forty participants were randomized. The trial was stopped for futility after meeting prospectively defined stopping criteria. MK-7622 did not improve cognition at 12 weeks (group difference in ADAS-Cog11: 0.18 [95% confidence interval: -1.0 to 1.3]) or function at 24 weeks (group difference in Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory: 0.06 [95% confidence interval: -2.4 to 2.5]). More participants taking MK-7622 discontinued study medication because of adverse events than those taking placebo (16% vs 6%) and who experienced cholinergically related adverse events (21% vs 8%). Discussion:MK-7622 (45 mg) does not improve cognition or function when used as adjunctive therapy in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.
| S-EPMC6021552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether spironolactone could benefit older people with osteoarthritis (OA), based on a previous study showing that spironolactone improved quality of life.This parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial randomized community-dwelling people ages ≥70 years with symptomatic knee OA to 12 weeks of 25 mg daily oral spironolactone or matching placebo. The primary outcome was between-group difference in change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale scores. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC stiffness and physical function subscores, EuroQol 5-domain (EQ-5D) 3L score, and mechanistic markers. Analysis was by intent to treat, using mixed-model regression, adjusting for baseline values of test variables.A total of 421 people had eligibility assessed, and 86 were randomized. Mean ± SD age was 77 ± 5 years and 53 of 86 (62%) were women. Adherence to study medication was 99%, and all participants completed the 12-week assessment. No significant improvement was seen in the WOMAC pain score (adjusted treatment effect 0.5 points [95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 0.3, 1.3]; P = 0.19). No improvement was seen in WOMAC stiffness score (0.2 points [95% CI -0.6, 1.1]; P = 0.58), WOMAC physical function score (0.0 points [95% CI -0.7, 0.8]; P = 0.98), or EQ-5D 3L score (0.04 points [95% CI -0.04, 0.12]; P = 0.34). Cortisol, matrix metalloproteinase 3, and urinary C-telopeptide of type II collagen were not significantly different between groups. More minor adverse events were noted in the spironolactone group (47 versus 32), but no increase in death or hospitalization was evident.Spironolactone did not improve symptoms, physical function, or health-related quality of life in older people with knee OA.
| S-EPMC4855683 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC1976391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) poses a significant burden of disease worldwide, and identifying safe and effective non-pharmacologic treatment options for LBP is a research priority. The aim of this study was to pilot a clinical trial of a portable pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy device for subjects with mixed duration non-specific LBP.MethodsThis work was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group study conducted at a chiropractic school outpatient clinic. The primary end point was functional capacity measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Analysis was conducted on the intent-to-treat population and as a trend of change in pain scores over time using the Freidman test of repeated measures.ResultsForty-two participants were randomized to receive usual care plus PEMF therapy or usual care plus sham, and 25 completed the study. Significant improvements in ODI scores from baseline to week 6 were reported in the experimental group (χ2 = 14.68, p < 0.001, compared with patients in the sham group, χ2 = 4.00, p = 0.135, n.s.). This difference persisted at week-12 follow-up. Adverse events were rare and mild.ConclusionIt is feasible to conduct a clinical trial of a PEMF therapy device for non-specific LBP. This work shows that the device was safe and provides preliminary evidence of effectiveness in improving function in patients with non-specific LBP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03053375.FundingAerotel Ltd.
| S-EPMC6513933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) refers to a complex condition that involves structural, biomechanical, cognitive, psychological, social, and lifestyle issues. First-line therapies include physical therapy and exercise, as well as psychological follow-up and pain medication.AimThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of a 6-week center-based program using a multi-axis motorized platform (HUBER) connected with force sensors, that allows the patients to execute isometric exercises on the spine flexion-to-extension ratio at 60 and 120°/s, pain, trunk flexibility, and disability.DesignThe design of the study was prospective, active control, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial.SettingThe setting was outpatients physical therapy clinic.PopulationThe population analyzed presented NSCLBP.MethodsSeventy individuals with NSCLBP were randomized into 2 intervention arms (1:1 ratio): 1/standard rehabilitation group (STAND) with physiotherapy, balneotherapy and cycloergometer exercises and 2/HUBER rehabilitation group (HUB) with physiotherapy, balneotherapy and HUBER exercises. Both programs lasted 6 weeks, with 4 sessions of 2 hours each per week.ResultsEach group reported statistically significant improvements on the isokinetic spine strength, flexibility of the trunk, lumbar joint mobility, muscular endurance of the trunk and of the lower limbs, pain score and disability (P<0.05). The spine flexion/extension ratio at 60˚/s improved similarly between groups (-22.23 for HUB, and -13.04 for STAND; P=0.178) with a greater effect size in HUB. Only HUB reported a significant improvement in the spine flexion-to-extension ratio at 120˚/s (from 87.3 to 78.6, P=0.012). HUB reported a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index (-16.83) compared to STAND (-12.11), with a statistically significant effect between groups (P=0.036).ConclusionsExercises performed on the HUBER platform added to physiotherapy and balneotherapy are as effective as a standard rehabilitation program with physiotherapy, balneotherapy and cycloergometer exercises to improve isokinetic spine strength, lumbar joint mobility, flexibility and muscular endurance of the trunk and the lower limbs. In addition, exercising with the HUBER platform result in a greater reduction in disability compared to a standard rehabilitation program (clinicalTrials.gov: NCT05437016).Clinical rehabilitation impactA variety of intervention techniques, including supervised exercise and manual therapy are now used to manage persistent NSCLBP. The added value of the HUBER device on disability suggests that the platform could be beneficial.
| S-EPMC10865107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Disabling anxiety affects a quarter of stroke survivors but access to treatment is poor. We developed a telemedicine model for delivering guided self-help cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety after stroke (TASK-CBT). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of TASK-CBT in a randomized controlled trial workflow that enabled all trial procedures to be carried out remotely. In addition, we explored the feasibility of wrist-worn actigraphy sensor as a way of measuring objective outcomes in this clinical trial. METHODS:We recruited adult community-based stroke patients (n=27) and randomly allocated them to TASK-CBT (n=14) or relaxation therapy (TASK-Relax), an active comparator (n=13). RESULTS:In our sample (mean age 65 [±10]; 56% men; 63% stroke, 37% transient ischemic attacks), remote self-enrolment, electronic signature, intervention delivery, and automated follow-up were feasible. All participants completed all TASK-CBT sessions (14/14). Lower levels of anxiety were observed in TASK-CBT when compared with TASK-Relax at both weeks 6 and 20. Mean actigraphy sensor wearing-time was 33 days (±15). CONCLUSIONS:Our preliminary feasibility data from the current study support a larger definitive clinical trial and the use of wrist-worn actigraphy sensor in anxious stroke survivors. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03439813.
| S-EPMC7382539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe antifungal drug itraconazole exerts in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 in Vero and human Caco-2 cells. Preclinical and clinical studies are required to investigate if itraconazole is effective for the treatment and/or prevention of COVID-19.MethodsDue to the initial absence of preclinical models, the effect of itraconazole was explored in a clinical, proof-of-concept, open-label, single-center study, in which hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care with or without itraconazole. Primary outcome was the cumulative score of the clinical status until day 15 based on the 7-point ordinal scale of the World Health Organization. In parallel, itraconazole was evaluated in a newly established hamster model of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission, as soon as the model was validated.FindingsIn the hamster acute infection model, itraconazole did not reduce viral load in lungs, stools or ileum, despite adequate plasma and lung drug concentrations. In the transmission model, itraconazole failed to prevent viral transmission. The clinical trial was prematurely discontinued after evaluation of the preclinical studies and because an interim analysis showed no signal for a more favorable outcome with itraconazole: mean cumulative score of the clinical status 49 vs 47, ratio of geometric means 1.01 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.19) for itraconazole vs standard of care.InterpretationDespite in vitro activity, itraconazole was not effective in a preclinical COVID-19 hamster model. This prompted the premature termination of the proof-of-concept clinical study.FundingKU Leuven, Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO), Horizon 2020, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC7979145 | biostudies-literature