Dataset Information

Sex-Specific Pharmacotherapy for Back Pain: A Proof-of-Concept Randomized Trial.

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

ACCESS DATA

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.

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).

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:BACKGROUND:An observed statistically significant difference between two interventions does not necessarily imply that this difference is clinically important for patients and clinicians. We aimed to assess if treatment effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for low back pain (LBP) are statistically significant and clinically relevant, and if RCTs were powered to achieve clinically relevant differences on continuous outcomes. METHODS:We searched for all RCTs included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews focusing on the efficacy of rehabilitation interventions for LBP and published until April 2017. RCTs having sample size calculation and a planned minimal important difference were considered. In the primary analysis, we calculated the proportion of RCTs classified as "statistically significant and clinically relevant", "statistically significant but not clinically relevant", "not statistically significant but clinically relevant", and "not statistically significant and not clinically relevant". Then, we investigated how many times the mismatch between statistical significance and clinical relevance was due to inadequate power. RESULTS:From 20 eligible SRs including 101 RCTs, we identified 42 RCTs encompassing 81 intervention comparisons. Overall, 60% (25 RCTs) were statistically significant while only 36% (15 RCTs) were both statistically and clinically significant. Most trials (38%) did not discuss the clinical relevance of treatment effects when results did not reached statistical significance. Among trials with non-statistically significant findings, 60% did not reach the planned sample size, therefore being at risk to not detect an effect that is actually there (type II error). CONCLUSION:Only a minority of positive RCT findings was both statistically significant and clinically relevant. Scarce diligence or frank omissions of important tactic elements of RCTs, such as clinical relevance, and power, decrease the reliability of study findings to current practice.