0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Relationship Between Pain Alleviation and Disease-specific Health-related Quality of Life Measures in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Receiving Duloxetine: Exploratory Post Hoc Analysis of a Japanese Phase 3 Randomized Study

      research-article
      , MD, PhD , , RPH, , MPH, , MSc, , PhD, , MD, PhD
      JAAOS Global Research & Reviews
      Wolters Kluwer

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Background:

          This post hoc analysis of a Japanese phase 3 randomized study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01855919) investigated relationships between pain severity (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) and disease-specific health-related quality of life (assessed by the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ-24]) in duloxetine-treated patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

          Methods:

          Patients with CLBP duration >6 months and BPI average score ≥4 received duloxetine 60 mg/d (N = 230) or placebo (N = 226) for 14 weeks. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated for (1) BPI change from baseline and RDQ item change from baseline and (2) BPI change from baseline and the RDQ item baseline score in duloxetine-treated patients.

          Results:

          Duloxetine treatment significantly improved the RDQ-24 total score compared with placebo; the greatest improvements were observed for RDQ02, RDQ17, and RDQ13. The strongest correlations between BPI change from baseline and RDQ item change from baseline were for RDQ13, RDQ23, and RDQ10. The correlation coefficients for the correlations between BPI change from baseline and the RDQ item baseline score were generally small.

          Discussion:

          This post hoc analysis suggested that improvement in pain severity was associated with improvement in the RDQ-24 total score and in some individual RDQ items in duloxetine-treated patients with CLBP. Furthermore, positive responses to duloxetine in terms of the RDQ13, RDQ23, and RDQ10 items may correlate with better pain responses.

          Clinical Trial Registry:

          The study described in this manuscript was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01855919).

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline.

          Medications are the most frequently prescribed therapy for low back pain. A challenge in choosing pharmacologic therapy is that each class of medication is associated with a unique balance of risks and benefits. To assess benefits and harms of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antidepressants, benzodiazepines, antiepileptic drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, opioid analgesics, tramadol, and systemic corticosteroids for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain). English-language studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE (through November 2006) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2006, Issue 4). These electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching reference lists and additional citations suggested by experts. Systematic reviews and randomized trials of dual therapy or monotherapy with 1 or more of the preceding medications for acute or chronic low back pain that reported pain outcomes, back-specific function, general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction. We abstracted information about study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and adverse events. To grade methodological quality, we used the Oxman criteria for systematic reviews and the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria for individual trials. We found good evidence that NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain) are effective for pain relief. The magnitude of benefit was moderate (effect size of 0.5 to 0.8, improvement of 10 to 20 points on a 100-point visual analogue pain scale, or relative risk of 1.25 to 2.00 for the proportion of patients experiencing clinically significant pain relief), except in the case of tricyclic antidepressants (for which the benefit was small to moderate). We also found fair evidence that opioids, tramadol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin (for radiculopathy) are effective for pain relief. We found good evidence that systemic corticosteroids are ineffective. Adverse events, such as sedation, varied by medication, although reliable data on serious and long-term harms are sparse. Most trials were short term (< or =4 weeks). Few data address efficacy of dual-medication therapy compared with monotherapy, or beneficial effects on functional outcomes. Our primary source of data was systematic reviews. We included non-English-language trials only if they were included in English-language systematic reviews. Medications with good evidence of short-term effectiveness for low back pain are NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain). Evidence is insufficient to identify one medication as offering a clear overall net advantage because of complex tradeoffs between benefits and harms. Individual patients are likely to differ in how they weigh potential benefits, harms, and costs of various medications.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain.

            Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Central pain mechanisms in chronic pain states--maybe it is all in their head.

              Mechanisms underlying chronic pain differ from those underlying acute pain. In chronic pain states, central nervous system (CNS) factors appear to play particularly prominent roles. In the absence of anatomical causes of persistent pain, medical sub-specialities have historically applied wide-ranging labels (e.g., fibromyalgia (FM), irritable bowel syndrome, interstitial cystitis and somatisation) for what now is emerging as a single common set of CNS processes. The hallmark of these 'centrally driven' pain conditions is a diffuse hyperalgesic state identifiable using experimental sensory testing, and corroborated by functional neuroimaging. The characteristic symptoms of these central pain conditions include multifocal pain, fatigue, insomnia, memory difficulties and a higher rate of co-morbid mood disorders. In contrast to acute and peripheral pain states that are responsive to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, central pain conditions respond best to CNS neuromodulating agents, such as serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and anticonvulsants. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
                J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
                JAAOS Glob Res Rev
                JAAOS Glob Res Rev
                JAAOS Glob Res Rev
                JAAOS Global Research & Reviews
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                2474-7661
                November 2019
                27 November 2019
                : 3
                : 11
                : e10.5435
                Affiliations
                From the Medicines Development Unit Japan, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Akasaka, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan (Dr. Enomoto); the Medicines Development Unit Japan, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Chuo-Ku, Kobe, Japan (Ms. Sasaki, Mr. Fujikoshi, and Ms. Yoshikawa); the Medical Affairs Department, Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Kita-ku, Osaka, Japan (Dr. Tsuji); and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan (Dr. Takeshita).
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Dr. Enomoto: enomoto_hiroyuki@ 123456lilly.com
                Article
                JAAOSGlobal-D-18-00086 00010
                10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-18-00086
                6903819
                9abee9ea-1ca3-44ad-9f8d-458337bd40c3
                Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article