Comparison of diclofenac with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo in the treatment of acute low back pain and sciatica: multi-center randomized controlled trial.

IF 3.6 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kevin K C Hung, Rex P K Lam, Herman K H Lee, Yu Fai Choi, Justin Tenney, Zhong Zuo, Marc K C Chong, Theresa S I Hui, Tak Kan Wong, Tsz Ying Yiu, Suet Yi Chan, Catherine P Y Mok, Ling Yan Leung, Wai Kit Mak, David T F Sun, Chi Hung Cheng, Colin A Graham
{"title":"Comparison of diclofenac with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo in the treatment of acute low back pain and sciatica: multi-center randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Kevin K C Hung, Rex P K Lam, Herman K H Lee, Yu Fai Choi, Justin Tenney, Zhong Zuo, Marc K C Chong, Theresa S I Hui, Tak Kan Wong, Tsz Ying Yiu, Suet Yi Chan, Catherine P Y Mok, Ling Yan Leung, Wai Kit Mak, David T F Sun, Chi Hung Cheng, Colin A Graham","doi":"10.1093/postmj/qgae052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has posed numerous health and socioeconomic challenges. This study compared whether nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in combination with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo would be the best treatment regime to improve the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores at 1 week.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial including adult patients with acute LBP and sciatica in three emergency departments in Hong Kong. Patients were randomized to the receive tramadol 50 mg, tizanidine 2 mg, or placebo every 6 hours for 2 weeks in a 1:1:1 ratio. The RMDQ and other secondary outcomes were measured at baseline, Day 2, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Crude and adjusted mean differences in the changes of RMDQ and NRS scores from baseline to Day 7 between tizanidine/tramadol and placebo were determined with 95% confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and ninety-one patients were analyzed with the mean age of 47.4 years and 57.7% were male. The primary outcome of mean difference in RMDQs on Day 7 (compared with baseline) was non-significant for tizanidine compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.56, 95% CI -2.48 to 1.37) and tramadol compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.85, 95% CI -2.80 to 1.10). Only 23.7% were fully compliant to the treatment allocated. Complier Average Causal Effect analysis also showed no difference in the primary outcome for the tizanidine and tramadol versus placebo.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients with acute LBP and sciatica presenting to the ED, adding tramadol or tizanidine to diclofenac did not improve functional recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":20374,"journal":{"name":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae052","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has posed numerous health and socioeconomic challenges. This study compared whether nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in combination with tramadol, tizanidine or placebo would be the best treatment regime to improve the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores at 1 week.

Methods: This was a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial including adult patients with acute LBP and sciatica in three emergency departments in Hong Kong. Patients were randomized to the receive tramadol 50 mg, tizanidine 2 mg, or placebo every 6 hours for 2 weeks in a 1:1:1 ratio. The RMDQ and other secondary outcomes were measured at baseline, Day 2, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Crude and adjusted mean differences in the changes of RMDQ and NRS scores from baseline to Day 7 between tizanidine/tramadol and placebo were determined with 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Two hundred and ninety-one patients were analyzed with the mean age of 47.4 years and 57.7% were male. The primary outcome of mean difference in RMDQs on Day 7 (compared with baseline) was non-significant for tizanidine compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.56, 95% CI -2.48 to 1.37) and tramadol compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.85, 95% CI -2.80 to 1.10). Only 23.7% were fully compliant to the treatment allocated. Complier Average Causal Effect analysis also showed no difference in the primary outcome for the tizanidine and tramadol versus placebo.

Conclusion: Among patients with acute LBP and sciatica presenting to the ED, adding tramadol or tizanidine to diclofenac did not improve functional recovery.

双氯芬酸与曲马多、替扎尼丁或安慰剂治疗急性腰痛和坐骨神经痛的比较:多中心随机对照试验。
背景:腰背痛(LBP)是导致全球残疾的主要原因之一,给健康和社会经济带来了诸多挑战。本研究比较了非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)与曲马多、替扎尼丁或安慰剂联合使用是否是改善罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷(RMDQ)1周评分的最佳治疗方案:这是一项多中心、双盲、随机和安慰剂对照试验,包括香港三个急诊科的急性腰痛和坐骨神经痛成年患者。患者按 1:1:1 的比例随机接受曲马多 50 毫克、替扎尼丁 2 毫克或安慰剂治疗,每 6 小时一次,持续 2 周。在基线、第 2 天、第 7 天、第 14 天、第 21 天和第 28 天测量 RMDQ 和其他次要结果。数据按意向治疗进行分析。确定了替扎尼定/曲马多与安慰剂之间从基线到第7天的RMDQ和NRS评分变化的粗平均差和调整后平均差,以及95%的置信区间:共分析了291名患者,平均年龄为47.4岁,57.7%为男性。第 7 天 RMDQs 平均差异(与基线相比)这一主要结果显示,替扎尼定与安慰剂相比(调整后平均差异-0.56,95% CI -2.48-1.37),曲马多与安慰剂相比(调整后平均差异-0.85,95% CI -2.80-1.10),差异不显著。只有 23.7% 的患者完全遵从所分配的治疗方案。比较者平均因果效应分析也显示,替扎尼定和曲马多与安慰剂相比,在主要结果上没有差异:结论:在急诊室就诊的急性腰痛和坐骨神经痛患者中,在双氯芬酸基础上添加曲马多或替扎尼定并不能改善功能恢复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Postgraduate Medical Journal
Postgraduate Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.00%
发文量
131
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Postgraduate Medical Journal is a peer reviewed journal published on behalf of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. The journal aims to support junior doctors and their teachers and contribute to the continuing professional development of all doctors by publishing papers on a wide range of topics relevant to the practicing clinician and teacher. Papers published in PMJ include those that focus on core competencies; that describe current practice and new developments in all branches of medicine; that describe relevance and impact of translational research on clinical practice; that provide background relevant to examinations; and papers on medical education and medical education research. PMJ supports CPD by providing the opportunity for doctors to publish many types of articles including original clinical research; reviews; quality improvement reports; editorials, and correspondence on clinical matters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信