{"title":"顺势疗法凝胶治疗急性腰痛的有效性和安全性:一项多中心、随机、双盲对照临床试验","authors":"C Stam , MS Bonnet , RA van Haselen","doi":"10.1054/homp.1999.0460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Acute low back pain is a very common condition in Western industrialised countries. In most cases analgesics or topical medications are prescribed at first encounter with the general practitioner (GP).</p><p>The aim of this study was to investigate whether the homeopathic gel Spiroflor SRL® gel (SRL) is equally effective and better tolerated than Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC) in patients with acute low back pain.</p><p>A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the practices of 19 GPs in the districts of Bristol and Manchester, UK. One hundred and sixty-one subjects suffering from acute low back pain were treated for one week either with SRL or with CCC. Pain was scored on a 100<!--> <!-->mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Main efficacy parameter VAS reduction was compared between treatments. Evaluation of safety was primarily based on the number of subjects with adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to an AE and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).</p><p>The mean difference between the VAS reduction in the SRL group and the CCC group adjusted for VAS at baseline and age was −0.6<!--> <!-->mm (90%CI=−6.5–5.3<!--> <!-->mm). Fewer subjects in the SRL group (11%) experienced an AE than in the CCC group (26%). The same applies to the number of subjects with an ADR (3/81=4% <em>vs</em> 18/74=24%) and the number of subjects withdrawn due to an ADR (0/81=0% <em>vs</em> 8/74=11%).</p><p>In conclusion, SRL and CCC are equally effective in the treatment of acute low back pain, however, SRL has a better safety profile. Spiroflor SRL® gel is preferable to Capsicum-based products for the topical treatment of low back pain, because of the lower risk of adverse effects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100201,"journal":{"name":"British Homoeopathic Journal","volume":"90 1","pages":"Pages 21-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1054/homp.1999.0460","citationCount":"40","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind comparative clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"C Stam , MS Bonnet , RA van Haselen\",\"doi\":\"10.1054/homp.1999.0460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Acute low back pain is a very common condition in Western industrialised countries. In most cases analgesics or topical medications are prescribed at first encounter with the general practitioner (GP).</p><p>The aim of this study was to investigate whether the homeopathic gel Spiroflor SRL® gel (SRL) is equally effective and better tolerated than Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC) in patients with acute low back pain.</p><p>A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the practices of 19 GPs in the districts of Bristol and Manchester, UK. One hundred and sixty-one subjects suffering from acute low back pain were treated for one week either with SRL or with CCC. Pain was scored on a 100<!--> <!-->mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Main efficacy parameter VAS reduction was compared between treatments. Evaluation of safety was primarily based on the number of subjects with adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to an AE and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).</p><p>The mean difference between the VAS reduction in the SRL group and the CCC group adjusted for VAS at baseline and age was −0.6<!--> <!-->mm (90%CI=−6.5–5.3<!--> <!-->mm). Fewer subjects in the SRL group (11%) experienced an AE than in the CCC group (26%). The same applies to the number of subjects with an ADR (3/81=4% <em>vs</em> 18/74=24%) and the number of subjects withdrawn due to an ADR (0/81=0% <em>vs</em> 8/74=11%).</p><p>In conclusion, SRL and CCC are equally effective in the treatment of acute low back pain, however, SRL has a better safety profile. Spiroflor SRL® gel is preferable to Capsicum-based products for the topical treatment of low back pain, because of the lower risk of adverse effects.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Homoeopathic Journal\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 21-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1054/homp.1999.0460\",\"citationCount\":\"40\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Homoeopathic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491699904605\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Homoeopathic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491699904605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40
摘要
在西方工业化国家,急性腰痛是一种非常常见的疾病。在大多数情况下,止痛药或局部药物是在第一次遇到全科医生(GP)时开的。本研究的目的是探讨顺势疗法凝胶Spiroflor SRL®凝胶(SRL)是否与Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC)在急性腰痛患者中的疗效相同且耐受性更好。在英国布里斯托尔和曼彻斯特地区的19名全科医生的实践中进行了一项多中心、随机、双盲、对照临床试验。161名急性腰痛患者分别用SRL或CCC治疗一周。疼痛以100 mm视觉模拟评分(VAS)进行评分。比较两组间主要疗效指标VAS降低情况。安全性评估主要基于受试者不良事件(AE)、AE引起的停药和药物不良反应(adr)的数量。SRL组和CCC组在基线和年龄时VAS降低的平均差异为- 0.6 mm (90%CI= - 6.5-5.3 mm)。SRL组(11%)发生AE的受试者少于CCC组(26%)。发生ADR的受试者数量(3/81=4% vs 18/74=24%)和因ADR退出的受试者数量(0/81=0% vs 8/74=11%)也是如此。综上所述,SRL和CCC在治疗急性腰痛方面同样有效,但SRL的安全性更高。由于不良反应的风险较低,Spiroflor SRL®凝胶比基于辣椒的产品更适合局部治疗腰痛。
The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind comparative clinical trial
Acute low back pain is a very common condition in Western industrialised countries. In most cases analgesics or topical medications are prescribed at first encounter with the general practitioner (GP).
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the homeopathic gel Spiroflor SRL® gel (SRL) is equally effective and better tolerated than Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC) in patients with acute low back pain.
A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the practices of 19 GPs in the districts of Bristol and Manchester, UK. One hundred and sixty-one subjects suffering from acute low back pain were treated for one week either with SRL or with CCC. Pain was scored on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Main efficacy parameter VAS reduction was compared between treatments. Evaluation of safety was primarily based on the number of subjects with adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to an AE and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
The mean difference between the VAS reduction in the SRL group and the CCC group adjusted for VAS at baseline and age was −0.6 mm (90%CI=−6.5–5.3 mm). Fewer subjects in the SRL group (11%) experienced an AE than in the CCC group (26%). The same applies to the number of subjects with an ADR (3/81=4% vs 18/74=24%) and the number of subjects withdrawn due to an ADR (0/81=0% vs 8/74=11%).
In conclusion, SRL and CCC are equally effective in the treatment of acute low back pain, however, SRL has a better safety profile. Spiroflor SRL® gel is preferable to Capsicum-based products for the topical treatment of low back pain, because of the lower risk of adverse effects.