单克隆抗体镇痛慢性腰背痛:疗效和安全性的系统回顾和荟萃分析

Q3 Multidisciplinary
Nobel Budiputra, C. L. Budiputri, M. Muljono
{"title":"单克隆抗体镇痛慢性腰背痛:疗效和安全性的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Nobel Budiputra, C. L. Budiputri, M. Muljono","doi":"10.17816/acen.1027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) emerged as a possible option in addressing the partial response to current treatment modalities in chronic low back pain (CLBP). \nObjective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mAb for CLBP. \nMaterials and Methods. Randomized controlled trials on adult patients with CLBP who received mAb-therapy compared to those who did not as a control group. The result was the changes in Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Numeric Rating Score and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) indicating improved pain, disability, and the risk of adverse events. Meta-analysis, risk of bias, and confidence in the evidence for each analysis were assessed. We aimed at reviewing current treatment methods for degenerative lumbosacral spinal stenosis with an emphasis on surgical treatment methods. \nResults. Six studies were included, with a total of 3851 participants. mAb significantly reduce LBPI and RMDQ score (weighted mean difference –1.48; 95% CI –2.63 to –0.33; p = 0.01). Tanezumab and fasinumab were significantly reduced both LBPI (weighted mean difference of –4.11; 95% CI –6.27 to –1.95; p = 0.0002 and weighted mean difference –0.24; 95% CI –0.47 to –0.02; p = 0.04 respectively) and RMDQ scores (weighted mean difference –3.72; 95% –5.48 to –1.97 and weighted mean difference –0.50; 95% –0.73 to –0.26 respectively, both p 0.0001). The mAb have significantly greater odds of any adverse events (OR 1.23; 95% 1.06 to 1.43; p = 0.007) but no greater odds regarding serious adverse events (OR 1.00; 95% 0.69 to 1.46; p = 0.98). \nConclusion. Depending on the types of drugs used, mAb had a favorable outcome and were relatively safe in reducing LBPI and RMDQ scores.","PeriodicalId":36946,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology","volume":" 887","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monoclonal antibodies as analgesia of chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety\",\"authors\":\"Nobel Budiputra, C. L. Budiputri, M. Muljono\",\"doi\":\"10.17816/acen.1027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) emerged as a possible option in addressing the partial response to current treatment modalities in chronic low back pain (CLBP). \\nObjective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mAb for CLBP. \\nMaterials and Methods. Randomized controlled trials on adult patients with CLBP who received mAb-therapy compared to those who did not as a control group. The result was the changes in Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Numeric Rating Score and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) indicating improved pain, disability, and the risk of adverse events. Meta-analysis, risk of bias, and confidence in the evidence for each analysis were assessed. We aimed at reviewing current treatment methods for degenerative lumbosacral spinal stenosis with an emphasis on surgical treatment methods. \\nResults. Six studies were included, with a total of 3851 participants. mAb significantly reduce LBPI and RMDQ score (weighted mean difference –1.48; 95% CI –2.63 to –0.33; p = 0.01). Tanezumab and fasinumab were significantly reduced both LBPI (weighted mean difference of –4.11; 95% CI –6.27 to –1.95; p = 0.0002 and weighted mean difference –0.24; 95% CI –0.47 to –0.02; p = 0.04 respectively) and RMDQ scores (weighted mean difference –3.72; 95% –5.48 to –1.97 and weighted mean difference –0.50; 95% –0.73 to –0.26 respectively, both p 0.0001). The mAb have significantly greater odds of any adverse events (OR 1.23; 95% 1.06 to 1.43; p = 0.007) but no greater odds regarding serious adverse events (OR 1.00; 95% 0.69 to 1.46; p = 0.98). \\nConclusion. Depending on the types of drugs used, mAb had a favorable outcome and were relatively safe in reducing LBPI and RMDQ scores.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology\",\"volume\":\" 887\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17816/acen.1027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Multidisciplinary\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17816/acen.1027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介。单克隆抗体(mAb)是解决慢性腰背痛(CLBP)患者对当前治疗方法部分反应的一种可能选择。目的:评估 mAb 治疗慢性腰背痛的有效性和安全性。材料与方法。对接受 mAb 治疗的慢性腰背痛成年患者进行随机对照试验,并将未接受治疗的患者作为对照组进行比较。结果显示,腰背痛强度(LBPI)数值评定得分和罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷(RMDQ)的变化表明疼痛、残疾和不良事件风险得到了改善。我们对每项分析的 Meta 分析、偏倚风险和证据可信度进行了评估。我们旨在回顾目前治疗退行性腰骶椎管狭窄症的方法,重点是手术治疗方法。结果。6项研究共纳入3851名参与者。 mAb能显著降低LBPI和RMDQ评分(加权平均差-1.48;95% CI -2.63至-0.33;P = 0.01)。他尼珠单抗和法舒单抗可显著降低LBPI(加权平均差分别为-4.11;95% CI -6.27至-1.95;p = 0.0002和加权平均差-0.24;95% CI -0.47至-0.02;p = 0.04)和RMDQ评分(加权平均差分别为-3.72;95% -5.48至-1.97和加权平均差-0.50;95% -0.73至-0.26,均为p 0.0001)。mAb 发生任何不良事件的几率明显更大(OR 1.23;95% 1.06 至 1.43;P = 0.007),但发生严重不良事件的几率并不大(OR 1.00;95% 0.69 至 1.46;P = 0.98)。结论根据所使用药物的类型,mAb在降低LBPI和RMDQ评分方面具有良好的效果和相对的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Monoclonal antibodies as analgesia of chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety
Introduction. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) emerged as a possible option in addressing the partial response to current treatment modalities in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mAb for CLBP. Materials and Methods. Randomized controlled trials on adult patients with CLBP who received mAb-therapy compared to those who did not as a control group. The result was the changes in Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Numeric Rating Score and Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) indicating improved pain, disability, and the risk of adverse events. Meta-analysis, risk of bias, and confidence in the evidence for each analysis were assessed. We aimed at reviewing current treatment methods for degenerative lumbosacral spinal stenosis with an emphasis on surgical treatment methods. Results. Six studies were included, with a total of 3851 participants. mAb significantly reduce LBPI and RMDQ score (weighted mean difference –1.48; 95% CI –2.63 to –0.33; p = 0.01). Tanezumab and fasinumab were significantly reduced both LBPI (weighted mean difference of –4.11; 95% CI –6.27 to –1.95; p = 0.0002 and weighted mean difference –0.24; 95% CI –0.47 to –0.02; p = 0.04 respectively) and RMDQ scores (weighted mean difference –3.72; 95% –5.48 to –1.97 and weighted mean difference –0.50; 95% –0.73 to –0.26 respectively, both p 0.0001). The mAb have significantly greater odds of any adverse events (OR 1.23; 95% 1.06 to 1.43; p = 0.007) but no greater odds regarding serious adverse events (OR 1.00; 95% 0.69 to 1.46; p = 0.98). Conclusion. Depending on the types of drugs used, mAb had a favorable outcome and were relatively safe in reducing LBPI and RMDQ scores.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
×
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