An open labeled randomized controlled trial of pregabalin versus amitriptyline in chronic low backache
Abstract Background There is no head on comparison of amitriptyline (AMT) and pregabalin (PG) in relieving pain and disability in chronic low backache (CLBA). This randomized controlled trial reports the efficacy and safety of AMT and PG in CLBA. Methods Patients with CLBA, 15–65 years of age withou...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the neurological sciences 2014-07, Vol.342 (1), p.127-132 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 132 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 127 |
container_title | Journal of the neurological sciences |
container_volume | 342 |
creator | Kalita, J Kohat, A.K Misra, U.K Bhoi, S.K |
description | Abstract Background There is no head on comparison of amitriptyline (AMT) and pregabalin (PG) in relieving pain and disability in chronic low backache (CLBA). This randomized controlled trial reports the efficacy and safety of AMT and PG in CLBA. Methods Patients with CLBA, 15–65 years of age without specific cause and significant neurological deficit were included. Severity of pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and disability by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patients were followed up at 6 and 14 weeks and their VAS score, ODI and side effect were noted. Primary outcome was pain relief (> 50% improvement in VAS score) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI (> 20%) and side effects. Results 200 patients with CLBA were randomized to AMT (n = 103) and PG (n = 97) using random numbers. The VAS score and ODI improved significantly following AMT and PG at 6 and 14 weeks compared to baseline. The improvement in pain (57.3% Vs 39.2%; P = 0.01) and disability (65% Vs 49.5%; P = 0.03) however was more in AMT group. The composite side effects were similar in both groups. Conclusion AMT and PG are effective in CLBA but AMT reduced pain and disability significantly compared to PG. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1544007339</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022510X14002792</els_id><sourcerecordid>1544007339</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-36367f753fa0435fd0313da179bffaa72aa334409772ef3eedac23e0f0611a8e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUk2L1TAUDaI4z9Ef4EaydNOaj6ZpEYRh8AsGXKjgLqTpjZNOmtSkneH56015owsX4irh5JxzyTkXoeeU1JTQ9tVUTyHXjNCmJqImhD1AB9rJrhJdxx-iQ0FYJSj5doae5DwRQtqu6x-jM9Z0QnLRHpC9CDguELDXA3gYcdJhjLP7Wa4mhjVFv6NrctrjaPGS4LsetHcB30LKW8Z6duV1WY8FA1xwc51icAb7eIcHbW60uYan6JHVPsOz-_McfX339svlh-rq0_uPlxdXlWkaula85a20UnCrScOFHQmnfNRU9oO1WkumNedNQ3opGVgOMGrDOBBLWkp1B_wcvTz5Lin-2CCvanbZgPc6QNyyoqKoieS8_w9qmSQFEbxQ6YlqUsw5gVVLcrNOR0WJ2ptQkypNqL0JRYQquRfNi3v7bZhh_KP4HX0hvD4RoORx6yCpbBwEA6NLYFY1RvdP-zd_qU3J3xntb-AIeYpbCiVoRVVmiqjP-yrsm0DL95nsGf8FUeau8w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1534475053</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An open labeled randomized controlled trial of pregabalin versus amitriptyline in chronic low backache</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Kalita, J ; Kohat, A.K ; Misra, U.K ; Bhoi, S.K</creator><creatorcontrib>Kalita, J ; Kohat, A.K ; Misra, U.K ; Bhoi, S.K</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background There is no head on comparison of amitriptyline (AMT) and pregabalin (PG) in relieving pain and disability in chronic low backache (CLBA). This randomized controlled trial reports the efficacy and safety of AMT and PG in CLBA. Methods Patients with CLBA, 15–65 years of age without specific cause and significant neurological deficit were included. Severity of pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and disability by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patients were followed up at 6 and 14 weeks and their VAS score, ODI and side effect were noted. Primary outcome was pain relief (> 50% improvement in VAS score) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI (> 20%) and side effects. Results 200 patients with CLBA were randomized to AMT (n = 103) and PG (n = 97) using random numbers. The VAS score and ODI improved significantly following AMT and PG at 6 and 14 weeks compared to baseline. The improvement in pain (57.3% Vs 39.2%; P = 0.01) and disability (65% Vs 49.5%; P = 0.03) however was more in AMT group. The composite side effects were similar in both groups. Conclusion AMT and PG are effective in CLBA but AMT reduced pain and disability significantly compared to PG.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-510X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5883</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24857356</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Amitriptyline ; Amitriptyline - adverse effects ; Amitriptyline - therapeutic use ; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - therapeutic use ; Backache ; Chronic Disease ; Chronic low backache ; Disability ; Disability Evaluation ; Female ; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - adverse effects ; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - analogs & derivatives ; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - therapeutic use ; Humans ; Low Back Pain - drug therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neurology ; Pain Measurement ; Pregabalin ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of the neurological sciences, 2014-07, Vol.342 (1), p.127-132</ispartof><rights>2014</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-36367f753fa0435fd0313da179bffaa72aa334409772ef3eedac23e0f0611a8e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-36367f753fa0435fd0313da179bffaa72aa334409772ef3eedac23e0f0611a8e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6141-3592</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27907,27908,45978</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24857356$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kalita, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohat, A.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misra, U.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhoi, S.K</creatorcontrib><title>An open labeled randomized controlled trial of pregabalin versus amitriptyline in chronic low backache</title><title>Journal of the neurological sciences</title><addtitle>J Neurol Sci</addtitle><description>Abstract Background There is no head on comparison of amitriptyline (AMT) and pregabalin (PG) in relieving pain and disability in chronic low backache (CLBA). This randomized controlled trial reports the efficacy and safety of AMT and PG in CLBA. Methods Patients with CLBA, 15–65 years of age without specific cause and significant neurological deficit were included. Severity of pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and disability by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patients were followed up at 6 and 14 weeks and their VAS score, ODI and side effect were noted. Primary outcome was pain relief (> 50% improvement in VAS score) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI (> 20%) and side effects. Results 200 patients with CLBA were randomized to AMT (n = 103) and PG (n = 97) using random numbers. The VAS score and ODI improved significantly following AMT and PG at 6 and 14 weeks compared to baseline. The improvement in pain (57.3% Vs 39.2%; P = 0.01) and disability (65% Vs 49.5%; P = 0.03) however was more in AMT group. The composite side effects were similar in both groups. Conclusion AMT and PG are effective in CLBA but AMT reduced pain and disability significantly compared to PG.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Amitriptyline</subject><subject>Amitriptyline - adverse effects</subject><subject>Amitriptyline - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Backache</subject><subject>Chronic Disease</subject><subject>Chronic low backache</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Disability Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - adverse effects</subject><subject>gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Pregabalin</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0022-510X</issn><issn>1878-5883</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUk2L1TAUDaI4z9Ef4EaydNOaj6ZpEYRh8AsGXKjgLqTpjZNOmtSkneH56015owsX4irh5JxzyTkXoeeU1JTQ9tVUTyHXjNCmJqImhD1AB9rJrhJdxx-iQ0FYJSj5doae5DwRQtqu6x-jM9Z0QnLRHpC9CDguELDXA3gYcdJhjLP7Wa4mhjVFv6NrctrjaPGS4LsetHcB30LKW8Z6duV1WY8FA1xwc51icAb7eIcHbW60uYan6JHVPsOz-_McfX339svlh-rq0_uPlxdXlWkaula85a20UnCrScOFHQmnfNRU9oO1WkumNedNQ3opGVgOMGrDOBBLWkp1B_wcvTz5Lin-2CCvanbZgPc6QNyyoqKoieS8_w9qmSQFEbxQ6YlqUsw5gVVLcrNOR0WJ2ptQkypNqL0JRYQquRfNi3v7bZhh_KP4HX0hvD4RoORx6yCpbBwEA6NLYFY1RvdP-zd_qU3J3xntb-AIeYpbCiVoRVVmiqjP-yrsm0DL95nsGf8FUeau8w</recordid><startdate>20140715</startdate><enddate>20140715</enddate><creator>Kalita, J</creator><creator>Kohat, A.K</creator><creator>Misra, U.K</creator><creator>Bhoi, S.K</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6141-3592</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20140715</creationdate><title>An open labeled randomized controlled trial of pregabalin versus amitriptyline in chronic low backache</title><author>Kalita, J ; Kohat, A.K ; Misra, U.K ; Bhoi, S.K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-36367f753fa0435fd0313da179bffaa72aa334409772ef3eedac23e0f0611a8e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Amitriptyline</topic><topic>Amitriptyline - adverse effects</topic><topic>Amitriptyline - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Backache</topic><topic>Chronic Disease</topic><topic>Chronic low backache</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Disability Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - adverse effects</topic><topic>gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Pregabalin</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kalita, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohat, A.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misra, U.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhoi, S.K</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of the neurological sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kalita, J</au><au>Kohat, A.K</au><au>Misra, U.K</au><au>Bhoi, S.K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An open labeled randomized controlled trial of pregabalin versus amitriptyline in chronic low backache</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the neurological sciences</jtitle><addtitle>J Neurol Sci</addtitle><date>2014-07-15</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>342</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>127</spage><epage>132</epage><pages>127-132</pages><issn>0022-510X</issn><eissn>1878-5883</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background There is no head on comparison of amitriptyline (AMT) and pregabalin (PG) in relieving pain and disability in chronic low backache (CLBA). This randomized controlled trial reports the efficacy and safety of AMT and PG in CLBA. Methods Patients with CLBA, 15–65 years of age without specific cause and significant neurological deficit were included. Severity of pain was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and disability by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patients were followed up at 6 and 14 weeks and their VAS score, ODI and side effect were noted. Primary outcome was pain relief (> 50% improvement in VAS score) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI (> 20%) and side effects. Results 200 patients with CLBA were randomized to AMT (n = 103) and PG (n = 97) using random numbers. The VAS score and ODI improved significantly following AMT and PG at 6 and 14 weeks compared to baseline. The improvement in pain (57.3% Vs 39.2%; P = 0.01) and disability (65% Vs 49.5%; P = 0.03) however was more in AMT group. The composite side effects were similar in both groups. Conclusion AMT and PG are effective in CLBA but AMT reduced pain and disability significantly compared to PG.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>24857356</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.002</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6141-3592</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-510X |
ispartof | Journal of the neurological sciences, 2014-07, Vol.342 (1), p.127-132 |
issn | 0022-510X 1878-5883 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1544007339 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Amitriptyline Amitriptyline - adverse effects Amitriptyline - therapeutic use Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - therapeutic use Backache Chronic Disease Chronic low backache Disability Disability Evaluation Female gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - adverse effects gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - analogs & derivatives gamma-Aminobutyric Acid - therapeutic use Humans Low Back Pain - drug therapy Male Middle Aged Neurology Pain Measurement Pregabalin Treatment Outcome Young Adult |
title | An open labeled randomized controlled trial of pregabalin versus amitriptyline in chronic low backache |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T04%3A23%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20open%20labeled%20randomized%20controlled%20trial%20of%20pregabalin%20versus%20amitriptyline%20in%20chronic%20low%20backache&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20neurological%20sciences&rft.au=Kalita,%20J&rft.date=2014-07-15&rft.volume=342&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=127&rft.epage=132&rft.pages=127-132&rft.issn=0022-510X&rft.eissn=1878-5883&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1544007339%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1534475053&rft_id=info:pmid/24857356&rft_els_id=S0022510X14002792&rfr_iscdi=true |