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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the neurological sciences 2014-07, Vol.342 (1), p.127-132
Hauptverfasser: Kalita, J, Kohat, A.K, Misra, U.K, Bhoi, S.K
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 (&gt; 50% improvement in VAS score) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI (&gt; 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 &amp; 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 (&gt; 50% improvement in VAS score) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI (&gt; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 (&gt; 50% improvement in VAS score) at 14 weeks and secondary outcome were reduction in ODI (&gt; 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