Low dose naltrexone for the treatment of fibromyalgia: Protocol for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Abstract Background Low dose naltrexone (LDN) is used widely as off-label treatment for pain despite limited evidence for its effectiveness. A few small trials with high risk of bias have investigated the effect of LDN on pain associated with fibromyalgia in women, but larger and more methodologically robust studies are needed. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial is to investigate if 12 weeks of LDN treatment is superior to placebo in reducing the average pain intensity during the last seven days in women with fibromyalgia.Methods A single-center, permuted block randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial will be performed in Denmark. Randomization comprises 100 women aged 18–64 years and diagnosed with fibromyalgia who will be treated with either LDN or placebo for 12 weeks including a four-week titration phase. The primary outcome is change in average pain intensity (during the last seven days) from baseline to 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes are other fibromyalgia-related symptoms, i.e. tenderness, fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, memory problems, depression, anxiety and measures of global assessment, physical function, impact of fibromyalgia, pain distribution, and health-related quality of life. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed, and the number of responders with a more than 15%, 30%, and 50% improvement of pain after 12 weeks will be calculated for the LDN and placebo groups. Exploratory outcomes include measures of pain sensitivity, muscle performance, and biomarkers.Discussion This study will contribute with high-level evidence on the efficacy of low dose naltrexone for the treatment of pain in women with fibromyalgia. Secondary outcomes include both disease-specific and generic components investigating whether LDN influences other symptoms than pain. Explorative outcomes are included to provide greater insight into the mechanism of action of LDN and possibly a better understanding of the underlying pathology in fibromyalgia.Trial registration: EudraCT number 2019-000702-30 (registered on 2019-07-12). ClincalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04270877 (registered on 2020-02-17).

Download Full-text

Low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of fibromyalgia: protocol for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Trials ◽

10.1186/s13063-021-05776-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Karin Due Bruun ◽

Kirstine Amris ◽

Henrik Bjarke Vaegter ◽

Morten Rune Blichfeldt-Eckhardt ◽

Anders Holsgaard-Larsen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pain Intensity ◽

Low Dose ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Muscle Performance ◽

Double Blind ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Average Pain Intensity ◽

Average Pain ◽

Secondary Outcomes ◽

Low Dose Naltrexone

Abstract Background Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) is used widely as an off-label treatment for pain despite limited evidence for its effectiveness. A few small trials with a high risk of bias have investigated the effect of LDN on pain associated with fibromyalgia in women, but larger and more methodologically robust studies are needed. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial is to investigate if 12 weeks of LDN treatment is superior to placebo in reducing the average pain intensity during the last 7 days in women with fibromyalgia. Methods A single-center, permuted block randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial will be performed in Denmark. Randomization comprises 100 women aged 18–64 years diagnosed with fibromyalgia who will be treated with either LDN or placebo for 12 weeks including a 4-week titration phase. The primary outcome is change in average pain intensity (during the last 7 days) from baseline to 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes are other fibromyalgia-related symptoms, i.e., tenderness, fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, memory problems, depression, anxiety and measures of global assessment, physical function, impact of fibromyalgia, pain distribution, and health-related quality of life. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed, and the number of responders with a more than 15%, 30%, and 50% improvement of pain after 12 weeks will be calculated for the LDN and placebo groups. Exploratory outcomes include measures of pain sensitivity, muscle performance, and biomarkers. Discussion This study will contribute with high-level evidence on the efficacy of low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of pain in women with fibromyalgia. Secondary outcomes include both disease-specific and generic components investigating whether LDN influences other symptoms than pain. Explorative outcomes are included to provide greater insight into the mechanism of action of LDN and possibly a better understanding of the underlying pathology in fibromyalgia. Trial registration EudraCT 2019-000702-30. Registered on 12 July 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04270877. Registered on 17 February 2020

Download Full-text

Diclofenac Sodium Gel in Patients with Primary Hand Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.081316 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 36 (9) ◽

pp. 1991-1999 ◽

Cited By ~ 78

Author(s):

ROY D. ALTMAN ◽

RENÉE-LILIANE DREISER ◽

CHESTER L. FISHER ◽

WALTER F. CHASE ◽

DONATUS S. DREHER ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Disease Activity ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Diclofenac Sodium ◽

Global Rating ◽

Hand Osteoarthritis ◽

Dominant Hand ◽

Double Blind ◽

Secondary Outcomes

Objective.To measure the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium gel in patients with primary hand osteoarthritis (OA).Methods.In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, men and women aged ≥ 40 years diagnosed with primary OA in the dominant hand were randomly assigned to self-apply topical 1% diclofenac sodium gel (Voltaren® Gel) (n = 198) or vehicle (n = 187) to both hands 4 times daily for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measures included OA pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale), total Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) score, and global rating of disease activity at 4 and 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included onset of efficacy in Weeks 1 and 2, durability of efficacy at 8 weeks, measures of disease activity in the dominant hand, pain intensity in the non-dominant hand, AUSCAN subindices, end of study rating of efficacy, and Osteoarthritis Research Society International response criteria.Results.Diclofenac sodium gel decreased pain intensity scores by 42%–45%, total AUSCAN scores by 35%–40%, and global rating of disease by 36%–40%. Significant differences favoring diclofenac sodium gel over vehicle were observed at Week 4 for pain intensity and AUSCAN, with a trend for global rating of disease activity. At Week 6, diclofenac sodium gel treatment significantly improved each primary outcome measure compared with vehicle. Secondary outcomes generally supported the primary outcomes. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was application-site paresthesia. Most AE were mild. No cardiac events, gastrointestinal bleeding, or ulcers were reported.Conclusion.Topical diclofenac sodium gel was generally well tolerated and effective in primary hand OA. (NCT ID: NCT00171665)

Download Full-text

Prevention of Opioid-Induced Nausea and Vomiting During Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acute Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing CL-108 (Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg/Rapid-Release, Low-Dose Promethazine 12.5 mg) with Conventional Hydrocodone 7.5 mg/Acetaminophen 325 mg

Pain Medicine ◽

10.1093/pm/pny294 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (12) ◽

pp. 2528-2538

Author(s):

John R Zuniga ◽

Athena S Papas ◽

Stephen E Daniels ◽

Kyle Patrick ◽

Derek D Muse ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pain Intensity ◽

Acute Pain ◽

Low Dose ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Third Molar ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Double Blind ◽

Rapid Release ◽

Surgical Extraction

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the relief of moderate to severe acute pain by CL-108, a novel drug combining a low-dose antiemetic (rapid-release promethazine 12.5 mg) with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (HC/APAP) was used. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled multidose study. After surgical extraction of two or more impacted third molar teeth (including at least one mandibular impaction), 466 patients with moderate to severe pain (measured on a categorical pain intensity scale [PI-CAT]) were randomized to CL-108, HC/APAP, or placebo. Over the next 24 hours, patients used the PI-CAT to assess pain at regular intervals whereas nausea, vomiting, and other opioid-related side effects were also assessed prospectively. Study medications were taken every four to six hours as needed; supplemental rescue analgesic and antiemetic medications were permitted. Co-primary end points were the incidence of OINV and the time-weighted sum of pain intensity differences over 24 hours (SPID24). Results Relative to HC/APAP treatment alone, CL-108 treatment reduced OINV by 64% (P < 0.001). Treatment with CL-108 significantly reduced pain intensity compared with placebo (SPID24 = 16.2 vs 3.5, P < 0.001). There were no unexpected or serious adverse events. Conclusions CL-108 is a safe and effective combination analgesic/antiemetic for the prevention of OINV during treatment of moderate to severe acute pain.

Download Full-text

Double-blind, pragmatic, randomized placebo-controlled trial of 8-week self-administered at-home behavioral skills-based virtual reality (VR) for chronic low back pain (during COVID-19) (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.26292 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Beth Darnall ◽

Laura Garcia ◽

Brandon Birckhead ◽

Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy ◽

Ian Mackey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

User Satisfaction ◽

Pain Catastrophizing ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Low Back ◽

Average Pain Intensity ◽

Average Pain

BACKGROUND Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE To conduct a double-blind, parallel arm, single cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported non-malignant low back pain > 6 months duration and with average pain intensity > 4/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to one of two 56-day VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (pain relief skills immersive VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. RESULTS The study sample was 179 adults (female: 77%; Caucasian: 91%; at least some college education: 92%; mean age: 51.5 years, SD=13.1; average pain intensity: 5/10, SD=1.2; back pain duration >5 years: 67%). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx vs. Sham VR (p<0.0001). Both groups improved significantly for all five primary outcomes; EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes except pain-related sleep interference. For EaseVRx, large pre-post effect sizes ranged from 1.06-1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. A greater proportion of participants in the EaseVRx group achieved > 30% reduction in pain intensity (EaseVRx: 65.5%; Sham VR: 40.5%), and 46% of EaseVRx achieved >50% reduction in pain. Physical function and sleep disturbance significantly improved for both treatment groups with superior improvements found for EaseVRx (p=0.0019 and p=.0353, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent; MME) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (p<0.01) but not for Sham VR. CONCLUSIONS EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand non-pharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04415177 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-25291

Download Full-text

Impact of treatment dose on patient outcomes after Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Therapy

10.21203/rs.3.rs-514829/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Philipp Baumbach ◽

Maria Richter ◽

Johannes Schneider ◽

Ulrich Christian Smolenski ◽

Thomas Weiss ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Pain Intensity ◽

Pain Therapy ◽

Low Dose ◽

High Dose ◽

Multimodal Pain Therapy ◽

Average Pain Intensity ◽

Average Pain ◽

Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Therapy ◽

The Impact

Abstract Objectives The impact of duration and intensity on outcomes after Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Therapy (IMPT) is poorly researched. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of low dose (LD, avg. 25 hours) and high dose IMPT (HD, avg. 110 hours).Methods Patients completed pain-related questionnaires at the beginning (T1), at the end of therapy (T2) and at 3-month follow-up (T3) and were matched according to age, sex, presence of back-pain and pain-related disability at T1, resulting in 32 patients per group. Primary endpoint was the difference in pain-related disability and average pain intensity at T3 between both groups. In addition, early treatment effects and group differences at T2 were analyzed.Results Both groups showed significant improvements in pain-related disability and average pain intensity between T1 and T2. These positive effects persisted in the HD group until the 3-month follow-up, whereas outcomes in the LD group patients deteriorated and were significantly poorer compared to HD at T3.Discussion Within a widely comparable therapeutic setting, high-dose IMPT was associated with longer lasting improvements compared to low-dose IMPT in chronic pain patients, indicating that the “dose” of therapy is a relevant factor for clinical outcomes and should be further investigated.

Download Full-text

Effect of Milnacipran on Pain in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Widespread Pain: A Randomized Blinded Crossover Trial

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.150550 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 43 (1) ◽

pp. 38-45 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Yvonne C. Lee ◽

Elena Massarotti ◽

Robert R. Edwards ◽

Bing Lu ◽

ChihChin Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Short Form ◽

Experimental Pain ◽

Study Drug ◽

Widespread Pain ◽

Double Blind ◽

Link Type ◽

Average Pain Intensity ◽

Average Pain

Objective.Clinical trials have shown that serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, such as milnacipran, decrease pain in noninflammatory pain conditions such as fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. We examined the effect of milnacipran on self-reported pain intensity and experimental pain sensitivity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with widespread pain and stable RA disease activity.Methods.In this double-blind, crossover study, patients with RA with widespread pain, receiving a stable treatment regimen, were randomized (by a random number generator) to receive milnacipran 50 mg twice daily or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by a 3-week washout and crossed over to the other arm for the remaining 6 weeks. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity, assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory short form. The sample size was calculated to detect a 30% improvement in pain with power = 0.80 and α = 0.05.Results.Of the 43 randomized subjects, 41 received the study drug, and 32 completed the 15-week study per protocol. On a 0–10 scale, average pain intensity decreased by 0.39 (95% CI −1.27 to 0.49, p = 0.37) more points during 6 weeks of milnacipran treatment compared with placebo. In the subgroup of subjects with swollen joint count ≤ 1, average pain intensity decreased by 1.14 more points during 6 weeks of milnacipran compared with placebo (95% CI −2.26 to −0.01, p = 0.04). Common adverse events included nausea (26.8%) and loss of appetite (9.7%).Conclusion.Compared with placebo, milnacipran did not improve overall, self-reported pain intensity among subjects with widespread pain receiving stable RA medications. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.govNCT01207453.

Download Full-text

An 8-Week Self-Administered At-Home Behavioral Skills-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Conducted During COVID-19

Journal of Medical Internet Research ◽

10.2196/26292 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (2) ◽

pp. e26292

Author(s):

Laura M Garcia ◽

Brandon J Birckhead ◽

Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy ◽

Josh Sackman ◽

Ian G Mackey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

User Satisfaction ◽

Pain Catastrophizing ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Low Back ◽

Average Pain Intensity ◽

Average Pain

Background Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. Objective We aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between–within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. Results The study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ≥5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre–post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR. Conclusions EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/25291

Download Full-text

The ‘Act When Mild’ (AwM) Study: A Step Forward in Our Understanding of Early Treatment in Acute Migraine

Cephalalgia ◽

10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01689.x ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 28 (2_suppl) ◽

pp. 36-41 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

PJ Goadsby

Keyword(s):

Pain Intensity ◽

Group Treatment ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Primary Outcome Measure ◽

Double Blind ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Severe Stage ◽

Headache Onset ◽

Severe Group

An important issue in the management of migraine is the advice given to patients as to when to take their treatment in the course of the attack. While it seems common sense almost to take treatment early in the attack, the evidence base for that advice is not as robust as could be expected. The ‘Act when Mild’ (AwM) Study was a randomized, four-arm, multicentre, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of almotriptan (12.5 mg) to compare outcomes after administration of treatment when pain intensity was mild and within 1 h of headache onset (mild/early) with outcomes when pain had become moderate or severe. Of 491 migraineurs enrolled, 403 were evaluable with an intention-to-treat population (ITT) of 404. At the primary end-point, 2 h pain free, on the ITT analysis 49% of patients in the almotriptan 12.5 mg treat early/mild group and 40% in the treat moderate/severe group had responded ( P = 0.21). Of these patients, 43 did not take medication according to their randomly allocated baseline pain intensity (mild or moderate/severe) and were subsequently reassigned, prior to study unblinding, to the appropriate group (AwM population) for re-analysis of the primary outcome measure: 2-h pain-free rates. In the almotriptan arms, 53% of the mild/early group and 37.5% of the moderate/severe group were pain free at 2 h ( P = 0.02; AwM population). The corresponding proportions in the placebo groups were 24.7% and 17.5% (significantly lower than the respective almotriptan arms; P ≤ 0.01). Considering the ITT population, secondary end-points were also significantly in favour of treatment with almotriptan in the mild/early vs. the moderate/severe stage, including: sustained pain-free, 45.6% vs. 30.5% ( P = 0.02); headache recurrence at 24 h, 6% vs. 24% ( P = 0.0124). Adverse events were reported in < 5% of patients, with no significant differences between almotriptan and placebo and no serious events in any group. Treatment with almotriptan while migraine pain is still mild and within 1 h of onset provides statistically significant and clinically relevant enhancements in efficacy compared with waiting until pain has reached higher severity levels.

Download Full-text

Effect of low-dose amitriptyline on reducing pain in clinical knee osteoarthritis compared to benztropine: study protocol of a randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-021-04690-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anita E. Wluka ◽

Donna M. Urquhart ◽

Andrew J. Teichtahl ◽

Sultana Monira Hussain ◽

Andrew Forbes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Knee Pain ◽

Low Dose ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Treatment Strategies ◽

Trial Registration ◽

Womac Pain ◽

Double Blind ◽

Pain Subscale

Abstract Background Knee osteoarthritis is a major cause of pain and disability. Pain control is poor, with most patients remaining in moderate to severe pain. This may be because central causes of pain, a common contributor to knee pain, are not affected by current treatment strategies. Antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, have been used to treat chronic pain in other conditions. The aim of this randomised, double blind, controlled trial, is to determine whether low dose amitriptyline reduces pain in people with painful knee osteoarthritis over 3 months compared to benztropine, an active placebo. Methods/design One hundred and sixty people with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis will be recruited via clinicians, local and social media advertising. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either low dose amitriptyline (25 mg) or active placebo (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg) for 3 months. The primary outcome is change from baseline in knee pain (WOMAC pain subscale) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include change in function (total WOMAC) and the proportion of individuals achieving a substantial response (≥ 50% reduction in pain intensity, measured by Visual Analog Scale, VAS, from no pain to worst pain imaginable, 0-100 mm) and moderate response (≥ 30% reduction in pain intensity, measured by VAS) at 12 weeks. Intention to treat analyses will be performed. Subgroup analyses will be done. Discussion This study will provide high level evidence regarding the effectiveness of low dose amitriptyline compared to benztropine in reducing pain and improving function in knee OA. This trial has the potential to provide an effective new therapeutic approach for pain management in knee osteoarthritis, with the potential of ready translation into clinical practice, as it is repurposing an old drug, which is familiar to clinicians and with a well described safety record. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry prior to recruitment commencing (ACTRN12615000301561, March 31, 2015, amended 14 December 2018, February 2021). Additional amendment requested 18 July 2021.

Download Full-text

Early vs. Non-Early Intervention in Acute Migraine — ‘Act When Mild (AwM)’. A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Almotriptan

Cephalalgia ◽

10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01546.x ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 28 (4) ◽

pp. 383-391 ◽

Cited By ~ 113

Author(s):

PJ Goadsby ◽

G Zanchin ◽

G Geraud ◽

N de Klippel ◽

S Diaz-Insa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Early Intervention ◽

Pain Intensity ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Double Blind ◽

Double Blind Placebo ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Headache Onset ◽

Treatment Administration ◽

Pain Patients

The study was designed to compare the response to almotriptan in migraine patients who take medication early in the course of the attack with that when medication is taken after pain has become moderate or severe. A randomized, four-arm, multicentre, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of almotriptan (12.5 mg) comparing treatment administration when pain intensity was mild and within 1 h of headache onset vs. pain that had become moderate or severe was conducted. Of 491 migraineurs enrolled, 403 were evaluable [intention-to-treat population (ITT)]. Their mean age was 38 years, 84% were female and they had a mean of 3.7 attacks/month. Of these patients, 10% did not take medication according to their randomly allocated basal pain intensity (mild or moderate/severe) and were subsequently reassigned to that group for this analysis —'Act when Mild (AwM)' group. In the almotriptan arms, 53% of mild basal pain and 38% of moderate/severe basal pain patients were pain free at 2 h ( P = 0.03; primary end-point). Corresponding proportions in the placebo groups were 25% and 17% (statistically significant vs. respective almotriptan arms). Secondary end-points (ITT) were also significantly in favour of early intervention with almotriptan, both between and across treatment groups, such as sustained pain free: 45.6% vs. 30.5% ( P = 0.02). Adverse events were reported in < 5% of treated patients in all groups (NS), with no serious events. Treatment with almotriptan while migraine pain is still mild provides statistically significant and clinically relevant enhancements in efficacy compared with treatment when pain has reached higher severity levels.

Download Full-text