Efficacy of naproxen in patients with sciatica: multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

IF 5.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY PAIN® Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003280
Lars Grøvle, Eivind Hasvik, René Holst, Anders Sætre, Jens Ivar Brox, Ståle Mathiassen, Kjersti Myhre, Thor Einar Holmgard, Anne Julsrud Haugen
{"title":"Efficacy of naproxen in patients with sciatica: multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.","authors":"Lars Grøvle, Eivind Hasvik, René Holst, Anders Sætre, Jens Ivar Brox, Ståle Mathiassen, Kjersti Myhre, Thor Einar Holmgard, Anne Julsrud Haugen","doi":"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>This trial assessed the efficacy of naproxen in patients with sciatica in outpatient clinics across 4 Norwegian hospitals. A total of 123 adults with radiating pain below the knee (≥4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale) and signs consistent with nerve root involvement were included. Participants were randomized to receive either naproxen 500 mg or a placebo twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome, daily leg pain intensity measured on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale throughout the treatment period, revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of naproxen, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.5 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.1, P = 0.015). In the naproxen group, the treatment effect was significantly related to time, and over the whole 10-day period, the average adjusted difference was -0.6 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.5). Mean numbers needed to treat for 30% and 50% improvement were 9.9 (95% CI 4.7-15.0) and 20.7 (8.7-32.7), respectively. The adjusted mean difference for back pain was -0.4 (95% CI -0.8 to 0.0), and for Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, it was -1.5 (95% CI -3.0 to 0.0). No differences were found for sciatica bothersomeness or consumption of rescue medication or opioids. Participants in the naproxen group exhibited an adjusted odds ratio of 4.7 (95% CI 1.3-16.2) for improvement by 1 level on the global perceived change scale. In conclusion, naproxen treatment showed small, likely clinically unimportant benefits compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe sciatica.</p>","PeriodicalId":19921,"journal":{"name":"PAIN®","volume":" ","pages":"2606-2614"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAIN®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003280","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: This trial assessed the efficacy of naproxen in patients with sciatica in outpatient clinics across 4 Norwegian hospitals. A total of 123 adults with radiating pain below the knee (≥4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale) and signs consistent with nerve root involvement were included. Participants were randomized to receive either naproxen 500 mg or a placebo twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome, daily leg pain intensity measured on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale throughout the treatment period, revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of naproxen, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.5 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.1, P = 0.015). In the naproxen group, the treatment effect was significantly related to time, and over the whole 10-day period, the average adjusted difference was -0.6 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.5). Mean numbers needed to treat for 30% and 50% improvement were 9.9 (95% CI 4.7-15.0) and 20.7 (8.7-32.7), respectively. The adjusted mean difference for back pain was -0.4 (95% CI -0.8 to 0.0), and for Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, it was -1.5 (95% CI -3.0 to 0.0). No differences were found for sciatica bothersomeness or consumption of rescue medication or opioids. Participants in the naproxen group exhibited an adjusted odds ratio of 4.7 (95% CI 1.3-16.2) for improvement by 1 level on the global perceived change scale. In conclusion, naproxen treatment showed small, likely clinically unimportant benefits compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe sciatica.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
萘普生对坐骨神经痛患者的疗效:多中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验。
摘要:该试验评估了萘普生对挪威4家医院门诊坐骨神经痛患者的疗效。共有123名患有膝下放射痛(在0-10数字评分表中≥4分)并伴有神经根受累症状的成人参加了该试验。受试者被随机分配接受萘普生 500 毫克或安慰剂治疗,每天两次,为期 10 天。主要研究结果显示,在整个治疗期间,以0至10分的数字评分量表测量的每日腿部疼痛强度与萘普生的差异具有统计学意义,调整后的平均差异为-0.5(95% CI -0.8至-0.1,P = 0.015)。在萘普生组,治疗效果与时间显著相关,在整个10天期间,调整后的平均差异为-0.6(95% CI -0.8至-0.5)。改善 30% 和 50% 所需的平均治疗人数分别为 9.9 (95% CI 4.7-15.0) 和 20.7 (8.7-32.7)。背痛的调整后平均差异为-0.4(95% CI -0.8至0.0),坐骨神经痛罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷的调整后平均差异为-1.5(95% CI -3.0至0.0)。在坐骨神经痛的痛苦程度、抢救药物或阿片类药物的使用量方面没有发现差异。萘普生治疗组的参与者在总体感觉变化量表上改善一级的调整后几率为 4.7(95% CI 1.3-16.2)。总之,与安慰剂相比,萘普生治疗对中度至重度坐骨神经痛患者的疗效较小,而且在临床上可能并不重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PAIN®
PAIN® 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
8.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: PAIN® is the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain and publishes original research on the nature,mechanisms and treatment of pain.PAIN® provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the basic and clinical sciences of multidisciplinary interest.
期刊最新文献
Encountering pain: images as a tool for collaborative approaches to pain medicine. Effects of transcranial ultrasound stimulation of primary somatosensory cortex and ventral posterolateral nucleus of the thalamus on acute pain perception. Peripheral capsaicin reverses nerve injury-associated maladaptive brain networks in male rats: a simultaneous chemogenetic-functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Applying images of pain in pain practice and science: new opportunities and new directions. Is treating both chronic pain and trauma-related symptoms at the same time effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1