顺势疗法凝胶治疗急性腰痛的有效性和安全性:一项多中心、随机、双盲对照临床试验

C Stam , MS Bonnet , RA van Haselen
{"title":"顺势疗法凝胶治疗急性腰痛的有效性和安全性:一项多中心、随机、双盲对照临床试验","authors":"C Stam ,&nbsp;MS Bonnet ,&nbsp;RA van Haselen","doi":"10.1054/homp.1999.0460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Acute low back pain is a very common condition in Western industrialised countries. In most cases analgesics or topical medications are prescribed at first encounter with the general practitioner (GP).</p><p>The aim of this study was to investigate whether the homeopathic gel Spiroflor SRL® gel (SRL) is equally effective and better tolerated than Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC) in patients with acute low back pain.</p><p>A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the practices of 19 GPs in the districts of Bristol and Manchester, UK. One hundred and sixty-one subjects suffering from acute low back pain were treated for one week either with SRL or with CCC. Pain was scored on a 100<!--> <!-->mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Main efficacy parameter VAS reduction was compared between treatments. Evaluation of safety was primarily based on the number of subjects with adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to an AE and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).</p><p>The mean difference between the VAS reduction in the SRL group and the CCC group adjusted for VAS at baseline and age was −0.6<!--> <!-->mm (90%CI=−6.5–5.3<!--> <!-->mm). Fewer subjects in the SRL group (11%) experienced an AE than in the CCC group (26%). The same applies to the number of subjects with an ADR (3/81=4% <em>vs</em> 18/74=24%) and the number of subjects withdrawn due to an ADR (0/81=0% <em>vs</em> 8/74=11%).</p><p>In conclusion, SRL and CCC are equally effective in the treatment of acute low back pain, however, SRL has a better safety profile. Spiroflor SRL® gel is preferable to Capsicum-based products for the topical treatment of low back pain, because of the lower risk of adverse effects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100201,"journal":{"name":"British Homoeopathic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1054/homp.1999.0460","citationCount":"40","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind comparative clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"C Stam ,&nbsp;MS Bonnet ,&nbsp;RA van Haselen\",\"doi\":\"10.1054/homp.1999.0460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Acute low back pain is a very common condition in Western industrialised countries. In most cases analgesics or topical medications are prescribed at first encounter with the general practitioner (GP).</p><p>The aim of this study was to investigate whether the homeopathic gel Spiroflor SRL® gel (SRL) is equally effective and better tolerated than Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC) in patients with acute low back pain.</p><p>A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the practices of 19 GPs in the districts of Bristol and Manchester, UK. One hundred and sixty-one subjects suffering from acute low back pain were treated for one week either with SRL or with CCC. Pain was scored on a 100<!--> <!-->mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Main efficacy parameter VAS reduction was compared between treatments. Evaluation of safety was primarily based on the number of subjects with adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to an AE and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).</p><p>The mean difference between the VAS reduction in the SRL group and the CCC group adjusted for VAS at baseline and age was −0.6<!--> <!-->mm (90%CI=−6.5–5.3<!--> <!-->mm). Fewer subjects in the SRL group (11%) experienced an AE than in the CCC group (26%). The same applies to the number of subjects with an ADR (3/81=4% <em>vs</em> 18/74=24%) and the number of subjects withdrawn due to an ADR (0/81=0% <em>vs</em> 8/74=11%).</p><p>In conclusion, SRL and CCC are equally effective in the treatment of acute low back pain, however, SRL has a better safety profile. Spiroflor SRL® gel is preferable to Capsicum-based products for the topical treatment of low back pain, because of the lower risk of adverse effects.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Homoeopathic Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1054/homp.1999.0460\",\"citationCount\":\"40\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Homoeopathic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491699904605\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Homoeopathic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491699904605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40

摘要

在西方工业化国家,急性腰痛是一种非常常见的疾病。在大多数情况下,止痛药或局部药物是在第一次遇到全科医生(GP)时开的。本研究的目的是探讨顺势疗法凝胶Spiroflor SRL®凝胶(SRL)是否与Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC)在急性腰痛患者中的疗效相同且耐受性更好。在英国布里斯托尔和曼彻斯特地区的19名全科医生的实践中进行了一项多中心、随机、双盲、对照临床试验。161名急性腰痛患者分别用SRL或CCC治疗一周。疼痛以100 mm视觉模拟评分(VAS)进行评分。比较两组间主要疗效指标VAS降低情况。安全性评估主要基于受试者不良事件(AE)、AE引起的停药和药物不良反应(adr)的数量。SRL组和CCC组在基线和年龄时VAS降低的平均差异为- 0.6 mm (90%CI= - 6.5-5.3 mm)。SRL组(11%)发生AE的受试者少于CCC组(26%)。发生ADR的受试者数量(3/81=4% vs 18/74=24%)和因ADR退出的受试者数量(0/81=0% vs 8/74=11%)也是如此。综上所述,SRL和CCC在治疗急性腰痛方面同样有效,但SRL的安全性更高。由于不良反应的风险较低,Spiroflor SRL®凝胶比基于辣椒的产品更适合局部治疗腰痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The efficacy and safety of a homeopathic gel in the treatment of acute low back pain: a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind comparative clinical trial

Acute low back pain is a very common condition in Western industrialised countries. In most cases analgesics or topical medications are prescribed at first encounter with the general practitioner (GP).

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the homeopathic gel Spiroflor SRL® gel (SRL) is equally effective and better tolerated than Cremor Capsici Compositus FNA (CCC) in patients with acute low back pain.

A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the practices of 19 GPs in the districts of Bristol and Manchester, UK. One hundred and sixty-one subjects suffering from acute low back pain were treated for one week either with SRL or with CCC. Pain was scored on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Main efficacy parameter VAS reduction was compared between treatments. Evaluation of safety was primarily based on the number of subjects with adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to an AE and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

The mean difference between the VAS reduction in the SRL group and the CCC group adjusted for VAS at baseline and age was −0.6 mm (90%CI=−6.5–5.3 mm). Fewer subjects in the SRL group (11%) experienced an AE than in the CCC group (26%). The same applies to the number of subjects with an ADR (3/81=4% vs 18/74=24%) and the number of subjects withdrawn due to an ADR (0/81=0% vs 8/74=11%).

In conclusion, SRL and CCC are equally effective in the treatment of acute low back pain, however, SRL has a better safety profile. Spiroflor SRL® gel is preferable to Capsicum-based products for the topical treatment of low back pain, because of the lower risk of adverse effects.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Book Reviews Research for whom? Treatment for hyperactive children: homeopathy and methylphenidate compared in a family setting Our new title: Homeopathy Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution?
×
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:481959085
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