Low-dose cyclobenzaprine versus combination therapy with ibuprofen for acute neck or back pain with muscle spasm: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, community-based study was conducted to compare cyclobenzaprine 5 mg three times daily (TID) orally (CYC5) given for 7 days as monotherapy or in combination with ibuprofen 400 mg TID (CYC5/IBU400) or 800 mg TID (CYC5/IBU800) in adults with acute neck or back pain with muscle spasm. STUDY DESIGN: Eligible patients were 18-65 years old, had cervical or thoracolumbar pain and spasm for < or = 14 days, and, aside from the prescribed study medications, discontinued treatment with all analgesics, anti-inflammatory agents, and skeletal muscle relaxants during the study period. Randomization was 1:1:1 to the three treatment groups. Treatment outcome was assessed after 3 and 7 days of therapy using five patient-rated scales: spasm, pain, patient global impression of change (PGIC), medication helpfulness, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: A total of 867 patients provided postbaseline data and were included in the intent-to-treat population (CYC5, n = 288; CYC5/IBU400, n = 286; CYC5/IBU800, n = 293). All three treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements from baseline in PGIC, spasm, pain, ODI, and medication helpfulness (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) after 3 and 7 days of therapy. There were no significant differences in mean PGIC among groups after 3 days of therapy (p = 0.65 for treatment effect) or after 7 days of therapy (primary endpoint; p = 0.41). A PGIC responder analysis of changes from baseline showed that 88% and 93% of patients reported at least mild improvement after 3 and 7 days of therapy, respectively. All three treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences between treatments regarding the number of adverse events (AEs) reported or number of patients reporting AEs. The most common AEs in all groups were fatigue, somnolence, dizziness, sedation, and nausea. Limitations of this study include an unblinded design and possible introduction of bias into efficacy and safety results by use of a voluntary telephone reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, community-based clinical trial demonstrated that combination therapy with cyclobenzaprine 5 mg TID plus ibuprofen was not superior to cyclobenzaprine 5 mg TID alone in adult patients with acute neck and back pain with muscle spasm. All treatments were well tolerated.

Efficacy and tolerability of a hydrocodone extended-release tablet formulated with abuse-deterrence technology for the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic pain in patients with osteoarthritis or low back pain.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of hydrocodone extended release (ER) developed with abuse-deterrence technology to provide sustained pain relief and limit effects of alcohol and tablet manipulation on drug release. Eligible patients with chronic moderate-to-severe low back or osteoarthritis pain were titrated to an analgesic dose of hydrocodone ER (15-90 mg) and randomized to placebo or hydrocodone ER every 12 hours. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to week 12 in weekly average pain intensity (API; 0=no pain, 10=worst pain imaginable). Secondary measures included percentage of patients with >33% and >50% increases from baseline in weekly API, change from baseline in weekly worst pain intensity, supplemental opioid usage, aberrant drug-use behaviors, and adverse events. Overall, 294 patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of placebo (n=148) or hydrocodone ER (n=146). Weekly API did not differ significantly between hydrocodone ER and placebo at week 12 (P=0.134); although, in post hoc analyses, the change in weekly API was significantly lower with hydrocodone ER when excluding the lowest dose (15 mg; least squares mean, -0.20 vs 0.40; P=0.032). Significantly more patients had >33% and >50% increase in weekly API with placebo (P<0.05), and mean weekly worst pain intensity was significantly lower with hydrocodone ER at week 12 (P=0.026). Supplemental medication usage was higher with placebo (86%) than hydrocodone ER (79%). Incidence of aberrant drug-use behaviors was low, and adverse events were similar between groups. This study did not meet the primary endpoint, although results support the effectiveness of this hydrocodone ER formulation in managing chronic low back or osteoarthritis pain. Use of the hydrocodone ER 15-mg dose, a robust placebo response, and use of supplemental analgesics, particularly in the placebo group, may have limited detection of a statistically significant treatment effect, and additional research is needed to clarify these findings.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of loperamide plus simethicone versus loperamide alone and simethicone alone in the treatment of acute diarrhea with gas-related abdominal discomfort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and tolerability of a loperamide/simethicone (LOP/SIM) combination product with that of loperamide (LOP) alone, simethicone (SIM) alone, and placebo (PBO) for acute nonspecific diarrhea with gas-related abdominal discomfort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, 48-h study, patients were randomly assigned to receive two tablets, each containing either LOP/SIM 2 mg/125 mg (n = 121), LOP 2 mg (n = 120), SIM 125 mg (n = 123), or PBO (n = 121), followed by one tablet after each unformed stool, up to four tablets in any 24-h period. The primary outcome measures were time to last unformed stool and time to complete relief of gas-related abdominal discomfort. For time to last unformed stool, an unformed stool after a 24-h period of formed stools or no stools was considered a continuance of the original episode (stricter definition) or a new episode (alternate definition). RESULTS: A total of 483 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The median time to last unformed stool for LOP/SIM (7.6 h) was significantly shorter than that of LOP (11.5 h), SIM (26.0 h), and PBO (29.4 h) (p < or = 0.0232 in comparison with survival curves) using the alternate definition; it was numerically but not significantly shorter than that of LOP (p = 0.0709) and significantly shorter than that of SIM and PBO (p = 0.0001) using the stricter definition. LOP/SIM-treated patients had a shorter time to complete relief of gas-related abdominal discomfort than patients who received either ingredient alone or placebo (all p = 0.0001). Few patients reported adverse events in the four treatment groups, none of which were serious in nature. Potential study limitations include the ability to generalize study results to the population at large, variability in total dose consumed, and subjectivity of patient diary data. CONCLUSIONS: LOP/SIM was well-tolerated and more efficacious than LOP alone, SIM alone, or placebo for acute nonspecific diarrhea and gas-related abdominal discomfort.