Literature DB >> 15507793

Effectiveness of salmon calcitonin nasal spray in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial.

Vinod K Podichetty1, Allen M Segal, Michael Lieber, Daniel J Mazanec.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness of calcitonin administered by nasal spray with placebo in patients with clinically symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar canal stenosis is the most common reason for spine surgery in individuals over 65 years of age. Nonoperative approaches have been not well studied and limited primarily to physical therapy exercises. Several small trials in the past have suggested that subcutaneous and intramuscular calcitonin is an effective nonsurgical option in treating the symptoms of spinal stenosis patients. Only three trials were randomized and placebo-controlled.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients with clinical lumbar canal stenosis (pseudoclaudication), confirmatory MR imaging, and pain intensity index (VAS) of > or =6 were randomized to either placebo or intranasal calcitonin daily for 6 weeks, followed by an open label 6-week extension, during which all patients received active drug. Outcome parameters performed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, included pain intensity index, walking time and distance to pain, SF-36, and Oswestry disability index.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo. Eight (14.54%) calcitonin and 4 (7.27%) placebo patients withdrew from the study. The mean baseline pain score for calcitonin group was 7.8 and 7.5 for placebo. Comparisons at week 6 showed no statistically significant difference in the change in pain intensity (VAS) between calcitonin group (-2.9) and placebo (-2.4) (P = 0.4382) from baseline. There was no significant difference in walking time to pain (calcitonin -10.0 seconds; placebo +32.2 seconds; P = 0.5136). Walking distance to pain showed a mean improvement of +91.4 ft in the calcitonin group and +254.7 ft in the placebo group (P = 0.4948). No significant difference was observed in the SF-36 score between the treatment groups. Using a threshold of at least 50% reduction in pain from baseline to 6 weeks, 12 of 29 (41.37%) of calcitonin patients were considered responders versus 7 of 18 (38.88%) of placebo patients (P = 0.4238)
CONCLUSIONS: In this first ever largest randomized placebo-controlled parallel group trial of nasal calcitonin in spinal stenosis, nasal calcitonin was not superior to placebo in treating the symptoms of spinal stenosis at 6 weeks. Based on this study, nasal calcitonin does not appear to have a role in nonoperative treatment of lumbar canal stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15507793     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000143807.78082.7f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  16 in total

1.  Randomised placebo-controlled trial on the effectiveness of nasal salmon calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Suhayl I Tafazal; Leslie Ng; Philip Sell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-07-25       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Investigating non-operative treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Vinod K Podichetty; Mazanec Daniel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  An open study of pamidronate in the treatment of refractory degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Joy Feld; Itzhak Rosner; Nina Avshovich; Nina Boulman; Gleb Slobodin; Michael Rozenbaum
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2009-02-14       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Effects of calcitonin on lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kun Peng; Long Chen; Jing Peng; Fei Xing; Zhou Xiang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-02-15

5.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: current strategies in diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Claudius Thomé; Wolfgang Börm; Frerk Meyer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-05-16       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 6.  What interventions improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review.

Authors:  Carlo Ammendolia; Kent Stuber; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Michael Schneider; Y Raja Rampersaud; Andrea D Furlan; Carol A Kennedy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Gen Inoue; Masayuki Miyagi; Masashi Takaso
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-07-25

8.  Quantification of walking ability in subjects with neurogenic claudication from lumbar spinal stenosis--a comparative study.

Authors:  James Rainville; Lisa A Childs; Enrique B Peña; Pradeep Suri; Janet C Limke; Cristin Jouve; David J Hunter
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 9.  [Lumbar spinal stenosis].

Authors:  T L Schulte; V Bullmann; T Lerner; M Schneider; B Marquardt; U Liljenqvist; T A Pietilä; L Hackenberg
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  The efficacy of physical therapy and physical therapy plus calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Fusun Sahin; Figen Yilmaz; Nurdan Kotevoglu; Banu Kuran
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 2.759

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.