Donna M Urquhart1, Anita E Wluka1, Maurits van Tulder2, Stephane Heritier1, Andrew Forbes1, Chris Fong3, Yuanyuan Wang1, Malcolm R Sim1, Stephen J Gibson4,5, Carolyn Arnold6,7, Flavia M Cicuttini1. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Eastern Health Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 4. National Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, Australia. 5. Caulfield Pain Management and Research Centre, Caulfield, Australia. 6. Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
Importance: Antidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy. Objective: To examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out. Intervention: Low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire. Results: Of the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Antidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy. Objective: To examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out. Intervention: Low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire. Results: Of the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Timothy J Wilt; Robert M McLean; Mary Ann Forciea; Thomas D Denberg; Michael J Barry; Cynthia Boyd; R Dobbin Chow; Nick Fitterman; Russell P Harris; Linda L Humphrey; Sandeep Vijan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Antti Malmivaara; Roger Chou; Chris G Maher; Rick A Deyo; Mark Schoene; Gert Bronfort; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony DeLitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner Journal: J Pain Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Jeffrey L Jackson; William Shimeall; Laura Sessums; Kent J Dezee; Dorothy Becher; Margretta Diemer; Elizabeth Berbano; Patrick G O'Malley Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-10-20
Authors: Ben Hudson; Jonathan A Williman; Lisa K Stamp; John S Alchin; Gary J Hooper; Dee Mangin; Bronwyn F Lenox Thompson; Les Toop Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Kevin T Savage; Vinita Singh; Zarine S Patel; Christine A Yannuzzi; Anne Marie McKenzie-Brown; Michelle A Lowes; Lauren A V Orenstein Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 15.487
Authors: Michael C Ferraro; Matthew K Bagg; Michael A Wewege; Aidan G Cashin; Hayley B Leake; Rodrigo R N Rizzo; Matthew D Jones; Sylvia M Gustin; Richard Day; Colleen K Loo; James H McAuley Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-02-24