Stam C, Bonnet M S, van Haselen R A
Regulatory Affairs Department, VSM Geneesmiddelen bv, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jan;90(1):21-8. doi: 10.1054/homp.1999.0460.
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 -0.6mm (90% CI = -6.5-5.3mm). 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 The same applies to the number of subjects with an ADR (3/81 = 4% vs 18/74 = 24%) and the number of subjects withdrawn due to an ADR (0/81 = 0% vs 8/74 = 11%).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.
急性腰痛在西方工业化国家是一种非常常见的病症。在大多数情况下,患者初次就诊于全科医生(GP)时,会被开具镇痛药或局部用药。本研究的目的是调查顺势疗法凝胶Spiroflor SRL凝胶(SRL)在急性腰痛患者中是否与复方辣椒膏FNA(CCC)具有同等疗效且耐受性更好。在英国布里斯托尔和曼彻斯特地区的19名全科医生的诊所中进行了一项多中心、随机、双盲、对照临床试验。161名患有急性腰痛的受试者接受了为期一周的SRL或CCC治疗。疼痛采用100毫米视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分。比较了各治疗组之间主要疗效参数VAS降低情况。安全性评估主要基于发生不良事件(AE)的受试者数量、因AE退出的受试者数量以及药物不良反应(ADR)。根据基线VAS和年龄调整后,SRL组和CCC组VAS降低的平均差异为-0.6毫米(90%CI = -6.5 - 5.3毫米)。SRL组发生AE的受试者(11%)少于CCC组(26%)。ADR受试者数量(3/81 = 4%对18/74 = 24%)以及因ADR退出的受试者数量(0/81 = 0%对8/74 = 11%)情况也是如此。总之,SRL和CCC在治疗急性腰痛方面疗效相当,但SRL具有更好的安全性。由于不良反应风险较低,Spiroflor SRL凝胶在局部治疗腰痛方面优于基于辣椒的产品。