Jagannathan Hema, Thota Amulya, B Kumarappa Ashok Kumar, Kishore Githa
Department of Pain Management, Pharmacy Practice, Visveswarapura Institution of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Bangalore, India.
Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore, India.
J Drug Assess. 2020 Mar 31;9(1):60-65. doi: 10.1080/21556660.2020.1734008. eCollection 2020.
The aim of management of acute low back pain is to alleviate the pain quickly and improve functional ability. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the first line of treatment. The challenge lies in deciding which NSAIDs will provide greater symptomatic relief, while also being cost-effective. To compare the effectiveness of aceclofenac and etoricoxib in the management of acute low back pain. This prospective, open label, observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. Patients over 18 years of age and presenting with low back pain of less than 6 weeks duration were enrolled in the study. Fifty patients with non-specific low back pain were randomized into two groups: Group A received aceclofenac (2 mg/kg) twice a day and Group B received etoricoxib (1 mg/kg) twice a day for 1 week. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (ODI) determined the clinically meaningful outcomes. The decrease in pain intensity in Group A was 52.27%, while in Group B it was 62.53%. However, the decrease in pain scores between the groups was not statistically significant ( = .3795). Improvement in functional ability in Group A and Group B was 57.01% and 61.48%, respectively. However, this improvement between the groups was not statistically significant ( > .999) at the end of 1 week. The average cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that etoricoxib was the dominant treatment over aceclofenac. Therefore, etoricoxib was found to be the cost-effective option for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain for 1 week. Both aceclofenac and etoricoxib were clinically effective in reducing the pain intensity and in improving functional ability. However, etoricoxib was found to be the cost-effective intervention.
急性腰痛管理的目标是迅速缓解疼痛并提高功能能力。非甾体抗炎药是一线治疗药物。挑战在于确定哪种非甾体抗炎药能在提供更显著症状缓解的同时,还具有成本效益。为比较醋氯芬酸和依托考昔在急性腰痛管理中的有效性。这项前瞻性、开放标签、观察性研究在一家三级护理医院进行。年龄超过18岁且腰痛持续时间少于6周的患者被纳入研究。50例非特异性腰痛患者被随机分为两组:A组每天两次服用醋氯芬酸(2毫克/千克),B组每天两次服用依托考昔(1毫克/千克),持续1周。数字评定量表(NRS)和奥斯威斯利腰痛残疾指数(ODI)确定了具有临床意义的结果。A组疼痛强度降低了52.27%,而B组为62.53%。然而,两组之间疼痛评分的降低没有统计学意义(P = 0.3795)。A组和B组功能能力的改善分别为57.01%和61.48%。然而,在1周结束时,两组之间的这种改善没有统计学意义(P > 0.999)。平均成本效益比表明,依托考昔是优于醋氯芬酸的主要治疗方法。因此,发现依托考昔是急性腰痛1周短期疼痛缓解的具有成本效益的选择。醋氯芬酸和依托考昔在减轻疼痛强度和改善功能能力方面在临床上均有效。然而,发现依托考昔是具有成本效益的干预措施。