4.3 Article

Tapentadol prolonged release for managing moderate to severe chronic neck pain with or without a neuropathic component

期刊

CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 651-659

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1722083

关键词

Neck pain; tapentadol; pain; neuropathic pain; quality of life; range of motion; disability

资金

  1. Grunenthal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite the high prevalence of neck pain, few studies have addressed the pharmacological treatment of this condition. Purpose: We evaluated the effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged-release (PR) in patients with or without a neuropathic pain component, with a focus on functional movements, disability and Quality of Life (QoL). Study design/setting: Observational, retrospective study. Patient sample: Ninety-four adult patients with severe neck pain not responsive to opioid step III treatment. Outcome measures: The primary endpoint was a >= 30% improvement of pain intensity at 4 weeks (W4). Several secondary outcomes were evaluated, including neck disability index (NDI), range of motion (ROM), and QoL. Methods: Patients received tapentadol PR at the starting dose of 100 mg/day. Dose titration was allowed in 50 mg increments, up to 500 mg daily. Results: At W4, the primary endpoint of >= 30% improvement of pain was reported in 70% (n = 35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55-82%) of patients with a neuropathic pain component and in 69% (n = 20; 95% CI: 49-85%) of those without a neuropathic component. The percentage of patients reporting a neuropathic pain component significantly decreased from baseline (64.2%) to W4 (27.8%). NDI significantly improved in both groups at W12. ROM significantly improved in all three planes of motion (p < .01), with no difference between the two groups. Interference of pain with sleep and QoL also improved. Conclusions: The reduction in pain provided by tapentadol is associated with functional recovery, which may in turn be linked to an improvement in QoL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据