Comparison of the effects of duloxetine and pregabalin on pain and associated factors in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the effects of duloxetine and pregabalin primarily on pain and functional status in patients with knee osteoarthritis and secondarily on quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. METHODS: A total of 66 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to use duloxetine or pregabalin. Patients were evaluated by Visual Analog Scale, Neuropathic Pain Diagnostic Questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form-36, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index before the treatment and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Improvements occurred in Visual Analog Scale, Neuropathic Pain Diagnostic Questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form-36 (with an exception of the mental health subgroup scores in duloxetine-treated group), Beck Depression Inventory, and Beck Anxiety Inventory scores in both groups from 4 weeks after baseline. Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index total scores and SF-36 mental health subgroup scores started to improve on the 4th and 12th weeks in pregabalin- and duloxetine-treated groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Osteoarthritis pain, a complex outcome with nociceptive and neuropathic components, leads to central sensitization in a chronic phase. Using centrally acting drugs in the control of pain and associated symptoms would increase the probability of treatment success.

Comparison of the effects of duloxetine and pregabalin on pain and associated factors in patients with knee osteoarthritis

SUMMARY OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the effects of duloxetine and pregabalin primarily on pain and functional status in patients with knee osteoarthritis and secondarily on quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. METHODS: A total of 66 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to use duloxetine or pregabalin. Patients were evaluated by Visual Analog Scale, Neuropathic Pain Diagnostic Questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form-36, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index before the treatment and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Improvements occurred in Visual Analog Scale, Neuropathic Pain Diagnostic Questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form-36 (with an exception of the mental health subgroup scores in duloxetine-treated group), Beck Depression Inventory, and Beck Anxiety Inventory scores in both groups from 4 weeks after baseline. Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index total scores and SF-36 mental health subgroup scores started to improve on the 4th and 12th weeks in pregabalin- and duloxetine-treated groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Osteoarthritis pain, a complex outcome with nociceptive and neuropathic components, leads to central sensitization in a chronic phase. Using centrally acting drugs in the control of pain and associated symptoms would increase the probability of treatment success.

The effect of interferential current therapy on patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Although interferential current (IFC) is a common electrotherapeutic modality used to treat musculoskeletal pain, there is not any randomized controlled trial investigating its clinical efficacy in subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS). AIM: Investigation of effectiveness of IFC treatment in patients with SAIS. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study. SETTING: Physical medicine and rehabilitation outpatient clinic. POPULATION: Patients (N.=65) between 25 and 65 years of age, with a diagnosis of SAIS according to clinical evaluation and subacromial injection test. METHODS: Patients were randomly distributed into two groups: 1) active IFC group (N.=33); 2) sham IFC group (N.=32). Exercise, cryotherapy, and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) were given to both groups. Ten sessions of IFC with bipolar method were applied to the active IFC group daily 20 minutes per session, 5 days per week, for 2 weeks while sham IFC was applied to the sham IFC group with the same protocol. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Constant scores, and Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ) were used for evaluation at baseline, immediately post-treatment, and 1 month post-treatment. Both the patients and the researcher who assessed the outcomes were blinded to the treatment protocol throughout the study period. RESULTS: Sixty of the 65 patients (active IFC group N.=30, sham IFC group N.=30) completed the study, 3 patients from active IFC, 2 from sham IFC group dropped during the follow up period. Statistically significant improvement was observed in all parameters of both groups immediately and 1 month post-treatment (P<0.01). There were no statistical differences between the active IFC group and sham IFC group in all outcome parameters (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that IFC therapy does not provide additional benefit to NSAID, cryotherapy, and exercise program in treatment of SAIS. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Our study responds to the needs of the lack of evidence in the field of rehabilitation. IFC therapy does not provide additional benefit for the treatment of SAIS.