Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • About
  • Communities & Collections
  • Advanced Search
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Medicine
  3. Faculty of Medicine
  4. Ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
 
  • Details
Ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
File(s)
PAIN-PEA_R1.pdf (1.05 MB)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Andresen, SR
Bing, J
Hansen, RM
Biering-Sørensen, F
Johannesen, IL
more
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Neuropathic pain and spasticity after spinal cord injury (SCI) represent significant problems. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), a fatty acid amide that is produced in many cells in the body, is thought to potentiate the action of endocannabinoids and to reduce pain and inflammation. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel multicenter study was performed to investigate the effect of ultramicronized PEA (PEA-um) as add-on therapy on neuropathic pain in individuals with SCI. A pain diary was completed and questionnaires were completed before and after the 12-week treatment with either placebo or PEA-um. The primary outcome measure was the change in mean neuropathic pain intensity from the 1-week baseline period to the last week of treatment measured on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10. The primary efficacy analysis was the intention to treat (baseline observation carried forward). Secondary outcomes included a per protocol analysis and effects on spasticity, evoked pain, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, and global impression of change. We randomized 73 individuals with neuropathic pain due to SCI, of which 5 had a major protocol violation, and thus 68 were included in the primary analysis. There was no difference in mean pain intensity between PEA-um and placebo treatment (P = 0.46, mean reductions in pain scores 0.4 (-0.1 to 0.9) vs 0.7 (0.2-1.2); difference of means 0.3 (-0.4 to 0.9)). There was also no effect of PEA-um as add-on therapy on spasticity, insomnia, or psychological functioning. PEA was not associated with more adverse effects than placebo.
Date Issued
2016-09-01
Date Acceptance
2016-03-21
Citation
Pain, 2016, 157 (15), pp.2097-2103
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/40659
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000623
ISSN
0304-3959
Publisher
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Start Page
2097
End Page
2103
Journal / Book Title
Pain
Volume
157
Issue
15
Copyright Statement
© 2016 International Association for the Study of Pain
Subjects
Anesthesiology
11 Medical And Health Sciences
17 Psychology And Cognitive Sciences
Publication Status
Published
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback