Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Randomised placebo-controlled trial on the effectiveness of nasal salmon calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a double blind randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of nasal salmon calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The trial compared the outcome of salmon calcitonin nasal spray to placebo nasal spray in patients with MRI confirmed lumbar spinal stenosis. Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the commonest conditions encountered by spine surgeons. It more frequently affects elderly patients and lumbar decompression has been used to treat the condition with variable success. Non operative measures have been investigated, but their success ranges from 15% to 43% in patients followed up for 1–5 years (Simotas in Clin Orthop 1(384):153–161, 2001). Salmon calcitonin injections have been investigated in previous trials and may have a treatment effect. Nasal salmon calcitonin has become available and if effective would have advantages over injections. Forty patients with symptoms of neurogenic claudication and MRI proven lumbar spinal stenosis were randomly assigned either nasal salmon calcitonin or placebo nasal spray to use for 4 weeks. This was followed by a ‘washout’ period of 6 weeks, and subsequent treatment with 6 weeks of nasal salmon calcitonin. Standard spine outcome measures including Oswestry disability index (ODI), low back outcome score, visual analogue score and shuttle walking test were administered at baseline, 4, 10 and 16 weeks. Twenty patients received nasal salmon calcitonin and twenty patients received placebo nasal spray. At 4 weeks post treatment there was no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the two groups. The change in ODI was a mean 1.3 points for the calcitonin group and 0.6 points for the placebo group (P = 0.51), the mean change in visual analogue score for leg pain was 10 mm in the calcitonin group and 0 mm in the placebo group (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in walking distance between the two groups, with a mean improvement in walking distance of 21 m in the calcitonin group and 8 m in the placebo group (P = 0.78). At the end of the trial the ODI had improved by a mean of 3.7 points in the calcitonin group and 3.8 points in the placebo group (P = 0.44). This randomised placebo controlled trial has not shown any treatment effect in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with nasal salmon calcitonin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Graph 1
Graph 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Simotas A (2001) Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 1(384):153–161

    Google Scholar 

  2. Porter RW, Hibbert C (1983) Calcitonin treatment for neurogenic claudication. Spine 8(6):585–592

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A (2002) The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 27(1):84–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fairbank J, Pynsent P (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25(22):2940–2953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Assessment of outcome in patients with low back pain. Spine 17(1):36–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ellerington MC, Hillard TC, Whitcroft SI et al (1996) Intranasal salmon calcitonin for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 59(1):6–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Walpin LA, Singer FR (1979) Paget’s disease, reversal of severe paraparesis with calcitonin. Spine 4:213–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Douglas DL, Duckworth T, Kanis JA et al (1981) Spinal cord dysfunction in Paget’s disease of bone. Has medical treatment a vascular basis? J Bone Joint Surg Br.63B(4):495–503

    Google Scholar 

  9. Podichetty VK, Segal AM, Lieber M, Mazanec DJ (2004) Effectiveness of Salmon calcitonin nasal spray in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis. Spine 29(21):2343–2349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Porter RW, Miller CG (1988) Neurogenic claudication and root claudication treated with calcitonin. A double-blind trial. Spine 13(9):1061–1064

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Streifler J, Hering R, Gadoth N (1989) Calcitonin for pseudoclaudication in lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 52(4):543–544

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Eskola A, Pohjolainen T, Alaranta H et al (1992) Calcitonin treatment in lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind, cross-over study with one year follow-up. Calcif Tissue Int 50:400–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Onel D, Sari H, Donmez C (1993) Lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical/radiologic therapeutic evaluation in 145 patients: conservative treatment or surgical intervention? Spine 18:291–298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gennari C (1983) Clinical aspects of calcitonin in pain. Triangle 22(2/3):156–163

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eskola A, Alaranta H, Pohjolainen T et al (1989) Calcitonin treatment in lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical observations. Calcif Tissue Int 45:372–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suhayl I. Tafazal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tafazal, S.I., Ng, L. & Sell, P. Randomised placebo-controlled trial on the effectiveness of nasal salmon calcitonin in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 16, 207–212 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0154-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0154-4

Keywords

Navigation