These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Tizanidine treatment of spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. US Tizanidine Study Group.
    Author: Smith C, Birnbaum G, Carter JL, Greenstein J, Lublin FD.
    Journal: Neurology; 1994 Nov; 44(11 Suppl 9):S34-42; discussion S42-3. PubMed ID: 7970009.
    Abstract:
    This multicenter, stratified, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial evaluated tizanidine for use in the United States for spasticity secondary to MS. The 15-week trial was divided into baseline (weeks 0 and 1), titration (2 mg to a maximum of 36 mg/d; weeks 2 to 4), and plateau (weeks 5 to 13) phases, followed by dose tapering (week 14) and a final visit (week 15). Primary efficacy parameters were scores on muscle tone (Ashworth Scale) and type and frequency of muscle spasms (patient diaries). All efficacy parameters were evaluated by the physician/assessor, and the physician/prescriber was responsible for all dosage adjustments. The patient, physician/assessor, and physician/prescriber made global evaluations of antispastic efficacy. Tizanidine produced a significantly greater reduction than placebo in spasms and clonus (patient diaries) but no significant differences in Ashworth scores. Patients and physician/prescribers, but not physician/assessors, gave significantly better scores in the overall assessment of efficacy and tolerability. No significant differences in other secondary efficacy parameters were noted. Adverse events were reported for 66 (61%) of the 109 placebo-treated patients and 101 (91%) of the 111 tizanidine-treated patients; 6 (6%) and 14 (13%) discontinued treatment, respectively. Patient and physician perception of improvement demonstrated more consistent differences between groups than did the Ashworth Scale, perhaps because of inexperience with this measure or failure to consider time between drug administration and assessment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]