ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Panminerva Medica 2021 December;63(4):472-7

DOI: 10.23736/S0031-0808.20.03961-0

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Primary benign back pain: supplementation with Pycnogenol®

David COX ¹, Gianni BELCARO ^{1, 2, 3} ✉, Maria R. CESARONE ^{1, 2, 3}, Roberto COTELLESE ¹, Mark DUGALL ^{1, 2, 3}, Beatrice FERAGALLI ², Morio HOSOI ¹, Marcello CORSI ¹, Roberta LUZZI ¹

¹ IRVINE3 Vascular/Circulation Labs, Pescara, Italy; ² Radiology, Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, D’Annunzio University, Pescara, Italy; ³ IAAPS, International Agency for Pharma Standard Supplements, Pescara, Italy

BACKGROUND: Back pain (BP) is one of the most common problems seen by general practitioners. The aim of this pilot registry study was to evaluate the effects of Pycnogenol^® (French Maritime Pine Bark extract) on pain, mobility and muscle spasm in patients with recurring episodes of back pain without any other clinical condition.
METHODS: The registry follow-up lasted 3 weeks. Subjects used either SM (standard management), including mild exercise and 3 days of resting or immobilization - or SM+Pycnogenol^® 200 mg/day (4 cps/day).
RESULTS: Eighty-two subjects were included in the study, 23 took Pycnogenol^® and 59 were in the SM group. No safety problems or tolerability problems were observed with Pycnogenol^® or with the SM. The two groups, SM and SM+Pycnogenol^®, were comparable at inclusion. A prevalent localization to the lower part of the back/spine was observed in all patients of both groups. The improvement in Karnofsky performance status Scale - expressing the global physical capacity of the individuals - during the 3 weeks of follow-up was significantly higher and faster in the Pycnogenol^® group (P<0.05) compared to SM. Patients were able to restart physical training in 3 weeks with Pycnogenol^® (in comparison with 4.5 weeks with SM only). The decrease in back pain score (VASL score) was faster and more pronounced with Pycnogenol^® (P<0.05) compared to SM. Oxidative stress was significantly reduced in subjects using Pycnogenol^® (P<0.05) while it remained elevated in the control group. The use of the rescue medication doses (ibuprofen) was significantly higher in the SM only (P<0.05) in comparison with SM+Pycnogenol^®.
CONCLUSIONS: Pycnogenol^® appears to be an effective and safe supplementary management in healthy subjects with idiopathic BP. Mobility, pain, general physical capacity and oxidative stress improved in only a week with further improvements up to 4 weeks in most patients; results appear to be better and faster with Pycnogenol^® supplementation than with SM alone.

KEY WORDS: Back pain; Pycnogenols; Dietary supplements; Pain