Effectiveness of salmon calcitonin nasal spray in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial.

Podichetty VK, Segal AM, Lieber M, Mazanec DJ

Spine1 Nov 2004Cited by 34 (Europe PMC)

PMID15507793DOI10.1097/01.brs.0000143807.78082.7fPepBankPUB-15507793

Publisher page PubMedAsk about this study

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study6

6 results from studies that gave the peptide. 6 results from people.

01HumanRandomized controlled trialOther
In patients with lumbar canal stenosis, eight calcitonin patients withdrew versus four placebo patients.
In plain wordsEight calcitonin patients withdrew versus four placebo patients.
Peptide
Calcitonin-salmon
Outcome
Direction not reportedStudy withdrawal
Study
n = 55
Comparator
Placebo
Outcome group
Study Withdrawal · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · intranasal · 6 weeksAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Withdrawals
8 patients
calcitonin
Withdrawals
4 patients
placebo
Withdrawal proportion
14.54%
calcitonin, reported percentage
Withdrawal proportion
7.27%
placebo, reported percentage
Source sentences
Summary
Eight (14.54%) calcitonin and 4 (7.27%) placebo patients withdrew from the study.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
Summary · context
Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo.
Report a problemFND-1550779301
02HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In lumbar canal stenosis, calcitonin did not significantly improve pain intensity versus placebo at week 6.
In plain wordsCalcitonin did not significantly improve pain intensity versus placebo at week 6.
Peptide
Calcitonin-salmon
Outcome
No significant changePain intensity change
Study
n = 55
Comparator
Placebo
Outcome group
Pain · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · intranasal · 6 weeksAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
VAS change
−2.9 points
calcitonin
VAS change
−2.4 points
placebo
P
0.4382
between groups
Source sentences
Summary
Comparisons at week 6 showed no statistically significant difference in the change in pain intensity (VAS) between calcitonin group (-2.9) and placebo (-2.4) (P = 0.4382) from baseline.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
Summary · context
Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo.
Report a problemFND-1550779302
03HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In lumbar canal stenosis, walking time to pain did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
In plain wordsWalking time to pain did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
Peptide
Calcitonin-salmon
Outcome
No significant changeWalking time to pain
Study
n = 55
Comparator
Placebo
Outcome group
Exercise and physical function · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · intranasal · 6 weeksAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Walking time change
−10 seconds
calcitonin
Walking time change
32.2 seconds
placebo
P
0.5136
between groups
Source sentences
Summary
There was no significant difference in walking time to pain (calcitonin -10.0 seconds; placebo +32.2 seconds; P = 0.5136).
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
Summary · context
Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo.
Report a problemFND-1550779303
04HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In lumbar canal stenosis, walking distance improvement did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
In plain wordsWalking distance improvement did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
Peptide
Calcitonin-salmon
Outcome
No significant changeWalking distance to pain
Study
n = 55
Comparator
Placebo
Outcome group
Exercise and physical function · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · intranasal · 6 weeksAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Distance improvement
91.4 ft
calcitonin
Distance improvement
254.7 ft
placebo
P
0.4948
between groups
Source sentences
Summary
Walking distance to pain showed a mean improvement of +91.4 ft in the calcitonin group and +254.7 ft in the placebo group (P = 0.4948).
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
Summary · context
Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo.
Report a problemFND-1550779304
05HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In lumbar canal stenosis, SF-36 scores did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
In plain wordsSF-36 scores did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
Peptide
Calcitonin-salmon
Outcome
No significant changeSF-36 score
Study
n = 55
Comparator
Placebo
Outcome group
Quality of life · Whole body
Studied dose
Dose not stated · intranasal · 6 weeksAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
No significant difference was observed in the SF-36 score between the treatment groups.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
Summary · context
Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo.
Report a problemFND-1550779305
06HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In lumbar canal stenosis, pain responder proportions did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
In plain wordsPain responder proportions did not differ significantly between calcitonin and placebo.
Peptide
Calcitonin-salmon
Outcome
No significant changePain responders at 6 weeks
Study
n = 47
Comparator
Placebo
Outcome group
Pain · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · intranasal · 6 weeksAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Responders
12 of 29
calcitonin
Responders
41.37%
calcitonin
Responders
7 of 18
placebo
Responders
38.88%
placebo
P
0.4238
between groups
Source sentences
Summary
Using a threshold of at least 50% reduction in pain from baseline to 6 weeks, 12 of 29 (41.37%) of calcitonin patients were considered responders versus 7 of 18 (38.88%) of placebo patients (P = 0.4238)
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
Summary · context
Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo.
Report a problemFND-1550779306

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

Version 2Current
28 Oct 2026, 02:03 UTC
Study results updated
Version 1
27 Oct 2026, 16:35 UTC
First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.