Quantitative systematic review of topically applied non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute and chronic pain conditions. DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: 86 trials involving 10,160 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of treatment success approximating at least 50% reduction in pain, local and systemic adverse effects. Analysis at 1 week for acute and 2 weeks for chronic conditions with relative benefit and number needed to treat. RESULTS: In acute pain conditions (soft tissue trauma, strains, and sprains) placebo controlled trials had a relative benefit of 1.7 (1.5 to 1.9), the number needed to treat was 3.9 (3.4 to 4.4). With analysis by drug (at least three trials), ketoprofen (number needed to treat 2.6), felbinac (3.0), ibuprofen (3.5), and piroxicam (4.2) had significant efficacy. Benzydamine and indomethacin were no different from placebo. In chronic pain conditions (osteoarthritis, tendinitis) placebo controlled trials had a relative benefit of 2.0 (1.5 to 2.7); the number needed to treat was 3.1 (2.7 to 3.8). Small trials (< 40 treated patients) exaggerated effectiveness of topical non-steroidals by 33% in acute conditions but not in chronic conditions. There was no relation between trial quality and treatment effect. In both acute and chronic pain local and systemic adverse events and withdrawal from the study related to the drug had a low incidence and were no different from placebo. CONCLUSION: Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective in relieving pain in acute and chronic conditions.     

Discontinuation rates in clinical trials in musculoskeletal pain: meta-analysis from etoricoxib clinical trial reports

Introduction

Patient adherence to therapy in clinical practice is often low, and the difference between efficacy measured in clinical trials and effectiveness in clinical practice is probably a function of discontinuation of therapy because of lack of efficacy or because of unmanageable or intolerable adverse events. Discontinuation is frequently measured in clinical trials but is not usually described in detail in published reports, often because of limitations in the size of publications. By contrast, company clinical trial reports include much more detail.

Methods

We examined company clinical trial reports of trials involving etoricoxib in four musculoskeletal conditions: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic low back pain and ankylosing spondylitis. Information was available from 18 randomized trials (10,143 patients) lasting 4 to 12 weeks (one 4 weeks, three 6 weeks, one 8 weeks and seven 12 weeks) and from three trials with a mean duration of about 80 weeks (34,695 patients). These clinical trial reports contain over 73,000 pages of information.

Results

Over 12 weeks, lack of efficacy and adverse event discontinuations were similar between osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and back pain, with lack of efficacy discontinuation rates some three times higher than for adverse events. All-cause and lack of efficacy discontinuations were lower with etoricoxib (all doses combined) and traditional nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) than with placebo, although NSAIDs produced higher rates of clinical adverse events and gastrointestinal discontinuations than did placebo. Etoricoxib had fewer discontinuations than NSAIDs for lack of efficacy, clinical adverse events, and laboratory and gastrointestinal adverse events, but with more discontinuations because of hypertension and oedema. Comparison with two similar meta-analyses of other cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (more than 80,000 patients in total) revealed consistency between analyses.

Conclusion

Examining discontinuation data from clinical trials, even when the numbers of patients are very large, does not necessarily predict what will happen in the real world, where clinical effectiveness may differ from clinical efficacy assessed in trials. Data from these analyses appears to agree with findings from real world practice.     

Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.     

Advice to use topical or oral ibuprofen for chronic knee pain in older people: randomised controlled trial and patient preference study

Objective To determine whether older patients with chronic knee pain should be advised to use topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).Design Randomised controlled trial and patient preference study.Setting 26 general practices.Participants People aged ≥50 with knee pain: 282 in randomised trial and 303 in preference study. Interventions Advice to use topical or oral ibuprofen.Primary outcome measures WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index, major and minor adverse effects.Results Changes in global WOMAC scores at 12 months were equivalent. In the randomised trial the difference (topical minus oral) was two points (95% confidence interval −2 to 6); in the preference study, it was one point (−4 to 6). There were no differences in major adverse effects in the trial or study. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were in the randomised trial. The oral group had more respiratory adverse effects (17% v 7%,95% confidence interval for difference −17% to −2%), the change in serum creatinine was 3.7 mmol/l less favourable (0.9 µmol/l to 6.5 µmol/l); and more participants changed treatments because of adverse effects (16% v 1%, −16% to −5%). In the topical group more participants had chronic pain grade III or IV at three months, and more participants changed treatment because of ineffectiveness.Conclusions Advice to use oral or topical preparations has an equivalent effect on knee pain over one year, and there are more minor side effects with oral NSAIDs. Topical NSAIDs may be a useful alternative to oral NSAIDs.Trial registration ISRCTN 79353052.     

The efficacy and safety of Curcuma longa extract and curcumin supplements on osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of Curcuma longa extract and curcumin supplements on osteoarthritis (OA).Methods: The databases such as Pubmed and Cochrane Library were searched to collect the article about Curcuma longa extract and curcumin in the treatment of OA. Then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected and their data were extracted. Finally, the RevMan5.3 was utilized for risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis, the STATA15.0 were utilized for publication bias assessment, and GRADE tool were used for the evidence quality assessment of primary outcomes.Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 1621 participants were included. (1) Compared with placebo, Curcuma longa extract and curcumin (C.) can decrease the visual analog scale (VAS) and The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score-pain, the WOMAC score-function and the WOMAC score-stiffness. In terms of adverse events, Curcuma longa extract and curcumin are comparable with those of placebo. (2) Compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Curcuma longa extract and curcumin have similar effects on joint pain, function and stiffness. The incidence of adverse events in Curcuma longa extract and curcumin was lower. (3) Compared with the NSAIDs group, C.+NSAIDs can also decrease the VAS and WOMAC score-pain, the WOMAC score-function and the WOMAC score-stiffness. In terms of adverse events, the addition of Curcuma longa extract and curcumin to NSAIDs did not increase adverse events.Conclusion: Curcuma longa extract and curcumin may be a safer and effective supplement for OA patients. It is recommended to use Curcuma longa extract and curcumin supplement for OA patients for more than 12 weeks.     

Phytalgic®, a food supplement, vs placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial

Introduction

The medicinal treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) is mostly symptomatic to relieve pain and incapacity with analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), drugs with well-known risks. Complementary medicines might reduce the symptoms of OA and decrease the need for NSAIDs. This study tested the effects of a food supplement, Phytalgic^®, on pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis and their use of analgesic and NSAIDs.

Methods

A randomized double-blind parallel-groups clinical trial compared Phytalgic^® (fish-oil, vitamin E, Urtica dioica) to a placebo for three months, in 81 patients with OA of the knee or hip using NSAIDs and/or analgesics regularly. The main outcome measures were use of NSAIDs (in Defined Daily Doses per day - DDD/day) or analgesics (in 500 mg paracetamol-equivalent tablets per week (PET/week) measured each month, and Western Ontario-McMaster University Osteo-Arthritis Index (WOMAC) function scales.

Results

After three months of treatment, the mean use of analgesics in the active arm (6.5 PET/week) vs. the placebo arm (16.5) was significantly different (P < 0.001) with a group mean difference of -10.0 (95% CI: -4.9 to -15.1). That of NSAIDs in the active arm (0.4 DDD/day) vs the placebo arm (1.0 DDD/day) was significantly different (P = 0.02) with a group mean difference of - 0.7 DDD/day (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.2). Mean WOMAC scores for pain, stiffness and function in the active arm (respectively 86.5, 41.4 and 301.6) vs the placebo arm (resp. 235.3, 96.3 and 746.5) were significantly different (P < 0.001) with group mean differences respectively of -148.8 (95% CI: -97.7 to -199.9), -54.9 (95% CI: -27.9 to -81.9) and -444.8 (95% CI: -269.1 to -620.4).

Conclusions

The food supplement tested appeared to decrease the need for analgesics and NSAIDs and improve the symptoms of osteoarthritis.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00666523.     

胃食管反流病中安慰剂反应率的相关研究

目的：对胃食管反流病（GERD）随机对照试验中的安慰剂反应率进行Meta分析并研究影响该反应率的因素。方法：检索EMBASE,CochraneControlledTrialRegister和Medline数据库中公开发表的关于双盲、随机、安慰荆对照治疗GERD的英文文献,所有文献均包括质子泵抑制剂／H2受体阻滞剂,治疗时间至少为2周。对文献试验数据进行Meta分析,绘制森林图,同时绘制漏斗图检查发表偏倚。结果：纳入24个研究,共包括8917名患者。有效治疗的反应率与安慰剂反应率相比的OR为3．70（95％CI：2．77～4．95）。所有的安慰剂反应率为18．84％（2．93％-47．05％）。运用质子泵抑制剂治疗的患者与H：受体阻滞剂治疗者相比,安慰剂反应率明显降低（14．50％vs．24．68％,P=0．05）。糜烂性食管炎患者的安慰剂反应率与非糜烂性食管炎者相比略低,两者差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。结论：在GERD随机对照试验中,安慰剂反应率确实存在。该反应率降低与质子泵抑制剂的运用相关,而与腐蚀性食管炎的存在与否无关。     

Is Paromomycin an Effective and Safe Treatment against Cutaneous Leishmaniasis? A Meta-Analysis of 14 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

High cost, poor compliance, and systemic toxicity have limited the use of pentavalent antimony compounds (SbV), the treatment of choice for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Paromomycin (PR) has been developed as an alternative to SbV, but existing data are conflicting.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, through August 2007, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy or safety between PR and placebo or SbV. Primary outcome was clinical cure, defined as complete healing, disappearance, or reepithelialization of all lesions. Data were extracted independently by two investigators, and pooled using a random-effects model. Fourteen trials including 1,221 patients were included. In placebo-controlled trials, topical PR appeared to have therapeutic activity against the old world and new world CL, with increased local reactions, when used with methylbenzethonium chloride (MBCL) compared to when used alone (risk ratio [RR] for clinical cure, 2.58 versus 1.01: RR for local reactions, 1.60 versus 1.07). In SbV-controlled trials, the efficacy of topical PR was not significantly different from that of intralesional SbV in the old world CL (RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.26–1.89), whereas topical PR was inferior to parenteral SbV in treating the new world CL (0.67; 0.54–0.82). No significant difference in efficacy was found between parenteral PR and parenteral SbV in the new world CL (0.88; 0.56–1.38). Systemic side effects were fewer with topical or parenteral PR than parenteral SbV.

Conclusions/Significance

Topical PR with MBCL could be a therapeutic alternative to SbV in selected cases of the old world CL. Development of new formulations with better efficacy and tolerability remains to be an area of future research.     

Suvorexant for Primary Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

Objective

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating suvorexant for primary insomnia.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified through searches of PubMed, databases of the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO citations through June 27, 2015. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of suvorexant trial efficacy and safety outcomes. The primary efficacy outcomes were either subjective total sleep time (sTST) or subjective time-to-sleep onset (sTSO) at 1 month. The secondary outcomes were other efficacy outcomes, discontinuation rate, and individual adverse events. The risk ratio, number-needed-to-treat/harm, and weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on a random effects model were calculated.

Results

The computerized literature database search initially yielded 48 results, from which 37 articles were excluded following a review of titles and abstracts and another eight review articles after full-text review. Thus, we identified 4 trials that included a total of 3,076 patients. Suvorexant was superior to placebo with regard to the two primary efficacy outcomes (sTST: WMD = −20.16, 95% CI = −25.01 to −15.30, 1889 patients, 3 trials, sTSO: WMD = −7.62, 95% CI = −11.03 to −4.21, 1889 patients, 3 trials) and was not different from placebo in trial discontinuations. Suvorexant caused a higher incidence than placebo of at least one side effects, abnormal dreams, somnolence, excessive daytime sleepiness/sedation, fatigue, dry mouth, and rebound insomnia.

Conclusions

Our analysis of published trial results suggests that suvorexant is effective in treating primary insomnia and is well-tolerated.     

Efficacy of injections with Disci/Rhus toxicodendron compositum for chronic low back pain--a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background

The effectiveness of injection therapy for low-back pain is still debatable. We compared the efficacy of local injections of the homeopathic preparation Disci/Rhus toxicodendron compositum (verum) with placebo injections and with no treatment in patients with chronic low back pain.

Methodology/Principal Findings

In a randomized controlled partly double blind multicenter trial patients with chronic low back pain from 9 German outpatient clinics were enrolled and randomly allocated in a 1∶1∶1 ratio to receive subcutaneous injections (verum or placebo) into painful sites on the lower back over 12 treatment sessions within eight weeks, or no treatment (rescue pain medication with paracetamol or NSAIDs). All trial personnel and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the average pain intensity over the last seven days on a visual analogue scale (0–100 mm, 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain) after eight weeks. Follow-up was 26 weeks. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Between August 2007 and June 2008, 150 patients were randomly allocated to three groups (51 verum, 48 placebo and 51 no treatment). The mean baseline-adjusted low back pain intensity at week eight was: verum group 37.0 mm (97.5% CI 25.3;48.8), no treatment group 53.0 (41.8;64.2), and placebo group 41.8 (30.1;53.6). The verum was significantly superior to no treatment (P = 0.001), but not to placebo (P = 0.350). No significant side effects were reported.

Conclusions/Significance

The homeopathic preparation was not superior to placebo. Compared to no treatment injections resulted in significant and clinical relevant chronic back pain relief.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00567736","term_id":"NCT00567736"}}NCT00567736     

Osteoarthritis and nutrition. From nutraceuticals to functional foods: a systematic review of the scientific evidence

The scientific and medical community remains skeptical regarding the efficacy of nutrition for osteoarthritis despite their broad acceptation by patients. In this context, this paper systematically reviews human clinical trials evaluating the effects of nutritional compounds on osteoarthritis. We searched the Medline, Embase, and Biosis databases from their inception to September 2005 using the terms random, double-blind method, trial, study, placebo, and osteoarthritis. We selected all peer-reviewed articles reporting the results of randomised human clinical trials (RCTs) in osteoarthritis that investigated the effects of oral interventions based on natural molecules. Studies on glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate were excluded. The quality of the RCTs was assessed with an osteoarthritic-specific standardised set of 12 criteria and a validated instrument. A best-evidence synthesis was used to categorise the scientific evidence behind each nutritional compound as good, moderate, or limited. A summary of the most relevant in vitro and animal studies is used to shed light on the potential mechanisms of action. Inclusion criteria were met by 53 RCTs out of the 2,026 identified studies. Good evidence was found for avocado soybean unsaponifiables. Moderate evidence was found for methylsulfonylmethane and SKI306X, a cocktail of plant extracts. Limited evidence was found for the Chinese plant extract Duhuo Jisheng Wan, cetyl myristoleate, lipids from green-lipped mussels, and plant extracts from Harpagophytum procumbens. Overall, scientific evidence exists for some specific nutritional interventions to provide symptom relief to osteoarthritic patients. It remains to be investigated whether nutritional compounds can have structure-modifying effects.     

Phytalgic?, a food supplement,vs placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial

Introduction

The medicinal treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) is mostly symptomatic to relieve pain and incapacity with analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), drugs with well-known risks. Complementary medicines might reduce the symptoms of OA and decrease the need for NSAIDs. This study tested the effects of a food supplement, Phytalgic^®, on pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis and their use of analgesic and NSAIDs.

Methods

A randomized double-blind parallel-groups clinical trial compared Phytalgic^® (fish-oil, vitamin E, Urtica dioica) to a placebo for three months, in 81 patients with OA of the knee or hip using NSAIDs and/or analgesics regularly. The main outcome measures were use of NSAIDs (in Defined Daily Doses per day - DDD/day) or analgesics (in 500 mg paracetamol-equivalent tablets per week (PET/week) measured each month, and Western Ontario-McMaster University Osteo-Arthritis Index (WOMAC) function scales.

Results

After three months of treatment, the mean use of analgesics in the active arm (6.5 PET/week) vs. the placebo arm (16.5) was significantly different (P < 0.001) with a group mean difference of -10.0 (95% CI: -4.9 to -15.1). That of NSAIDs in the active arm (0.4 DDD/day) vs the placebo arm (1.0 DDD/day) was significantly different (P = 0.02) with a group mean difference of - 0.7 DDD/day (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.2). Mean WOMAC scores for pain, stiffness and function in the active arm (respectively 86.5, 41.4 and 301.6) vs the placebo arm (resp. 235.3, 96.3 and 746.5) were significantly different (P < 0.001) with group mean differences respectively of -148.8 (95% CI: -97.7 to -199.9), -54.9 (95% CI: -27.9 to -81.9) and -444.8 (95% CI: -269.1 to -620.4).

Conclusions

The food supplement tested appeared to decrease the need for analgesics and NSAIDs and improve the symptoms of osteoarthritis.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00666523","term_id":"NCT00666523"}}NCT00666523.     

Is there a place in the United Kingdom for intensive antacid treatment for chronic peptic ulceration?

Sixty nine patients with chronic duodenal or juxtapyloric ulceration were studied in a prospective double blind randomised trial to compare the efficacy of antacid and placebo at high (30 ml seven times daily) and low (10 ml as required) doses. After four weeks ulcers had healed in 12 out of 18 patients (67%) receiving "low dose" antacid compared with in six out of 17 patients (35%) receiving low dose placebo; ulcers had also healed in six out of 19 patients (32%) receiving "high dose" antacid compared with in two out of 15 patients (13%) receiving high dose placebo. Overall, the effect of antacid was superior to that of placebo in healing ulcers (p less than 0.05) and the effect of low dose treatment was superior to that of high dose treatment (p less than 0.01). There were no significant differences between antacid and placebo at eight weeks. Antacid was better than placebo in relieving pain, but the difference was not significant. Poor compliance and high incidence of diarrhoea made high dose antacid an impractical treatment. Low dose antacid was associated with a significantly better rate of healing than high dose antacid and was far better tolerated. This low dosage of antacid should be considered to be an active treatment in trials of ulcer healing.     

Efficacy,tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy, gastrointestinal safety, and tolerability of celecoxib (a cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX 2) inhibitor) used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.DesignSystematic review of randomised trials that compared at least 12 weeks'' celecoxib treatment with another non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or placebo and reported efficacy, tolerability, or safety. Trials identified from manufacturer and by searching electronic databases and evaluated according to predefined inclusion and quality criteria. Data combined through meta-analysis.Participants15 187 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.ResultsNine randomised controlled trials were included. Celecoxib and NSAIDS were equally effective for all efficacy outcomes. Compared with those taking other NSAIDs, in patients taking celecoxib the rate of withdrawals due to adverse gastrointestinal events was 46% lower (95% confidence interval 29% to 58%; NNT 35 at three months), the incidence of ulcers detectable by endoscopy was 71% lower (59% to 79%; NNT 6 at three months), and the incidence of symptoms of ulcers, perforations, bleeds, and obstructions was 39% lower (4% to 61%; NNT 208 at six months). Subgroup analysis of patients taking aspirin showed that the incidence of ulcers detected by endoscopy was reduced by 51% (14% to 72%) in those given celecoxib compared with other NSAIDs. The reduction was greater (73%, 52% to 84%) in those not taking aspirin.ConclusionCelecoxib is as effective as other NSAIDs for relief of symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis and has significantly improved gastrointestinal safety and tolerability.

What is already known on this topic

Long term NSAID use is associated with the development of peptic and duodenal ulcersCOX 2 specific inhibitors are claimed to cause fewer gastrointestinal complicationsThe National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recently recommended that COX 2 specific inhibitors are used in patients with arthritis who are at risk of gastrointestinal complications but not in those taking prophylactic aspirin

What this study adds

Systematic review of randomised trials shows that celecoxib is as effective as other NSAIDs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritisCelecoxib has significantly improved gastrointestinal safety and tolerability compared with standard NSAIDsAn improvement in gastrointestinal safety was still evident in patients who were also taking aspirin     

Systematic review of dexketoprofen in acute and chronic pain

Background

Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.

Results

Thirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain. All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Dexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.     

Comparison of Two Therapeutic Regimens Using the Same Topical Corticoid for Stable Psoriasis

In a masked, randomized, concurrently controlled clinical trial we compared the therapeutic response of two regimens in which the same topical corticoid was used to treat 52 men who had stable psoriasis. One regimen, called reduced dose, consisted of once-a-day application of a representative potent fluorinated topical steroid ointment, fluocinonide (Lidex), combined with three-times-a-day application of its vehicle. The other regimen, called traditional dose, consisted of four-times-a-day topical application of the same steroid. Patients were assigned to one of the two regimens and observed for six weeks. Confidence intervals for the difference in true mean response under these two regimens provide good evidence that for these patients the traditional dose was not clinically superior to the reduced dose.     

Effect of a topical diclofenac solution for relieving symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Treatment of osteoarthritis with oral NSAID therapy provides pain relief but carries a substantial risk of adverse effects. Topical NSAID therapy offers an alternative to oral treatment, with the potential for a reduced risk of side effects. The objective of this trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of a topical diclofenac solution in relieving the symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee.

Methods

We identified 248 men and women from southern Ontario with primary osteoarthritis of the knee and at least moderate pain. The patients were randomly assigned to apply 1 of 3 solutions to their painful knee for 4 weeks: a topical diclofenac solution (1.5% wt/wt diclofenac sodium in a carrier containing dimethyl sulfoxide [DMSO]); a vehicle-control solution (the carrier containing DMSO but no diclofenac); and a placebo solution (a modified carrier with a token amount of DMSO for blinding purposes but no diclofenac). The primary efficacy end point was pain relief, measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) LK3.0 Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale. Secondary end points were improved physical function and reduced stiffness (measured by the WOMAC subscales), reduced pain on walking and patient global assessment (PGA). Safety was evaluated with clinical and laboratory assessments.

Results

In the intent-to-treat group the mean change (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) in pain score from baseline to final assessment was significantly greater for the patients who applied the topical diclofenac solution (–3.9 [– 4.8 to –2.9]) than for those who applied the vehicle-control solution (–2.5 [– 3.3 to –1.7]; p = 0.023) or the placebo solution (–2.5 [–3.3 to –1.7]; p = 0.016). For the secondary variables the topical diclofenac solution also revealed superiority to the vehicle-control and placebo solutions, leading to mean changes (and 95% CIs) of –11.6 (–14.7 to –8.4; p = 0.002 and 0.014, respectively) in physical function, –1.5 (–1.9 to –1.1; p = 0.015 and 0.002, respectively) in stiffness and –0.8 (–1.1 to –0.6; p = 0.003 and 0.015, respectively) in pain on walking. The PGA scores were significantly better for the patients who applied the topical diclofenac solution than for those who applied the other 2 solutions (p = 0.039 and 0.025, respectively). The topical diclofenac solution caused some skin irritation, mostly minor local skin dryness, in 30 (36%) of the 84 patients, but this led to discontinuation of treatment in only 5 (6%) of the cases. The incidence of gastrointestinal events did not differ between the treatment groups. No serious gastrointestinal or renal adverse events were reported or detected by means of laboratory testing.

Interpretation

This topical diclofenac solution can provide safe, site-specific treatment for osteoarthritic pain, with only minor local skin irritation and minimal systemic side effects.Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease affecting articular cartilage and underlying bone, commonly of the knee.¹ Current treatment includes the oral use of NSAIDs, either nonselective or cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective. These agents carry a substantial risk of clinically significant adverse effects, particularly on the gastrointestinal^2,3 and renal systems.⁴ Although the incidence of gastrointestinal complications has been reported to be lower with COX-2-selective NSAIDs than with nonselective NSAIDs,^5,6,7 the former have been linked to adverse renal effects⁸ and an increased risk of cardiovascular complications.⁹The need for safer treatment of osteoarthritis has led to research into the topical use of NSAIDs.^10,11,12 Recent reviews of the few published placebo-controlled studies suggest that topical NSAID therapy can relieve pain^13,14,15 with few gastrointestinal side effects.¹⁶ Current practice guidelines advocate the use of topical therapy, including NSAIDs, in the management of osteoarthritis.^17,18,19 A diclofenac solution containing the absorption enhancer dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was developed for site-specific topical application. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that applying this solution to a painful knee with primary osteoarthritis could provide symptom relief with minimal systemic side effects.     

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists' Collaborative Group.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the clinical benefits of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in patients treated in intensive care units. DESIGN--Meta-analysis of 22 randomised trials that compared different combinations of oral non-absorbable antibiotics, with or without a systemic component, with no treatment in controls. SUBJECTS--4142 patients seen in general and specialised intensive care units around the world. 2047 received some form of antibiotic treatment, the remainder no prophylaxis. DATA ANALYSIS--Each trial was reviewed through direct contact with study investigators. Data collected were: the randomisation procedure, number of patients, number excluded from the analysis, and numbers of respiratory tract infections and deaths. Data were combined according to an intention to treat analysis with the Mantel-Haenszel-Peto method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Respiratory tract infections and total mortality. RESULTS--Selective decontamination of the digestive tract significantly reduced respiratory tract infections (odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.43). The value of the common odds ratio for total mortality (0.90; 0.79 to 1.04) suggested at best a moderate treatment effect, reaching statistical significance only when the subgroup of trials of topical and systemic treatment combined was considered separately (odds ratio 0.80; 0.67 to 0.97). No firm conclusions could be drawn owing to large variations in patient mix and severity within and between trials. CONCLUSIONS--The findings strongly indicate that selective decontamination significantly reduces infection related morbidity in patients receiving intensive care. They also highlight why definite conclusions about the effect of prophylaxis on mortality cannot be drawn despite the large number of trials available. Based on the most favourable results obtained by pooling data from trials in which combined topical and systemic treatment was used it may be estimated that 6 (range 5-9) and 23 (13-139) patients would need to be treated to prevent one respiratory tract infection and one death respectively.     

Influences on older people’s decision making regarding choice of topical or oral NSAIDs for knee pain: qualitative study

Objective To explore the factors that influence older people’s decision making regarding use of topical or oral ibuprofen for their knee pain.Design Qualitative interview study nested within a randomised controlled trial and a patient preference study that compared advice to use oral or topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee pain in older people.Setting 11 general practices.Participants 30 people aged ≥50 with knee pain. Results Participants’ decision making was influenced by their perceptions of the associated risk of adverse effects, presence of other illness, nature of their pain, advice received, and practicality. Although participants’ understanding of how the medications worked was sometimes poor their decision making about the use of NSAIDs seemed logical and appropriate. Participants’ model for treatment was to use topical NSAIDs for mild, local, and transient pain and oral NSAIDs for moderate to severe, generalised, and constant pain (in the absence of other more serious illness or risk of adverse effects). Participants showed marked tolerance and normalisation of adverse effects.Conclusion Participants had clear ideas about the appropriate use of oral and topical NSAIDs. Taking such views into account when prescribing may improve adherence, judgment of efficacy, and the doctor-patient relationship. Tolerance and normalisation of adverse effects in these patients indicate that closer monitoring of older people who use NSAIDs might be needed.