Single-dose oral naproxen for acute postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: Naproxen and naproxen sodium are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used in a variety of painful conditions, including the treatment of postoperative pain. This review aims to assess the efficacy, safety and duration of action of a single oral dose of naproxen/naproxen sodium for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain in adults, compared with placebo. METHODS: The Cochrane Library (issue 4 2002), EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE and an in-house database were searched for randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of a single dose of orally administered naproxen or naproxen sodium in adults with acute postoperative pain. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into dichotomous information to give the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat were then calculated. The percentage of patients with any adverse event, number-needed-to-harm, and time to remedication were also calculated. RESULTS: Ten trials with 996 patients in met the inclusion criteria. Six trials compared naproxen sodium 550 mg (252 patients) with placebo (248 patients); the NNT for at least 50% pain relief over six hours was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 3.2). There was no significant difference between the number of patients experiencing any adverse event on treatment compared with placebo. Weighted mean time to remedication was 7.6 hours for naproxen sodium 550 mg (206 patients) and 2.6 hours for placebo (205 patients). Four other trials used lower doses. CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of naproxen sodium 550 mg is an effective analgesic in the treatment of acute postoperative pain. A low incidence of adverse events was found, although these were not reported consistently.     

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 We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.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.     

Systematic review of the relative efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in the treatment of acute renal colic

Objective To examine the relative benefits and disadvantages of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for the management of acute renal colic.Data sources Cochrane Renal Group''s specialised register, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase, and reference lists of retrieved articles.Review methods Randomised controlled trials comparing any opioid with any NSAID in acute renal colic if they reported any of the following outcomes: patient rated pain, time to pain relief, need for rescue analgesia, rate of recurrence of pain, and adverse events.Results 20 trials totalling 1613 participants were identified. Both NSAIDs and opioids led to clinically important reductions in patient reported pain scores. Pooled analysis of six trials showed a greater reduction in pain scores for patients treated with NSAIDs than with opioids. Patients treated with NSAIDs were significantly less likely to require rescue analgesia (relative risk 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.93). Most trials showed a higher incidence of adverse events in patients treated with opioids. Compared with patients treated with opioids, those treated with NSAIDs had significantly less vomiting (0.35, 0.23 to 0.53). Pethidine was associated with a higher rate of vomiting.Conclusions Patients receiving NSAIDs achieve greater reductions in pain scores and are less likely to require further analgesia in the short term than those receiving opioids. Opioids, particularly pethidine, are associated with a higher rate of vomiting.     

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.     

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.     

Postoperative pain management in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a narrative review

Posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis is one of the most invasive surgical procedures performed in children and adolescents. Because of the extensive surgical incision and massive tissue trauma, posterior spinal fusion causes severe postoperative pain. Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids has been the mainstay of postoperative pain management in these patients. However, the use of systemic opioids is sometimes limited by opioid-related side effects, resulting in poor analgesia. To improve pain management while reducing opioid consumption and opioid-related complications, concurrent use of analgesics and analgesic modalities with different mechanisms of action seems to be rational. The efficacy of intrathecal opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as components of multimodal analgesia in scoliosis surgery has been well established. However, there is either controversy or insufficient evidence regarding the use of other analgesic methods, such as continuous ketamine infusion, perioperative oral gabapentin, acetaminophen, continuous wound infiltration of local anesthetics, a single dose of systemic dexamethasone, and lidocaine infusion in this patient population. Moreover, appropriate combinations of analgesics have not been established. The aim of this literature review is to provide detailed information of each analgesic technique so that clinicians can make appropriate choices regarding pain management in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing posterior spinal fusion.     

Oral valdecoxib and injected parecoxib for acute postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials suggest that cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors (coxibs) are an effective treatment for acute postoperative pain. The aims of this systematic review were to examine the evidence for oral valdecoxib and injected parecoxib, and quantify efficacy and adverse effects. METHODS: Information from randomized, double-blind studies in acute postoperative pain was sought. The area under the pain relief versus time curve over four to six hours was dichotomized using validated equations to derive the proportion of patients with treatment and placebo with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours and calculate the number-needed-to-treat (NNT). Information on duration of analgesia and adverse events was also collected. RESULTS: The NNT for one patient to experience at least 50% relief over six hours following a single oral dose of valdecoxib 20 mg and 40 mg was 1.7 (1.4 to 2.0) and 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8) respectively. The NNT for one patient to have at least 50% relief over four to six hours with parecoxib 20 mg IV and 40 mg IV was 3.0 (2.3 to 4.1) and 2.3 (2.0 to 2.6) respectively. Mean time to remedication (weighted by trial size) was >24 hours with valdecoxib 40 mg, 8.7 hours with parecoxib 40 mg IV and 1.7 to 1.8 hours with placebo. There were no statistical differences between treatment and placebo for any adverse effect. CONCLUSION: Both oral valdecoxib and injected parecoxib are effective treatments for acute postoperative pain.     

Antithrombin III in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective To evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sources CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.Review methods Two reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity. Main outcome measures Mortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).Results 20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.Conclusion Antithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.     

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.     

Investigation of the potentiation of the analgesic effects of fentanyl by ketamine in humans: a double-blinded, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover study of experimental pain[ISRCTN83088383]

BACKGROUND: Despite preclinical evidence suggesting a synergistic interaction between ketamine and opioids promoting analgesia, several clinical trials have not identified dosing regimens capable of eliciting a benefit in the co-administration of ketamine with opioids. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers participated in a double blinded, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover laboratory study in order to determine whether a low dose of ketamine potentiated the antinociceptive effect of fentanyl without causing an increase in sedative effects. A battery of tests was used to assess both nociception and sedation including electrical current, pressure, thermal stimuli, psychometric tests, and both subjective and objective scores of sedation. Target controlled infusions of the study drugs were used. Ketamine and fentanyl were administered alone and in combination in a double-blinded randomised crossover design. Saline was used as the control, and propofol was used to validate the tests of sedation. Cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: The electrical current pain threshold dose response curve of fentanyl combined with ketamine was markedly steeper than the dose response curve of fentanyl alone. While a ketamine serum concentration of 30 ng/ml did not result in a change in electrical pain threshold when administered alone, when it was added to fentanyl, the combination resulted in greater increase in pain threshold than that of fentanyl administered alone. When nociception was assessed using heat and pressure stimuli, ketamine did not potentiate the anti-nociceptive effect of fentanyl. There was no difference between the sedative effect of fentanyl and fentanyl in combination with ketamine as assessed by both subjective and objective measures of sedation. Cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were unaffected by the study drugs at the doses given. CONCLUSION: A serum concentration of ketamine that did not alter indices of sedation potentiated the antinociceptive effect of fentanyl. This potentiation of antinociception occurred without an increase in sedation suggesting that low steady doses of ketamine (30-120 ng/ml) might be combined with mu opioid agonists to improve their analgesic effect in a clinical setting. (296 words).     

Single dose cabergoline versus bromocriptine in inhibition of puerperal lactation: randomised,double blind,multicentre study. European Multicentre Study Group for Cabergoline in Lactation Inhibition.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the efficacy and safety of a single dose of 1 mg of cabergoline with that of bromocriptine 2.5 mg twice daily for 14 days in the inhibition of puerperal lactation. DESIGN--Prospective, randomised, double blind, parallel group, multicentre study. SETTING--University of hospital departments of obstetrics and gynaecology in different European countries. SUBJECTS--272 puerperal women not wishing to lactate (136 randomised to each drug). INTERVENTIONS--Women randomised to cabergoline received two 0.5 mg tablets of cabergoline and one placebo tablet within 27 hours after delivery and then placebo twice daily for 14 days. Those randomised to bromocriptine received 2.5 mg of bromocriptine and two placebo tablets within 27 hours and then 2.5 mg of bromocriptine twice daily for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Success of treatment (complete or partial) according to milk secretion, breast engorgement, and breast pain; rebound symptomatology; serum prolactin concentrations; and number of adverse events. RESULTS--Complete success was achieved in 106 of 136 women randomised to cabergoline and in 94 of 136 randomised to bromocriptine and partial success in 21 and 33 women respectively. Rebound breast symptomatology occurred respectively in five and 23 women with complete success up to day 15 (p less than 0.0001). Serum prolactin concentrations dropped considerably with both drugs from day 2 to day 15; a prolactin secretion rebound effect was observed in women treated with bromocriptine. cabergoline and 36 receiving bromocriptine (p = 0.054), occurring most during the first treatment day. CONCLUSION--A single 1 mg dose of cabergoline is at least as effective as bromocriptine 2.5 mg twice daily for 14 days in preventing puerperal lactation. Because of the considerably lower rate of rebound breast activity and adverse events and the simpler administration schedule cabergoline should be the drug of choice for lactation inhibition.     

Acetyl-L-Carnitine in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC), a constructive molecule in fatty acid metabolism, is an agent potentially effective for treating peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP). Its effect, however, remains uncertain. We aimed to access the efficacy and safety of ALC for the treatment of patients with PNP.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1996–2014), EMBase (1974–2014), and CENTRAL (May 2014) up to June 27, 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ALC with placebo or other active medications in diabetic and non-diabetic PNP patients that reported the change of pain using visual analogue scale (VAS). Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for pooling continuous data.

Results

Four RCTs comparing ALC with placebo and reporting in three articles (n = 523) were included. Compared with placebo, ALC significantly reduced VAS scores of PNP patients (MD of VAS, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.68-1.72, P <0.00001). In the subgroup analysis, the effect of ALC on VAS was similar in different administration routes (intramuscular-oral sequential subgroup: MD, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.34-2.04, P = 0.006; oral only subgroup: pooled MD, 1.15; 95%CI, 0.33-1.96, P = 0.006), and ALC appeared more effective in diabetic PNP patients than non-diabetic PNP patients (diabetic subgroup: MD, 1.47; 95%CI, 1.06-1.87, P <0.00001; non-diabetic subgroup: MD, 0.71; 95% CI, -0.01-1.43, P = 0.05). No severe adverse events were reported related to ALC. The common adverse events were pain, headache, paraesthesia, hyperesthesia, retching, biliary colic, and gastrointestinal disorders. The rates of total adverse events were similar in ALC and control group.

Conclusion

The current evidence suggests that ALC has a moderate effect in reducing pain measured on VAS in PNP patients with acceptable safety. Larger trials with longer follow-up, however, are warranted to establish the effects.     

Influence of oral magnesium supplementation on cardiac events among survivors of an acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate the effect of long term oral magnesium treatment on incidence of cardiac events among survivors of an acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Double blind, placebo controlled parallel study in which patients were randomised to treatment or placebo. SETTING--Two coronary care units and corresponding outpatient clinics. SUBJECTS--468 survivors of an acute myocardial infarction (289 men and 178 women) aged 31-92. INTERVENTIONS--One tablet of 15 mmol magnesium hydroxide or placebo daily for one year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Incidences of reinfarction, sudden death, and coronary artery bypass grafting in one year. RESULTS--There was no significant difference between treatment and placebo groups in the incidence of each of the three cardiac events, but when the events were combined and drop outs were excluded from calculations there was a significantly higher incidence of events in the treatment group (56/167 v 33/153; relative risk 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 2.25); p = 0.02). When the timing of events was incorporated by means of a Kaplan-Meier plot the treatment group showed a significantly higher incidence of events whether drop outs were included or excluded (p < 0.025). CONCLUSION--Long term oral treatment with 15 mmol magnesium daily doses not reduce the incidence of cardiac events in survivors of an acute myocardial infarction and, indeed, seems to increase the risk of developing a cardiac event. Consequently, this treatment cannot be recommended as secondary prophylaxis for such patients.     

Efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective To assess the efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis.Data sources Medline, Embase, Scientific Citation Index, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and abstracts from conferences.Review methods Inclusion criterion was randomised controlled trials comparing topical NSAIDs with placebo or oral NSAIDs in osteoarthritis. Effect size was calculated for pain, function, and stiffness. Rate ratio was calculated for dichotomous data such as clinical response rate and adverse event rate. Number needed to treat to obtain the clinical response was estimated. Quality of trial was assessed, and sensitivity analyses were undertaken.Results Topical NSAIDs were superior to placebo in relieving pain due to osteoarthritis only in the first two weeks of treatment. Effect sizes for weeks 1 and 2 were 0.41 (95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.66) and 0.40 (0.15 to 0.65), respectively. No benefit was observed over placebo in weeks 3 and 4. A similar pattern was observed for function, stiffness, and clinical response rate ratio and number needed to treat. Topical NSAIDs were inferior to oral NSAIDs in the first week of treatment and associated with more local side effects such as rash, itch, or burning (rate ratio 5.29, 1.14 to 24.51).Conclusion Randomised controlled trials of short duration only (less than four weeks) have assessed the efficacy of topical NSAIDs in osteoarthritis. After two weeks there was no evidence of efficacy superior to placebo. No trial data support the long term use of topical NSAIDs in osteoarthritis.     

Rotigotine Transdermal Patch in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Methods

The efficacy and safety of rotigotine transdermal patch in Parkinson’s disease (PD) were studied in some clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rotigotine transdermal patch versus placebo in PD.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials (1789 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. As compared with placebo, the use of rotigotine resulted in greater improvements in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale activities of daily living score (weighted mean difference [WMD] –1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] –2.18 to –1.19), motor score (WMD –3.86, 95% CI –4.86 to –2.86), and the activities of daily living and motor subtotal score (WMD –4.52, 95% CI –5.86 to –3.17). Rotigotine was associated with a significantly higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events (relative risk [RR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.29–2.59), and higher rates of application site reactions (RR 2.92, 95% CI 2.29–3.72), vomiting (RR 5.18, 95% CI 2.25–11.93), and dyskinesia (RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.47–4.32) compared with placebo. No differences were found in the relative risks of headache, constipation, back pain, diarrhea, or serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis showed that the use of rotigotine can reduce the symptoms of PD. However, rotigotine was also associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, especially application site reactions, compared with placebo.     

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.