-
The Physician and Sportsmedicine Nov 2021To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo and active controls for improving pain and physical function of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We hypothesize that topical NSAIDs will be safe and effective for relieving symptoms in patients with knee OA.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Randomized control trials that investigated topical NSAIDs that are widely available in many countries against both placebo and active controls in primary knee osteoarthritis were included. Studies that investigated other treatment modalities or treated nonspecific OA were excluded. A meta-analysis was performed to quantify the effect sizes and heterogeneity of the NSAIDs used.
RESULTS
Upon initial search, 259 records were identified with 18 studies remaining after duplicate removal, abstract, and full-text screening. All NSAIDs demonstrated statistically significant reduction in at least one parameter of OA symptoms. The majority of included studies (66.7%) evaluated diclofenac. In the meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMD) of topical NSAIDs versus placebo were calculated and interpreted as having moderate effect size for improvement in pain (0.365, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.240, 0.490) and physical function (0.354, 95% CI 0.268, 0.493). With regard to safety, studies that used patches or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in the carrier reported a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) than other carriers. Skin AEs were higher in the treatment group than the placebo group and gastrointestinal AEs were lower in the treatment group than placebo.
CONCLUSION
Topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are the most rigorously studied topical NSAIDs in the treatment of knee OA and have demonstrated the most significant reduction in pain and improvement of function. Ibuprofen was effective for pain relief and physical function improvement, but more high-powered studies are needed to make a confident comparison of efficacy. Additionally, the 'carrier' used to deliver the topical NSAID has an impact on the adverse event profile. This has safety implications for prescribers and pharmaceutical development. Topical diclofenac is widely available internationally and is the only topical NSAID approved for over-the-counter use in the US. It should be recommended to patients as a first-line conservative management for OA of the knee.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Knee Joint; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain
PubMed: 33554694
DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2021.1886573 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due to leakage from dilated capillaries, is the most common cause of vision impairment following cataract surgery. Acute CME, defined as CME of less than four months' duration, often resolves spontaneously. CME that persists for four months or longer is termed chronic CME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used to treat CME. This update adds new evidence and analyses to the previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of NSAIDs in the treatment of CME following cataract surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; LILACS; mRCT (discontinued in 2014, last searched August 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 20 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of NSAIDs for CME following cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text publications against eligibility criteria, independently extracted data from newly included trials and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. We contacted trial authors for clarification or to request missing information. We provided a narrative synthesis of all included trials and their results. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, we separately performed pooled analysis and reported mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) as well as the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) whenever feasible. Two review authors independently graded the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with a total of 390 participants (393 eyes). Study participants' mean age was 72.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68.8 to 73.6) and 72% were women (IQR 69% to 74%). Three trials included participants with acute CME, and four included participants with chronic CME; the remaining two trials enrolled both participants with acute and chronic CME or participants with unknown CME duration. We assessed trials as having unclear (33%) or high risk of bias (67%). Visual improvement of two or more lines at the end of treatment Data from one trial in participants with acute CME show no treatment effect of topical ketorolac compared to placebo (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.76; 22 participants). Data from a three-arm trial in participants with acute CME demonstrate that, when compared with topical prednisolone, topical ketorolac (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.07; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) may have little or no effect on visual improvement. Results of subgroup analysis from two studies in participants with chronic CME suggest that, after treatment for 90 days or longer, NSAIDs may increase participants' likelihood of visual improvement by 1.87 fold (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.22; I = 33%; 2 trials, 121 participants) relative to placebo. However, there was no evidence of treatment effects in the subgroup with two months of treatment or less (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.73; P = 0.19, I = 41%; 2 trials, 34 participants). Overall, this evidence is very low certainty. A single-study estimate in patients with mixed CME indicates that topical diclofenac may increase the likelihood of visual improvement by 40% when compared to topical ketorolac (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.94; 68 participants). However, the same trial reported no difference between the groups in mean final visual acuity in Snellen lines (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.73). A three-arm trial in patients with mixed CME reporting visual changes in ETDRS letters in comparisons between ketorolac and diclofenac (34 participants) or bromfenac (34 participants) suggests no evidence of effects. Overall, NSAIDs may slightly improve visual acuity in participants with mixed CME but the evidence is very uncertain. Persistence of improvement of vision one month after discontinuation of treatment One trial of participants with chronic CME tested oral indomethacin (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.60; 20 participants) and the other compared topical ketorolac to placebo (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.1; 26 participants). While there is no evidence of treatment effects, evidence suggests substantial between-group heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I = 69.9%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials in patients with acute or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improvement in leakage on fundus fluorescein angiography One three-arm trial in participants with acute CME shows that, when compared with topical prednisolone, there is no treatment benefit of topical ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and topical prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.38; 17 participants). This evidence is very low certainty. The combined estimate from two trials in participants with chronic CME indicates NSAIDs have little to no effect over placebo on improving leakage (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.02; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the trials in patients with mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved contrast sensitivity Very low-certainty evidence from one trial in participants with acute CME shows no treatment benefit of ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) compared with topical prednisolone. None of the trials in patients with chronic or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography; measures of quality of life No included trial reported these outcomes. Adverse effects Most trials observed no differences in ocular adverse events, such as corneal toxicity or elevated intraocular pressure, between comparison groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on effects of NSAIDs in patients with CME is very uncertain and further investigation is warranted. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in interventions, assessments, and reporting of clinically important outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Macular Edema; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketorolac; Diclofenac; Quality of Life; Cataract; Prednisolone
PubMed: 36520144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004239.pub4 -
Systematic review of topical diclofenac for the treatment of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain.Current Medical Research and Opinion Apr 2020The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard...
The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard Cochrane methods. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register of Studies; date of the final search was November 2018. Included studies were randomized, double blinded, with ten or more participants per treatment arm. The primary outcome of "clinical success" was defined as participant-reported reduction in pain of at least 50%. Details of adverse events (AEs) were recorded. For acute pain, 23 studies (5170 participants) were included. Compared to placebo, number needed to treat (NNT) for different formulations were as follows: diclofenac plaster, 4.7 (95% CI 3.7-6.5); diclofenac plaster with heparin, 7.4 (95% CI 4.6-19); and diclofenac Emulgel, 1.8 (95% CI 1.5-2.1). 4.1% (78/1919) reported a local AE. For chronic pain, 21 studies (26 publications) with 5995 participants were included. Formulations included gel, solution with or without DMSO, emulsion and plaster. A clinical success rate of ∼60% (NNT 9.5 [95% CI 7-14.7]) was achieved with a variety of formulations. Local AEs (∼14%) were similar for both diclofenac and placebo. This systematic review of 11,000+ participants demonstrates that topical diclofenac is effective for acute pain, such as sprains, with minimal AEs. The effectiveness of topical diclofenac was also demonstrated in chronic musculoskeletal pain but with a higher NNT (worse) compared with acute pain. Formulation does play a part in effectiveness but needs further studies.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31944135
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1716703 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Nov 2022Routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin was demonstrated to be an effective prevention method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin was demonstrated to be an effective prevention method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and explore the discrepancies of PEP incidences among different subgroups.
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until December 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported rectal administration of 100 mg or higher doses of diclofenac or indomethacin, with PEP as the primary outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The overall and severity of PEP were estimated. Subgroup analysis was performed based on geographic regions, risk level, study beginning time, type of NSAIDs, administration time, and sample size.
RESULTS
There were 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7954 patients in 31 NSAIDs arms. The pooled incidences were 7.2% for overall PEP (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-8.5%), 5.0% for mild PEP (95% CI, 4.0-6.0%), and 1.5% for moderate and severe PEP (0.8-2.3%). PEP rate were higher in patients receiving rectal indomethacin than that of patients receiving rectal diclofenac (7.8% (95% CI, 6.4-9.3%) vs 3.8% (95% CI, 2.2-5.3%), p = 0.009). The PEP rates of high-risk patients and average-risk patients were 8.9% (95% CI, 5.6-12.2%) and 6.4% (95% CI, 5.1-7.6%), respectively (p = 0.160).
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of PEP was higher in patients receiving 100 mg rectal indomethacin than patients receiving 100 mg diclofenac. The effect of 100 mg diclofenac versus indomethacin on preventing PEP requires further study.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Incidence; Pancreatitis; Indomethacin; Hyperplasia
PubMed: 35941494
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05399-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, available as a potassium salt (immediate release) or sodium salt (enteric coated to suppress dissolution in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, available as a potassium salt (immediate release) or sodium salt (enteric coated to suppress dissolution in the stomach). This review updates an earlier review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 2, 2009) entitled 'Single dose oral diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults'.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of diclofenac for moderate to severe postoperative pain, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 9 March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral diclofenac (sodium or potassium) for acute postoperative pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief over six hours prescribed either diclofenac or placebo. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on the use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
This update included three new studies, providing a 26% increase in participants in comparisons between diclofenac and placebo. We included 18 studies involving 3714 participants, 1902 treated with diclofenac and 1007 with placebo. This update has also changed the focus of the review, examining the effects of formulation in more detail than previously. This is a result of increased understanding of the importance of speed of onset in determining analgesic efficacy in acute pain.The largest body of information, for diclofenac potassium 50 mg, in seven studies, produced an NNT for at least 50% of maximum pain relief compared with placebo of 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 2.5) (high quality evidence). There was a graded improvement in efficacy as doses rose from 25 mg to 100 mg, both for participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, and for remedication within 6 to 8 hours. Fast-acting formulations (dispersible products, solutions, and softgel formulations) had a similar efficacy for a 50 mg dose, with an NNT of 2.4 (2.0 to 3.0). Diclofenac sodium in a small number of studies produced a lesser effect, with an NNT of 6.6 (4.1 to 17) for the 50 mg dose.Adverse event rates were low in these single dose studies, with no difference between diclofenac and placebo (moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Diclofenac potassium provides good pain relief at 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg doses. Diclofenac sodium has limited efficacy and should probably not be used in acute pain.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chemistry, Pharmaceutical; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26151766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004768.pub3 -
Hip International : the Journal of... Mar 2022Heterotopic ossification (HO) is defined as the formation of lamellar bone in extraskeletal soft tissues. HO can be a severe complication after hip arthroplasty but can...
BACKGROUND
Heterotopic ossification (HO) is defined as the formation of lamellar bone in extraskeletal soft tissues. HO can be a severe complication after hip arthroplasty but can possibly be prevented by postoperative treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or radiotherapy. Diclofenac is 1 of the most used drugs in HO prophylaxis because it is effective and long established. However, there is still no uniform therapy regimen in terms of duration, dose and side effect profile regarding the application of diclofenac in HO prevention. We have, therefore, conducted the first systematic review investigating diclofenac for HO prophylaxis after hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy, dose and duration of diclofenac therapy in preventing HO after total hip arthroplasty (THA).
METHODS
According to the PRISMA Guidelines we performed a systematic literature search in EMBASE via Ovid, in MEDLINE via PubMed and in the Cochrane Library addressing all studies in English and German regarding the prophylaxis of HO with diclofenac after THA. We identified 731 potential studies and included 6 randomised controlled trials with 957 patients.
RESULTS
The studies were heterogeneous with regard to duration of therapy, dose, comparative group and follow-up period. The therapy duration ranged from 9 to 42 days, the applied diclofenac doses ranged from 75 mg to 150 mg daily. Patients treated with diclofenac showed a significant reduction in the total incidence of HO regarding to the Brooker Classification compared to placebo and no clinically relevant ossifications occured (Brooker III and IV).
CONCLUSIONS
Diclofenac is efficacious in the prevention of HO and can be used routinely after THA. The existing data indicates that a minimum dose of 75 mg diclofenac per day started on the first postoperative day for a minimum of 9 days is needed to prevent HO with an acceptable incidence of side effects, such as gastrointestinal symptoms.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Diclofenac; Humans; Incidence; Ossification, Heterotopic
PubMed: 33272062
DOI: 10.1177/1120700020978194 -
Cureus Jul 2023Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive... (Review)
Review
Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive administration of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and steroids has been employed, resulting in a notable decrease in postoperative complications like pain, facial swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis. This systematic review's primary goal was to investigate the efficacy of preemptive analgesia with dexamethasone and diclofenac in minimizing the post-surgical complications following the surgical extraction of the mandibular third molars. The systematic search was carried out to identify relevant literature in digital databases including PubMed®, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 1990 to January 2022. The search used specific keywords. The randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of dexamethasone and diclofenac or dexamethasone alone compared to diclofenac or placebo as preemptive analgesics were considered inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Case reports, literature reviews, letters to the editor, and non-English publications were not included. Two authors screened the titles and abstracts, and articles fulfilling the study criteria were included. After reading the full text and data collection, analysis was performed. The included article's bias was evaluated by the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. A digital database search yielded a total of 207 articles. After excluding duplicates and articles written in languages other than English, 90 were removed. Based on the title and abstract, out of 177, 95 studies were excluded. After full-text reading of 22 articles, 17 were eliminated because they did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining five studies were found eligible and included in the systematic review. Four studies were of low risk, while one study had some concerns. Two studies evaluated the combination of dexamethasone with diclofenac, while three evaluated dexamethasone alone. Total samples included samples of 436 third-molar surgeries in 420 patients. There was a substantial decrease in the mean pain score and swelling measurement when diclofenac alone was compared with coadministration of diclofenac and dexamethasone. Preemptive administration of dexamethasone and diclofenac has been shown to effectively reduce pain and facial swelling, with the exception of trismus, in third-molar surgeries when compared to diclofenac alone. As a result, it is recommended to administer these drugs prior to the commencement of third-molar extraction. However, further research is mandatory, specifically good quality randomized controlled trials involving large cohorts, in order to assess any significant variations and validate these findings.
PubMed: 37654946
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42709 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2022To investigate the efficacy and safety of interventions for early stage pericoronitis. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To investigate the efficacy and safety of interventions for early stage pericoronitis.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in databases from inception to July 2020, without language restriction. RCTs assessing adolescents and adults were included.
RESULTS
Seven RCT with clinical diversity were included, so, it was not possible to conduct meta-analyses. Individual study data showed an improvement in oral health quality of life in favor of topical benzydamine versus diclofenac capsule (Mean difference (MD) -1.10, 95% Confidence interval (CI) -1.85 to -0.35), and no difference between topical benzydamine and flurbiprofen capsule (MD -0.55 95% CI -1.18 to 0.0). There was no difference between diclofenac and flurbiprofen capsules (MD 0.55, 95% CI -0.29 to 1.39). An imprecise estimate of effects was found for all outcomes, considering (i) oral versus topic pharmacological treatment, (ii) different oral pharmacological treatments, (iii) pharmacological treatment associated with laser versus placebo laser, (iv) pharmacological treatment associated with different mouthwashes, and (v) conventional treatment associated to antimicrobial photodynamic therapy versus conventional treatment, with low to very low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Until future well-designed studies can be conducted, the clinical decision for early stage pericoronitis should be guided by individual characteristics, settings and financial aspects.
PubMed: 35052948
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11010071 -
Clinical Rheumatology Jan 2016The aim is to study the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib in the treatment of acute gout, as compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim is to study the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib in the treatment of acute gout, as compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We conducted a computerized search of electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, and Cochrane Library. The search terms were as follows: gout arthritis, tophus, etoricoxib, indometacin naproxen, diclofenac, and NSAIDs. Articles were searched from 1983 until August 2014. A manual search of peer-reviewed English documents was performed by cross-checking the bibliographies of selected studies. These trials reported pain relief as the primary outcome. Tenderness, swelling, patients' global assessments of response to treatment, and investigators' global assessments of response to treatment were reported as the secondary outcomes. All adverse events were recorded for safety assessment. Six trials including 851 patients were identified. Both etoricoxib and NSAIDs had an effect on inflammation and analgesia. Compared with indometacin and diclofenac, etoricoxib had a lower incidence of adverse events. Etoricoxib 120 mg administered orally once daily has the same efficacy on acute gout as indometacin and diclofenac. Etoricoxib is tolerated better by patients than NSAIDs such as indometacin and diclofenac.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Etoricoxib; Gout; Humans; Indomethacin; Pain Measurement; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfones; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26099603
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-015-2991-1