-
Cureus Apr 2022Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading... (Review)
Review
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading cause of functional disability and poor quality of life. Various modalities of therapy are recommended by different research organizations at different stages of OA including non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical interventions. Intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) is widely used for over three decades in the treatment of OA. However controversies exist regarding its safety and efficacy, the number of injections and courses, type of preparation, duration of its effects, and combining it with other drugs or molecules. This study aimed to review the most recent data available in the published literature to address these. Electronic databases like Medline, Embase, ProQuest, and Google Scholar were searched for articles using keywords, intraarticular injections, hyaluronic acid, and osteoarthritis knee. The review was carried out as per PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-eight randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of HA were included in the systematic review. Out of the 38 studies, 22 (57.9%) were double-blind, eight (21%) single-blind, three (7.9%) non-blind, four (10%) with simple randomization, and one (2.7%) was open-labeled. Total 5,025 patients were included in these studies. The mean age of the patients was 60.28 years and the osteoarthritis grade of the knee joint was 1 to 3. HA was studied as a test preparation in 19 (50%) while in another 19 (50%) it was studied as a control. In 24 (63.2%) studies, HA was used as high molecular weight preparation in eight (21%) as low molecular weight preparation while in six studies the information was not available. HA was used as a standalone preparation in 31 studies, in two studies it was injected with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and with either low-level laser therapy (LLLT), triamcinolone (TA), betamethasone (CS), poly deoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) or dexamethasone (DX) in one study each. In the majority of the studies, HA was given as a single injection (52.6% studies) or weekly three injections (28.9% studies). In 13.2 %, it was given as weekly 5 injections and in 5.3% as weekly two injections. IA-HA injections have a limited role in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in those patients who do not have sufficient pain relief with topical or oral medication and physical therapy. It is safe and effective except for minor side effects such as local pain and swelling lasting for a few days. Severe allergic reactions are extremely rare. They provide adequate pain relief and functional improvement for up to six months irrespective of a number of injections and type of preparations used. The combination formulations with corticosteroids or PRP or MSCs show better results than HA alone. Combining HA with newer molecules such as peptides or diclofenac for sustained and disease-modifying effects requires more studies in the future.
PubMed: 35651409
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24503 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 34642179
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2321 -
Drug Safety Dec 2012The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs; however, there is little information on the risk associated with some NSAIDs and on the impact of risk factors. These data are necessary to evaluate the benefit-risk of individual NSAIDs for clinical and health policy decision making. Within the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [SOS] project aims to develop decision models for regulatory and clinical use of individual NSAIDs according to their GI and cardiovascular safety.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to provide summary relative risks (RR) of upper GI complications (UGIC) associated with the use of individual NSAIDs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.
METHODS
We used the MEDLINE database to identify cohort and case-control studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 2011, providing adjusted effect estimates for UGIC comparing individual NSAIDs with non-use of NSAIDs. We estimated pooled RR and 95% CIs of UGIC for individual NSAIDs overall and by dose using fixed- and random-effects methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS
A total of 2984 articles were identified and 59 were selected for data abstraction. After review of the abstracted information, 28 studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. Pooled RR ranged from 1.43 (95% CI 0.65, 3.15) for aceclofenac to 18.45 (95% CI 10.99, 30.97) for azapropazone. RR was less than 2 for aceclofenac, celecoxib (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17, 1.81) and ibuprofen (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.54, 2.20); 2 to less than 4 for rofecoxib (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.89, 2.86), sulindac (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.90, 4.42), diclofenac (RR 3.34; 95% CI 2.79, 3.99), meloxicam (RR 3.47; 95% CI 2.19, 5.50), nimesulide (RR 3.83; 95% CI 3.20, 4.60) and ketoprofen (RR 3.92; 95% CI 2.70, 5.69); 4-5 for tenoxicam (RR 4.10; 95% CI 2.16, 7.79), naproxen (RR 4.10; 95% CI 3.22, 5.23), indometacin (RR 4.14; 95% CI 2.91, 5.90) and diflunisal (RR 4.37; 95% CI 1.07, 17.81); and greater than 5 for piroxicam (RR 7.43; 95% CI 5.19, 10.63), ketorolac (RR 11.50; 95% CI 5.56, 23.78) and azapropazone. RRs for the use of high daily doses of NSAIDs versus non-use were 2-3 times higher than those associated with low daily doses.
CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed variability in the risk of UGIC among individual NSAIDs as used in clinical practice. Factors influencing findings across studies (e.g. definition and validation of UGIC, exposure assessment, analysis of new vs prevalent users) and the scarce data on the effect of dose and duration of use of NSAIDs and on concurrent use of other medications need to be addressed in future studies, including SOS.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Case-Control Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23137151
DOI: 10.2165/11633470-000000000-00000 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine May 2015The association between acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is well established. However, little is known about the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The association between acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is well established. However, little is known about the comparative risk of individual NSAIDs, including specific COX-2 inhibitors.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies that reported relative risk, hazard ratio or standardized incidence ratio with 95% confidence comparing AKI risk in NSAID users versus non-users. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for individual NSAIDs were calculated using random-effect, generic inverse variance methods.
RESULTS
Five studies were identified and included in our data analysis. Pooled risk ratios were calculated for seven traditional NSAIDs and two specific COX-2 inhibitors, including indomethacin, piroxicam, ibuprofen, naproxen, sulindac, diclofenac, meloxicam, rofecoxib and celecoxib that were evaluated in at least two studies. Our meta-analysis was able to demonstrate a statistically significant elevated AKI risk among most of the included traditional NSAIDs. The pooled risk ratios were fairly consistent among individual traditional NSAIDs, ranging from 1.58 to 2.11. Differences between pooled risk ratios did not reach statistical significance (p≥0.19 for each comparison). Elevated AKI risk was also observed in diclofenac, meloxicam, rofecoxib and celecoxib users, although did not achieve a statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
A statistically significant elevated AKI risk among traditional NSAID users has been demonstrated in this meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratios among individual traditional NSAIDs were not significantly different. The pooled risk ratios of specific COX-2 inhibitors and the two traditional NSAIDs with the most COX-2 selectivity (diclofenac and meloxicam) were also comparable with other traditional NSAIDs even though they did not achieve a statistical significance.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25862494
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2015.03.008 -
Journal of the American College of... May 2021It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been touted as an adjunct, or even replacement, for opioids. However, uptake of NSAIDs has been slow due to concern for side effects, including bleeding. We sought to understand the risk of bleeding caused by NSAIDs in the perioperative period.
STUDY DESIGN
A physician-librarian team performed a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), using search terms covering the targeted intervention (use of NSAIDs) and outcomes of interest (surgical complications, bleeding), limited to English language articles of any date. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data.
RESULTS
A total of 2,521 articles were screened, and 229 were selected on the basis of title and abstract for detailed assessment. Including reference searching, 74 manuscripts met inclusion criteria spanning years 1987-2019. These studies included 151,031 patients. Studies included 12 types of NSAIDs, the most common being ketorolac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, over a wide-range of procedures, from otorhinolaryngology (ENT), breast, abdomen, plastics, and more. More than half were randomized control trials. The meta-analyses for hematoma, return to the operating room for bleeding, and blood transfusions showed no difference in risk in any of 3 categories studied between the NSAID vs non-NSAID groups (p = 0.49, p = 0.79, and p = 0.49, respectively). Quality scoring found a wide range of quality, with scores ranging from lowest quality of 12 to highest quality of 25, out of a total of 27 (average = 16).
CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs are unlikely to be the cause of postoperative bleeding complications. This literature covers a large number of patients and remains consistent across types of NSAIDs and operations.
Topics: Analgesia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Ketorolac; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33515678
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.01.005 -
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Apr 2021Elderberry has traditionally been used to prevent and treat respiratory problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been interest in elderberry supplements to...
BACKGROUND
Elderberry has traditionally been used to prevent and treat respiratory problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been interest in elderberry supplements to treat or prevent illness, but also concern that elderberry might overstimulate the immune system and increase the risk of 'cytokine storm'. We aimed to determine benefits and harms of elderberry for the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory infections, and to assess the relationship between elderberry supplements and negative health impacts associated with overproduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and searched six databases, four research registers, and two preprint sites for studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools, and evaluated certainty of estimates using GRADE. Outcomes included new illnesses and the severity and duration of illness.
RESULTS
We screened 1187 records and included five randomized trials on elderberry for the treatment or prevention of viral respiratory illness. We did not find any studies linking elderberry to clinical inflammatory outcomes. However, we found three studies measuring production of cytokines ex vivo after ingestion of elderberry. Elderberry may not reduce the risk of developing the common cold; it may reduce the duration and severity of colds, but the evidence is uncertain. Elderberry may reduce the duration of influenza but the evidence is uncertain. Compared to oseltamivir, an elderberry-containing product may be associated with a lower risk of influenza complications and adverse events. We did not find evidence on elderberry and clinical outcomes related to inflammation. However, we found evidence that elderberry has some effect on inflammatory markers, although this effect may decline with ongoing supplementation. One small study compared elderberry to diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and provided some evidence that elderberry is as effective or less effective than diclofenac in cytokine reduction over time.
CONCLUSIONS
Elderberry may be a safe option for treating viral respiratory illness, and there is no evidence that it overstimulates the immune system. However, the evidence on both benefits and harms is uncertain and information from recent and ongoing studies is necessary to make firm conclusions.
Topics: COVID-19; Common Cold; Cytokines; Humans; Inflammation; Influenza, Human; Pandemics; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; SARS-CoV-2; Sambucus; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33827515
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03283-5 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine May 2018To compare the efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including salicylate, for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Relative efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including salicylate, for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1966 to January 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical NSAIDs with placebo or each other in patients with OA and observational studies comparing topical NSAIDs with no treatment or each other irrespective of disease were included. Two investigators identified studies and independently extracted data. Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcomes were pain relief for RCTs and risk of adverse effects (AEs) for observational studies.
RESULTS
43 studies, comprising 36 RCTs (7 900 patients with OA) and seven observational studies (218 074 participants), were included. Overall, topical NSAIDs were superior to placebo for relieving pain (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.20) and improving function (SMD=-0.35, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.24) in OA. Of all topical NSAIDs, diclofenac patches were most effective for OA pain (SMD=-0.81, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.52) and piroxicam was most effective for functional improvement (SMD=-1.04, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.48) compared with placebo. Although salicylate gel was associated with higher withdrawal rates due to AEs, the remaining topical NSAIDs were not associated with any increased local or systemic AEs.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe for OA. Diclofenac patches may be the most effective topical NSAID for pain relief. No serious gastrointestinal and renal AEs were observed in trials or the general population. However, confirmation of the cardiovascular safety of topical NSAIDs still warrants further observational study.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bayes Theorem; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates; Transdermal Patch
PubMed: 29436380
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098043 -
Arthritis Research & Therapy Mar 2015There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.
RESULTS
Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.
CONCLUSIONS
The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 25879879
DOI: 10.1186/s13075-015-0554-0 -
Archives of Dermatological Research Jul 2023Treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) can help lower the risk of eventual skin cancer and address field pre-cancerization. This review compares the different therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) can help lower the risk of eventual skin cancer and address field pre-cancerization. This review compares the different therapeutic options for actinic keratosis. Databases used include Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2019. Randomized control trials that were related to any approved or recognized treatment for actinic keratosis were included. 1186 studies were found, of which 80 with 6748 patients were included in the analysis. A network meta-analysis was not possible due to interstudy heterogeneity. The greatest degree of improvement was seen with photodynamic therapy (PDT) used adjunctively with other modalities, but this was not significantly different compared to other treatments. PDT, cryotherapy, imiquimod, ingenol mebutate (IMB), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), trichloroacetic acid (TCA), and ablative fractional laser (AFXL), were all non-inferior to one another in terms of percent clearance of AKs, but the lowest rates of clearance were seen with diclofenac sodium. When results were substratified by body site, 5-FU, combination PDT and combination 5-FU with calcipotriol were the most beneficial for AKs on the head and neck, although they often caused the highest proportion of initial side effects. Absence of randomized control trials for surgical treatments and non-ablative laser limits comparison of these treatments to other modalities. Limitations include the lack of standardized outcome reporting limited the comparability of results across trials. The results of this analysis do not account for individual patient risk or cumulative risk for development of skin cancer. At present, PDT, cryotherapy, imiquimod, IMB, 5-FU, TCA, AFXL, and combination treatments are similarly efficacious in reducing AKs in immunocompetent patients.Registration: N/A.
Topics: Humans; Keratosis, Actinic; Imiquimod; Photochemotherapy; Treatment Outcome; Skin Neoplasms; Fluorouracil
PubMed: 36454335
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-022-02490-5 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Sep 2015It is common to advise that analgesics, and especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), be taken with food to reduce unwanted gastrointestinal adverse... (Review)
Review
AIMS
It is common to advise that analgesics, and especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), be taken with food to reduce unwanted gastrointestinal adverse effects. The efficacy of single dose analgesics depends on producing high, early, plasma concentrations; food may interfere with this. This review sought evidence from single dose pharmacokinetic studies on the extent and timing of peak plasma concentrations of analgesic drugs in the fed and fasting states.
METHODS
A systematic review of comparisons of oral analgesics in fed and fasting states published to October 2014 reporting kinetic parameters of bioavailability, time to maximum plasma concentration (tmax ), and its extent (Cmax ) was conducted. Delayed-release formulations were not included.
RESULTS
Bioavailability was not different between fasted and fed states. Food typically delayed absorption for all drugs where the fasting tmax was less than 4 h. For the common analgesics (aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, paracetamol) fed tmax was 1.30 to 2.80 times longer than fasted tmax . Cmax was typically reduced, with greater reduction seen with more rapid absorption (fed Cmax only 44-85% of the fasted Cmax for aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen and paracetamol).
CONCLUSION
There is evidence that high, early plasma concentrations produces better early pain relief, better overall pain relief, longer lasting pain relief and lower rates of remedication. Taking analgesics with food may make them less effective, resulting in greater population exposure. It may be time to rethink research priorities and advice to professionals, patients and the public.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Biological Availability; Dipyrone; Drug Liberation; Food-Drug Interactions; Humans
PubMed: 25784216
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12628