-
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -3.30 (95% CI -5.33 to -1.27) on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a median follow-up of 56 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 91 days). Four studies measured disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo on disability, with a mean difference from baseline of -0.85 (95% CI -1.30 to -0.40) on a scale from 0 to 24 with a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 42 to 105 days). All six placebo controlled studies also reported adverse events, and suggested that adverse events are not statistically significant more frequent in participants using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Due to the relatively small sample size and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, it is likely that the proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event is underestimated.Two studies compared different types of non-selective NSAIDs, namely ibuprofen versus diclofenac and piroxicam versus indomethacin. The trials did not find any differences between these NSAID types, but both trials had small sample sizes. One trial reported no differences in pain intensity between treatment groups that used selective or non-selective NSAIDs. One other trial compared diflunisal with paracetamol and showed no difference in improvement from baseline on pain intensity score. One trial showed a better global improvement in favour of celecoxib versus tramadol.One included trial compared NSAIDs with 'home-based exercise'. Disability improved more in participants who did exercises versus participants receiving NSAIDs, but pain scores were similar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Six of the 13 included RCTs showed that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo regarding pain intensity. NSAIDs are slightly more effective than placebo regarding disability. However, the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low. When we only included RCTs at low risk of bias, differences in effect between NSAIDs and placebo were reduced. We identified no difference in efficacy between different NSAID types, including selective versus non-selective NSAIDs. Due to inclusion of RCTs only, the relatively small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, we cannot make firm statements about the occurrence of adverse events or whether NSAIDs are safe for long-term use.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Ibuprofen; Indomethacin; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Piroxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26863524
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012087 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. This review is an update of 'Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults' originally published in Issue 6, 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs in acute musculoskeletal pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to February 2015. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers websites. For the earlier review, we also searched our own in-house database and contacted manufacturers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, active or placebo (inert carrier)-controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with acute pain resulting from strains, sprains or sports or overuse-type injuries (twisted ankle, for instance). There had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate the risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or additional harmful outcome (NNH) compared with placebo or other active treatment. We reported 95% confidence intervals (CI). We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update we added 14 new included studies (3489 participants), and excluded four studies. We also identified 20 additional reports of completed or ongoing studies that have not been published in full. The earlier review included 47 studies.This update included 61 studies. Most compared topical NSAIDs in the form of a gel, spray, or cream with a similar topical placebo; 5311 participants were treated with a topical NSAID, 3470 with placebo, and 220 with an oral NSAID. This was a 63% increase in the number of included participants over the previous version of this review. We also identified a number of studies in clinical trial registries with unavailable results amounting to about 5900 participants for efficacy and 5300 for adverse events.Formulations of topical diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, piroxicam, and indomethacin demonstrated significantly higher rates of clinical success (more participants with at least 50% pain relief) than matching topical placebo (moderate or high quality data). Benzydamine did not. Three drug and formulation combinations had NNTs for clinical success below 4. For diclofenac, the Emulgel® formulation had the lowest NNT of 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1) in two studies using at least 50% pain intensity reduction as the outcome. Diclofenac plasters other than Flector® also had a low NNT of 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2) based on good or excellent responses in some studies. Ketoprofen gel had an NNT of 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4), from five studies in the 1980s, some with less well defined outcomes. Ibuprofen gel had an NNT of 3.9 (2.7 to 6.7) from two studies with outcomes of marked improvement or complete remission. All other drug and formulation combinations had NNT values above 4, indicating lesser efficacy.There were insufficient data to compare reliably individual topical NSAIDs with each other or the same oral NSAID.Local skin reactions were generally mild and transient, and did not differ from placebo (high quality data). There were very few systemic adverse events (high quality data) or withdrawals due to adverse events (low quality data).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical NSAIDs provided good levels of pain relief in acute conditions such as sprains, strains and overuse injuries, probably similar to that provided by oral NSAIDs. Gel formulations of diclofenac (as Emugel®), ibuprofen, and ketoprofen, and some diclofenac patches, provided the best effects. Adverse events were usually minimal.Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have provided additional information. In particular, information on topical diclofenac is greatly expanded. The present review supports the previous review in concluding that topical NSAIDs are effective in providing pain relief, and goes further to demonstrate that certain formulations, mainly gel formulations of diclofenac, ibuprofen, and ketoprofen, provide the best results. Large amounts of unpublished data have been identified, and this could influence results in updates of this review.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Topical; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Athletic Injuries; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sprains and Strains
PubMed: 26068955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007402.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Capsaicin; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketoprofen; Musculoskeletal Pain; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Osteoarthritis; Piroxicam; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28497473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008609.pub2 -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used for pain treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines regarding the human in vivo efficacy and safety of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain treatment that take pharmacogenetic parameters into consideration. Studies were collected from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to the cutoff date 18 October 2021.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles out of the 6547 initially detected publications were identified. Relevant medication-gene interactions were noted for drug safety. Interactions important for pain management were detected for (1) ibuprofen/; (2) celecoxib/; (3) piroxicam/, ; (4) diclofenac/, , , ; (5) meloxicam/; (6) aspirin/, , and ; (7) amitriptyline/ and ; (8) imipramine/; (9) nortriptyline/, , ; and (10) escitalopram/, , and .
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, a lack of well powered human in vivo studies assessing the pharmacogenetics in pain patients treated with NSAIDs or antidepressants is noted. Studies indicate a higher risk for partly severe side effects for the poor metabolizers and NSAIDs. Further in vivo studies are needed to consolidate the relevant polymorphisms in NSAID safety as well as in the efficacy of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain management.
PubMed: 35745763
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061190 -
Biomedicines Dec 2022Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease. The administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by phonophoresis is a therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease. The administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by phonophoresis is a therapeutic alternative to relieve pain in inflammatory pathologies. The main aim was to analyze the efficacy of the application of NSAIDs by phonophoresis in knee OA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials were performed between January and March 2021 in the following databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cinahl, SciELO, and PEDro. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the level of evidence of the selected studies. The RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used to obtain the meta-analysis. Eight studies were included, of which five were included in the meta-analysis, involving 195 participants. The NSAIDs used through phonophoresis were ibuprofen, piroxicam, diclofenac sodium, diclofenac diethylammonium, ketoprofen, and methyl salicylate. The overall result for pain showed not-conclusive results, but a trend toward significance was found in favor of the phonophoresis group compared to the control group (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.92; 95% confidence interval: -1.87-0.02). Favorable results were obtained for physical function (SMD = -1.34; 95% CI: -2.00-0.68). Based on the selected studies, the application of NSAIDs by phonophoresis is effective in relieving the symptoms of knee OA. Future long-term studies are recommended.
PubMed: 36552010
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10123254 -
International Urogynecology Journal May 2016Bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) has various treatments; however, no standardized treatment has been established. The aim was to analyze different... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) has various treatments; however, no standardized treatment has been established. The aim was to analyze different types of treatment of BPS/IC and their effectiveness.
METHODS
A literature review with a search strategy for articles related to BPS/IC published between 1990 and 2014 was conducted on MEDLINE, PUBMED, and SCOPUS. Only randomized controlled trials in women were included in the meta-analysis, while other experimental studies were used as bases for a systematic review of the topic. Clinical trial quality was defined according to the Jadad scale.
RESULTS
Of 356 articles, 13 were included in the analysis. The intervention methods were as follows: instillation of hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin A, intravesical lidocaine, hyperbaric chamber, massage, physiotherapy, phosphate-buffered saline, piroxicam in combination with doxepin, and others. We did not find any treatment with at least two randomized controlled trials for meta-analysis. Among the assessment tools for symptoms of BPS/IC, the most frequently used were the visual analogue scale, voiding record, and the O'Leary-Sant questionnaire.
CONCLUSION
Existing studies were not able to define the best approach for the treatment of BPS/IC. The lack of standardized treatment may be related to the diversity of interventions used; therefore, further studies with better methodological quality are needed.
Topics: Acetylcholine Release Inhibitors; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Administration, Intravesical; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cystitis, Interstitial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Lidocaine; Pentosan Sulfuric Polyester; Physical Therapy Modalities; Sodium Chloride
PubMed: 26272202
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2815-5 -
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu = Chinese Acupuncture... Sep 2023This study systematically reviewed the clinical efficacy of acupuncture for lumbar myofascial pain syndrome. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study systematically reviewed the clinical efficacy of acupuncture for lumbar myofascial pain syndrome. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding acupuncture for lumbar myofascial pain syndrome were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, Scopus, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, VIP database, and China biomedical literature service system (SinoMed) from database inception until August 1st, 2022. The Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias in all included studies, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis of the extracted data. As a result, 12 RCTs, involving 1 087 patients with lumbar myofascial pain syndrome, were ultimately included. The Meta-analysis results showed that the visual analog scale (VAS) score of pain in the observation group was lower than those in the oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication control [=-1.67, 95% (-2.44, -0.90), =4.26, <0.000 1] and other treatment control [low-frequency electrical stimulation, , electromagnetic wave irradiation combined with piroxicam gel, =-1.98, 95% (-2.48, -1.48), =7.74, <0.000 01]. The pain rating index (PRI) score in the observation group was lower than those in the lidocaine injection control [=-2.17, 95% (-3.41, -0.93), =3.44, =0.000 6] and other treatment control [low-frequency electrical stimulation, , =-5.75, 95% (-9.97, -1.53), =2.67, =0.008]. The present pain intensity (PPI) score in the observation group was lower than that in other treatment control [low-frequency electrical stimulation, , =-1.04, 95% (-1.55, -0.53), =4.01, <0.000 1]. In conclusion, compared with oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, low-frequency electrical stimulation, , and electromagnetic wave irradiation combined with piroxicam gel, acupuncture is more effective in reducing pain in patients with lumbar myofascial pain syndrome; acupuncture also exhibites advantage over lidocaine injection in improving PRI score and showed better outcomes over and low-frequency electrical stimulation in improving PRI and PPI scores.
Topics: Humans; Piroxicam; Acupuncture Therapy; Pain; Myofascial Pain Syndromes; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Lidocaine
PubMed: 37986258
DOI: 10.13703/j.0255-2930.20221120-0002