A clinical evaluation of flurbiprofen LAT and piroxicam gel: a multicentre study in general practice

Pre-emptive Diclofenac Versus Ketoprofen as a Transdermal Drug Delivery System: How They Face

Aim

To compare the analgesic efficacy of Diclofenac vis-a-vis Ketoprofen transdermal patch, in the management of immediate post-operative pain following orthognathic procedures.

Material and Method

A prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled study was conducted among 50 subjects, between 2012 and 2015. These patients were diagnosed clinically and cephalometrically as skeletal and dental class II malocclusion and underwent bi-jaw surgical procedure. In total, 25 Diclofenac and 25 Ketoprofen transdermal patches, sealed in envelopes and numbered, were administered to subjects. The patches used, contained 100 mg of either Diclofenac or Ketoprofen and administered by a nurse prior to induction. Duration of analgesia, severity of pain using Visual Analog Scale, necessity of rescue analgesia (spontaneous pain > 5 on a 10-cm scale) and any other adverse effect associated with the drug were evaluated.

Results

Mean duration of analgesia was significantly higher in the Ketoprofen group (20 h), compared to Diclofenac group (13 h) (p = 0.001). Rescue analgesia was required in 12% of subjects who received Diclofenac patch, compared to 4% in Ketoprofen group. None of the subjects showed any allergic reactions.

Conclusion

The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of transdermal patch in reduction of post-operative pain in subjects undergoing bi-jaw surgeries. Subjects in both groups were comfortable and returned to early function. However, Ketoprofen transdermal patch had an edge over the Diclofenac transdermal patch with respect to analgesic efficacy.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for treating lateral elbow pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow pain, or tennis elbow, is a common condition that causes pain in the elbow and forearm. Although self-limiting, it can be associated with significant disability and often results in work absence. It is often treated with topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a review first published in 2002 (search date October 11, 2012).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of topical and oral NSAIDs for treating people with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SciSearch up to October 11, 2012. No language restriction was applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs or CCTs) that compared topical or oral NSAIDs with placebo or another intervention, or compared two NSAIDs in adults with lateral elbow pain. Outcomes of interest were pain, function, quality of life, pain-free grip strength, overall treatment success, work loss and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and performed a risk of bias assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials, involving 759 participants and reporting 17 comparisons, were included in the review. Four new trials identified from the updated search were included, along with 11 of 14 trials included in the original review (three trials included in the previous review were found not to meet inclusion criteria). Of eight trials that studied topical NSAIDs (301 participants), five compared topical NSAIDs with placebo, one compared manipulative therapy and topical NSAIDs with manipulative therapy alone, one compared leech therapy with topical NSAIDs and one compared two different topical NSAIDs. Of seven trials that investigated oral NSAIDs (437 participants), two compared oral NSAIDs with placebo, one compared oral NSAIDs and bandaging with bandaging alone, three compared oral NSAIDs with glucocorticoid injection, one compared oral NSAIDs with a vasodilator and two compared two different oral NSAIDs. No trials directly compared topical NSAIDs with oral NSAIDs. Few trials used intention-to-treat analysis, and the sample size of most was small. The median follow-up was 2 weeks (range 1 week to 1 year).Low-quality evidence was obtained from three trials (153 participants) suggesting that topical NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo with respect to pain in the short term (mean difference -1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.42 to -0.86) and number needed to treat to benefit (7 (95% CI 3 to 21) on a 0 to 10 scale). Low-quality evidence was obtained from one trial (85 participants) indicating that significantly more participants report fair, good or excellent effectiveness with topical NSAIDs versus placebo at 28 days (14 days of therapy) (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.14). No participants withdrew as the result of adverse events, but some studies reported mild adverse effects such as rash in 2.5% of those exposed to topical NSAIDs compared with 1.3% of those exposed to placebo.Low-quality and conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of oral NSAIDs obtained from two trials could not be pooled. One trial found significantly greater improvement in pain compared with placebo, and the other trial found no between-group differences; neither trial found differences in function. One trial reported a withdrawal due to adverse effects for a participant in the NSAIDs group. Use of oral NSAIDs was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal side effects compared with placebo in one trial in the review. Another trial reported discontinuation of treatment due to gastrointestinal side effects in four participants taking NSAIDs, and another participant developed an allergic reaction in response to oral NSAIDs.Very scant and conflicting evidence regarding the comparative effects of oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injection was obtained. One trial reported a significant improvement in pain with glucocorticoid injection, and another found no between-group differences; treatment success was similar between groups (RR of fair, good or excellent effectiveness 0.74; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.26). Transient pain may occur following injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There remains limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions about the benefits or harms of topical or oral NSAIDs in treating lateral elbow pain. Although data from five placebo-controlled trials suggest that topical NSAIDs may be beneficial in improving pain (for up to 4 weeks), non-normal distribution of data and other methodological issues precluded firm conclusions. Some people may expect a mild transient skin rash. Evidence about the benefits of oral NSAIDs has been conflicting, although oral NSAID use may result in gastrointestinal adverse effects in some people. No direct comparisons between oral and topical NSAIDs were available. Some trials demonstrated greater benefit from glucocorticoid injection than from NSAIDs in the short term, but this was not apparent in all studies and was not apparent by 6 months in the only study that included longer-term outcomes.

Does stereochemistry influence transdermal permeation of flurbiprofen through the rat skin?

The possible enantioselectivity in the permeation of the chiral anti-inflammatory drug flurbiprofen across hairless rat skin was studied. The transdermal permeability of individual enantiomers from donor solution containing racemic flurbiprofen (0.1%) and pure enantiomers (0.05%) in isopropyl myristate solution was determined using side-by-side diffusion cells. The permeation profiles of enantiomers (R)- and (S)-flurbiprofen from donor solution containing racemic (RS)-flurbiprofen are comparable. When donor solution contained pure enantiomers, marked differences were observed between the permeation rates of (R)- and (S)-flurbiprofen. The steady-state flux and permeability coefficient were significantly higher for (R)-flurbiprofen in comparison with (S)-flurbiprofen (the flux ratio R/S = 2.04; p < 0.05).

Topical ketoprofen TDS patch versus diclofenac gel: efficacy and tolerability in benign sport related soft-tissue injuries

OBJECTIVE

To compare the ketoprofen TDS patch with diclofenac gel in the treatment of traumatic acute pain in benign sport-related soft-tissue injuries.

DESIGN

7-14 treatment days, prospective, randomised, open study.

PATIENTS

Outpatients aged 18-70 years diagnosed for painful benign sport-related soft-tissue injury (sprains, strains and contusions within the prior 48 h), randomised to either ketoprofen patch 100 mg once daily (n = 114) or diclofenac gel 2-4 g three times daily (n = 109).

INTERVENTION

7-14 days of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs treatment to assess the pain intensity changes (daily activities and spontaneous at rest) in a daily diary (100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Pain intensity (VAS).

RESULTS

The ketoprofen patch was not inferior to diclofenac gel in reducing the baseline pain during daily activities (difference of -1.17 mm in favour of ketoprofen patch, 95% CI (-5.86 to 3.52), reducing to the baseline VAS 79%. Ketoprofen patch presented also a higher cure rate (64%) than diclofenac gel (46%) at day 7 (p = 0.004). Patient opinions about the treatment comfort (pharmaceutical shape, application and dosage) were also statistically higher for the ketoprofen patch (>80% of the patients rated as good or excellent the patch removal and skin adherence).

CONCLUSION

Ketoprofen patches are effective and safe pain relievers for the treatment of sports injury pain with advantages compared with diclofenac gel.

Topical ketoprofen patch (100 mg) for the treatment of ankle sprain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs offer the advantage of enhanced drug delivery to local affected tissues with low plasma levels and an expected reduced incidence of systemic adverse events (mainly peptic ulcer disease and gastrointestinal hemorrhage).

HYPOTHESIS

To test the efficacy and tolerability of a 100-mg patch of ketoprofen applied once a day.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

The 2-week trial included patients suffering painful (spontaneous pain >or=50 mm on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale), benign (grade I or II), recent (<2 days) ankle sprains as a model of general traumatic soft tissue injuries. The primary efficacy criterion was spontaneous pain change after 7 days of treatment in the intention-to-treat population. One hundred sixty-three patients were randomized (ketoprofen, 81; placebo, 82).

RESULTS

After 1 week of treatment, the decrease in spontaneous pain was -50+/-20 mm for ketoprofen and -38+/-24 mm for the placebo, showing a statistically significant intergroup difference (P=.0007). The majority of the secondary criteria were also statistically significant in favor of the ketoprofen patch. Tolerance was good in both groups, adverse events being mostly local.

CONCLUSION

This trial suggested that a 7-day course of treatment with a ketoprofen patch is useful in benign ankle sprain, without revealing unexpected adverse events.

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic painful shoulder: review of nonsurgical interventions

Chronic painful shoulder is a common complaint, yet its initial pathogenesis may have multiple etiologies as well as multiple and perhaps distinct primary or secondary etiologies responsible for its final clinical presentation. While the clinical presentation of pain and limitation of motion is easily defined, there are no standardized criteria for the differential diagnosis of various chronic shoulder pain syndromes, much less a consensus on their treatment. At present, there are limited nonsurgical options and medications approved for the treatment of chronic painful shoulder, and, with limited exceptions, there are no definitive conclusions about the efficacy of these therapies based on controlled clinical studies reported in the literature. There is a clear clinical need for local nonsurgical treatments that are safe and effective for chronic painful conditions. In this article, an attempt is made to review the diagnoses associated with chronic shoulder pain and some of the limited data that exist so as to suggest a therapeutic algorithm.

Oral versus topical NSAIDs in rheumatic diseases: a comparison

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly prescribed drugs worldwide and are responsible for approximately one-quarter of all adverse drug reaction reports. NSAIDs are widely prescribed for patients with rheumatic disease--a population at increased risk for serious gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Topical administration of NSAIDs offers the advantage of local, enhanced drug delivery to affected tissues with a reduced incidence of systemic adverse effects, such as peptic ulcer disease and GI haemorrhage. NSAIDs administered topically penetrate slowly and in small quantities into the systemic circulation; bioavailability and maximal plasma NSAID concentration after topical application are generally less than 5 and 15%, respectively, compared with equivalent oral administration. Product formulation may have a dramatic impact, not only on absorption rates but also on penetration depth. Compared with oral administration, topical application leads to relatively high NSAID concentrations in the dermis. Concentrations achieved in the muscle tissue below the site of application are variable, but are at least equivalent to that obtained with oral administration. NSAIDs applied topically do reach the synovial fluid, but the extent and mechanism (topical penetration versus distribution via the systemic circulation) remain to be determined. In addition, marked interindividual variability was noted in all studies; percutaneous absorption may be strongly influenced by individual skin properties. In general, interpretation of clinical studies measuring efficacy of topical NSAIDs in rheumatic disease states is difficult because of a remarkably high placebo response rate, use of rescue paracetamol (acetaminophen), and significant variability in percutaneous absorption and response rates between patients. Overall efficacy rates attributable to topical NSAIDs in patients with rheumatic disorders ranged from 18 to 92% of treated patients. Topically applied NSAIDs have a superior safety profile to oral formulations. Adverse effects secondary to topical NSAID application occur in approximately 10 to 15% of patients and are primarily cutaneous in nature (rash and pruritus at site of application). GI adverse drug reactions are rare with topically applied NSAIDs, compared with a 15% incidence reported for oral NSAIDs. Available clinical studies suggest, but do not document, equivalent efficacy of topical over oral NSAIDs in rheumatic diseases.

Topical NSAIDs for musculoskeletal conditions. A review of the literature

In recent years a growing number of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have become available. This has been prompted in large part by the high incidence of serious gastrointestinal adverse events associated with the use of systemic NSAIDs, and the premise that minimisation of plasma concentrations of active drug may result in fewer systemic adverse effects. Evidence in humans and animals with topical NSAIDs demonstrates lower plasma concentrations than with systemically administered drugs, while those in soft tissues are still of a magnitude considered consistent with exerting an anti-inflammatory effect. In joints, however, the evidence is less strong, and there is still dispute whether in this case the drug reaches the joint predominantly via the transcutaneous or systemic route. There has been a sufficient number of studies of soft tissue conditions to demonstrate the superiority of topical NSAIDs over placebo and to suggest equivalent efficacy in comparison with some oral NSAIDs. For arthropathies, however, the literature is more sparse. Although several studies claim a benefit for topical NSAIDs against placebo, the results are less conclusive and further study is required. Trials of topical agents against intra-articular corticosteroids and rubefacients are either lacking or inconclusive. The adverse event profile of topical agents is reasonable: minor cutaneous effects occur in up to 2% of patients but tend to be self-limiting. Gastrointestinal events appear from the existing literature to be infrequent and minor, although long term studies are required. Bronchospasm and renal impairment have been reported and may be more frequent in patients who have experienced these effects with oral agents. The initial costs of topical agents tend to be higher than those of oral agents but a cost-effectiveness analysis suggests an overall benefit: this issue requires further clarification.