Clinical trials in acute musculoskeletal injury states. An analysis of methodology

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury

BACKGROUND

Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended. There is concern about the use of oral opioids for acute pain leading to dependence. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits or harms of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, 2020 Issue 1, MEDLINE (from 1946), and Embase (from 1980) to January 2020; other databases were searched to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain, or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon, or muscle occurring within 48 hours of inclusion in the study), and comparing oral NSAIDs versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects, and early re-injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, with 3305 participants. Three studies included children only. The others included predominantly young adults; approximately 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, and five were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. Some evidence relating to pain relief was high certainty. Other evidence was either moderate, low or very low certainty, reflecting study limitations, indirectness, imprecision, or combinations of these. Thus, we are certain or moderately certain about some of the estimates, and uncertain or very uncertain of others. Eleven studies, involving 1853 participants compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. There were no differences between the two groups in pain at one to two hours (1178 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), at days one to three (1232 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), and at day seven or later (467 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was little difference between the groups in numbers of participants with minimal swelling at day seven or later (77 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from three studies (386 participants) means we are uncertain of the finding of little difference between the two groups in return to function at day seven or later. There was low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (1504 participants) that NSAIDs may slightly increase the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with paracetamol. There was low-certainty evidence from nine studies (1679 participants) of little difference in neurological adverse events between the NSAID and paracetamol groups. Six studies, involving 1212 participants compared NSAIDs with opioids. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in pain at one hour (1058 participants, 4 studies), and low-certainty evidence for no difference in pain at days four or seven (706 participants, 1 study). There was very low-certainty evidence of no important difference between the groups in swelling (84 participants, 1 study). Participants in the NSAIDs group were more likely to return to function in 7 to 10 days (542 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence (1143 participants, 5 studies) that NSAIDs were less likely to result in gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events compared with opioids. Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day one (51 participants, 1 study), day three (149 participants, 2 studies), or day seven (138 participants, 2 studies); swelling (230 participants, 3 studies); return to function at day seven (89 participants, 1 study); and the risk of gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies). No studies reported re-injury rates. No studies compared NSAIDs with oral complementary and alternative medicines, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paracetamol, NSAIDs make no difference to pain at one to two hours and at two to three days, and may make no difference at day seven or beyond. NSAIDs may result in a small increase in gastrointestinal adverse events and may make no difference in neurological adverse events compared with paracetamol. Compared with opioids, NSAIDs probably make no difference to pain at one hour, and may make no difference at days four or seven. NSAIDs probably result in fewer gastrointestinal and neurological adverse effects compared with opioids. The very low-certainly evidence for all outcomes for the NSAIDs versus paracetamol with opioid combination analgesics means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences in pain or adverse effects. The current evidence should not be extrapolated to adults older than 65 years, as this group was not well represented in the studies.

Naproxen versus Acetaminophen for Therapy of Soft Tissue Injuries to the Ankle in Children

Background:

Musculoskeletal (MSK) ankle injuries cause significant morbidity in ambulatory pediatric populations. No optimal pharmacotherapy is available.

Objective:

To conduct a randomized, double-blind trial to compare 2 drug therapies for soft tissue injury of the ankle.

Methods:

Patients (N = 77, aged 8–14 y, 61% male) with ankle injuries presenting to a regional pediatric emergency department were assigned to receive either acetaminophen (15 mg/kg 4 times a day) or naproxen (5 mg/kg 4 times a day) in a double-blind fashion on a routine basis for a 5 day period. On days 0 and 7, patients rated their degree of disability and pain on weight bearing using a 10 cm visual analog scale developed for this study. In addition, they were examined by a physician who rated pain, tenderness on palpation, and swelling using a 4 point scale. There were 3 follow-up telephone calls on days 3, 14, and 21. Adherence was evaluated by self-report and pill count.

Results:

Both the acetaminophen and naproxen groups had significant improvement in degree of disability and pain from day 0 to day 7. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome between the 2 groups by patient self-evaluation or physician assessment. There also was no significant difference in adverse event rates between the 2 groups, and the majority of patients in both groups felt that the medication was helpful.

Conclusions:

No significant difference in efficacy of pain control or improvement of disability between the naproxen and acetaminophen groups suggests no preferential advantage for naproxen over acetaminophen for MSK injuries when given on a regular basis, with concurrent supportive treatment. Possible differential benefit from intermittent therapy needs to be evaluated among children with ankle injury.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury

BACKGROUND

Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (12 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014 Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2014), EMBASE (1980 to September 2014), CINAHL (1937 to November 2012), AMED (1985 to November 2012), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to November 2012), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), and SPORTDiscus (1985 to November 2012), plus internet search engines, trial registries and other databases. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and contacted authors of retrieved studies and pharmaceutical companies to obtain relevant unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon or muscle occurring up to 48 hours prior to inclusion in the study) and comparing oral NSAID versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects and early re-injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials, with a total of 2144 participants. Two studies included children only. The other 14 studies included predominantly young adults, of whom over 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, one was at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data, and four were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. The evidence was usually either low quality or very low quality, reflecting study limitations, indirectness such from as suboptimal dosing of single comparators, imprecision, or one or more of these. Thus we are either uncertain or very uncertain of the estimates.Nine studies, involving 991 participants, compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. While tending to favour paracetamol, there was a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups in pain at less than 24 hours (377 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), at days 1 to 3 (431 participants, 4 studies; low quality), and at day 7 or over (467 participants, 4 studies; low quality). A similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (86 participants, 1 study; very low quality) and at day 7 or over (77 participants, 1 study; low quality). There was little difference between the two groups in return to function at day 7 or over (316 participants, 3 studies; very low quality): based on an assumed recovery of function of 804 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 8 fewer per 1000 recovered in the NSAID group (95% confidence interval (CI) 80 fewer to 73 more). There was low-quality evidence of a lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse events in the paracetamol group: based on an assumed risk of gastrointestinal adverse events of 16 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 13 more participants per 1000 had a gastrointestinal adverse event in the NSAID group (95% CI 0 to 35 more).Four studies, involving 958 participants, compared NSAIDs with opioids. Since a study of a selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID (valdecoxib) that was subsequently withdrawn from the market dominates the evidence for this comparison (706 participants included in the analyses for pain, function and gastrointestinal adverse events), the applicability of these results is in doubt and we give only a brief summary. There was low quality evidence for a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups regarding pain at less than 24 hours, at days 4 to 6, and at day 7. Evidence from single studies showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups for swelling at day 3 (68 participants) and day 10 (84 participants). Return to function at day 7 or over favoured the NSAID group (low-quality), and there were fewer gastrointestinal adverse events in the selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID group (very low quality).Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is partly in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. While the point estimates favoured NSAID, the very low-quality evidence did not show a difference between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day 1 (51 participants, 1 study), day 3 (149 participants, 2 studies), or day 7 (138 participants, 2 studies). Very low-quality evidence showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (reported in two studies) and at day 7 (reported in two studies), in return to function at day 7 (89 participants, 1 study), and in gastrointestinal adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies).No studies compared NSAIDs with complementary and alternative medicines, and no study reported re-injury rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is generally low- or very low-quality but consistent evidence of no clinically important difference in analgesic efficacy between NSAIDs and other oral analgesics. There is low-quality evidence of more gastrointestinal adverse effects with non-selective NSAID compared with paracetamol. There is low- or very low-quality evidence of better function and fewer adverse events with NSAIDs compared with opioid-containing analgesics; however, one study dominated this evidence using a now unavailable COX-2 selective NSAID and is of uncertain applicability. Further research is required to determine whether there is any difference in return to function or adverse effects between both non-selective and COX-2 selective NSAIDs versus paracetamol.

The efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg and hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/750 mg in patients with post-arthroscopic pain

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib, hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5 mg/750 mg (H/A) and placebo in treating pain after arthroscopy of the knee.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single dose study enrolling patients experiencing moderate or severe pain after knee arthroscopy. Patients with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain received either rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 151), H/A (n = 145), or placebo (n = 147). Pain was measured over 24 h. The primary endpoint was total pain relief at 6 h for rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo.

RESULTS

H/A (p = 0.003), but not rofecoxib (p = 0.256) was significantly more effective than placebo for total pain relief at 6 h (TOPAR6). Although analgesic onset and peak were significantly better for H/A than for both rofecoxib (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, respectively) and placebo (p < 0.05, p < 0.001, respectively), rofecoxib patients used significantly less rescue analgesia (p < 0.001) over 24 h. Rofecoxib also provided better Brief Pain Inventory Severity (p = 0.008) and Interference Domain (p = 0.045) scores at 24 h compared to placebo and had lower 24-h Pain Severity scores than H/A (p < 0.05). Treatments were generally well tolerated, with no significant difference in the frequency of patient-reported adverse events between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib 50 mg did not provide significantly different pain relief than placebo at 6 h, and the primary endpoint TOPAR was not attained, although it did show several efficacy benefits at 24 h, including a significant opioid-sparing effect. All treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences observed. The limited efficacy of rofecoxib in this study contrasts to the results of previous surgical studies evaluating rofecoxib, and may be partially explained by the postoperative dosing in this arthroscopic surgical model.