Topisches Diclofenac Emulgel versus orales Ibuprofen in der Therapie der aktivierten Arthrose der Fingergelenke (Heberden- und/oder Bouchard-Arthrose) - Doppelblinde, kontrollierte, randomisierte Studie -

A randomized double-blind active-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of topical basil (Ocimum basilicum) oil in knee osteoarthritis

Background

Basil is a widely used herb in Persian medicine and is gaining recognition as a functional food worldwide.

Aim of the study

This trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of a traditional formulation of basil oil in comparison with diclofenac gel in treating knee osteoarthritis, considering its established anti-inflammatory, anti-nociceptive, and anti-oxidative properties.

Materials and methods

One hundred eligible patients were equally randomized to the traditional basil oil (containing sesame oil) and diclofenac gel groups. They used their respective topical treatments thrice daily for 4 weeks. Various measurements were taken at the beginning of the study, 2, and 4 weeks after starting the intervention, including the 8-m walk test, knee pain (based on visual analog scale), flexion angle of the knee joint, analgesic consumption, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire.

Results

No significant differences were observed between the basil oil and diclofenac gel groups in any of the measured outcomes. However, significant improvements were noted within each group for most variables.

Conclusion

Topical application of the traditional formulation of basil oil appears to improve clinical symptoms and certain functional indicators of knee osteoarthritis to a similar extent as diclofenac gel. This suggests that basil oil could be considered an effective management option for this condition. Clinical Trial Registration: https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/, identifier IRCT2017081711341N7.

Patients' experience and utilization patterns of diclofenac gel in Germany: a real-world study with a prospective longitudinal survey and a retrospective analysis of pharmacy data

OBJECTIVE

Describe and characterize treatment patterns, satisfaction, improvement in pain and functional impairment (health-related quality of life [HRQoL]) in users of over the counter (OTC) Voltaren gel diclofenac (VGD) 2.32% and 1.16% in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This observational real-world German study had prospective and retrospective components. The prospective data were collected from electronic surveys completed by adults who purchased VGD to treat their musculoskeletal pain at baseline and 4 and 12 weeks after baseline. Retrospective data were from a 12-month (March 2019 to February 2020) abstraction from dispensing software platforms used in select German pharmacies.

RESULTS

Surveys from 467 participants (mean age 60.8 years) were analyzed. Average pain severity at baseline was 6.0 on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain), improving by 0.8 and 1.2 points at Weeks 4 and 12, respectively. Performance of functional activities (daily/physical/social activities and errands/chores) improved and the proportion of participants with at least moderate interference decreased at both follow-up timepoints. Retrospective analyses indicated that majority of patients receiving VGD (n = 95,085) were ≥65 years old (67.9%), had one dispensed tube (70.8%) and did not switch to another topical treatment (including other NSAIDs) (77.3%), and were co-prescribed at least one cardiovascular medication (74.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first real-world insights into OTC VGD use in Germany. The participants using VGD reported a decrease in pain severity and an improvement of HRQoL while under treatment, as well as resulting satisfaction with treatment. Patients infrequently switched to alternate topical therapies/NSAIDs.

Comparative efficacy and safety of acetaminophen, topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world data

OBJECTIVE

Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed.

DESIGN

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database.

RESULTS

122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD = 0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (risk ratio [RR] = 0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR = 0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n = 22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n = 14,218 participants/group).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.

Systematic review of topical diclofenac for the treatment of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain

Aim: The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.Methods: We used standard Cochrane methods. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register of Studies; date of the final search was November 2018. Included studies were randomized, double blinded, with ten or more participants per treatment arm. The primary outcome of "clinical success" was defined as participant-reported reduction in pain of at least 50%. Details of adverse events (AEs) were recorded.Results: For acute pain, 23 studies (5170 participants) were included. Compared to placebo, number needed to treat (NNT) for different formulations were as follows: diclofenac plaster, 4.7 (95% CI 3.7-6.5); diclofenac plaster with heparin, 7.4 (95% CI 4.6-19); and diclofenac Emulgel, 1.8 (95% CI 1.5-2.1). 4.1% (78/1919) reported a local AE. For chronic pain, 21 studies (26 publications) with 5995 participants were included. Formulations included gel, solution with or without DMSO, emulsion and plaster. A clinical success rate of ∼60% (NNT 9.5 [95% CI 7-14.7]) was achieved with a variety of formulations. Local AEs (∼14%) were similar for both diclofenac and placebo.Conclusion: This systematic review of 11,000+ participants demonstrates that topical diclofenac is effective for acute pain, such as sprains, with minimal AEs. The effectiveness of topical diclofenac was also demonstrated in chronic musculoskeletal pain but with a higher NNT (worse) compared with acute pain. Formulation does play a part in effectiveness but needs further studies.

2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis

Since publication of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of hand osteoarthritis (OA) in 2007 new evidence has emerged. The aim was to update these recommendations. EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A systematic literature review was performed, collecting the evidence regarding all non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatment options for hand OA published to date. Based on the evidence and expert opinion from an international task force of 19 physicians, healthcare professionals and patients from 10 European countries formulated overarching principles and recommendations. Level of evidence, grade of recommendation and level of agreement were allocated to each statement. Five overarching principles and 10 recommendations were agreed on. The overarching principles cover treatment goals, information provision, individualisation of treatment, shared decision-making and the need to consider multidisciplinary and multimodal (non-pharmacological, pharmacological, surgical) treatment approaches. Recommendations 1-3 cover different non-pharmacological treatment options (education, assistive devices, exercises and orthoses). Recommendations 4-8 describe the role of different pharmacological treatments, including topical treatments (preferred over systemic treatments, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) being first-line choice), oral analgesics (particularly NSAIDs to be considered for symptom relief for a limited duration), chondroitin sulfate (for symptom relief), intra-articular glucocorticoids (generally not recommended, consider for painful interphalangeal OA) and conventional/biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (discouraged). Considerations for surgery are described in recommendation 9. The last recommendation relates to follow-up. The presented EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of hand OA, based on expert opinion and research evidence.

Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatment for hand osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review informing the 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis

To update the evidence on efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA), a systematic literature review was performed up to June 2017, including (randomised) controlled trials or Cochrane systematic reviews. Main efficacy outcomes were pain, function and hand strength. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed when advisable. Of 7036 records, 127 references were included, of which 50 studies concerned non-pharmacological, 64 pharmacological and 12 surgical interventions. Many studies had high risk of bias, mainly due to inadequate randomisation or blinding. Beneficial non-pharmacological treatments included hand exercise and prolonged thumb base splinting, while single trials showed positive results for joint protection and using assistive devices. Topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) proved equally effective, while topical NSAIDs led to less adverse events. Single trials demonstrated positive results for chondroitin sulfate and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in interphalangeal joints. Pharmacological treatments for which no clear beneficial effect was shown include paracetamol, intra-articular thumb base injections of glucocorticoids or hyaluronic acid, low-dose oral glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine and anti-tumour necrosis factor. No trials compared surgery to sham or non-operative treatment. No surgical intervention for thumb base OA appeared more effective than another, although in general more complex procedures led to more complications. No interventions slowed radiographic progression. In conclusion, an overview of the evidence on efficacy and safety of treatment options for hand OA was presented and informed the task force for the updated European League Against Rheumatism management recommendations for hand OA.

Systematic review of non-surgical therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand: an update

OBJECTIVE

To update our earlier systematic reviews which evaluated all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Surgical therapies were not evaluated.

DESIGN

RCTs published between March 2008 and December 2015 were added to the previous systematic reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 95 RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this update. Generally, the methodological quality of these RCTs has improved since the last update, with more studies describing their methods for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. However, RCTs continue to be weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and a lack of standardized outcome assessments specific to hand OA. The number and location of evaluated hand joints continues to be underreported, and only 25% of RCTs adequately described the method used to ensure allocation concealment. These remain major weaknesses of published RCTs. A meta-analysis could not be performed because of marked study heterogeneity, insufficient statistical data available in the published RCTs, and a small number of identical comparators.

CONCLUSION

Hand OA is a complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies. There has been an improvement in the overall design and conduct of RCTs, however, additional large RCTs with a more robust methodological approach specific to hand OA are needed in order to make clinically relevant conclusions about the efficacy of the diverse treatment options available.

Is there any role for topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of mild to moderate musculoskeletal pain in a Lebanese community pharmacy?

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely prescribed in the community pharmacy. Their systemic administration has been related to significant adverse effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of topical NSAIDs in managing mild to moderate musculoskeletal pain versus systemic administration or combination of both routes.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study conducted in a large Lebanese community pharmacy over a period of 5 months in 302 patients. Participants were divided into three groups according to their route of administration of NSAIDs either topically, systemically or combination of both. During follow up period, degree of pain, efficacy of NSAID therapy, side effects, onset time and duration of pain relief reported by each patient were collected by the study investigators using specific formulated questionnaire. Degree of pain was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11). The efficacy of NSAID therapy was defined as 50 % reduction or more in pain. The primary outcome was to assess the efficacy between groups. The secondary outcomes were onset time, duration of pain relief and side effects between the three groups.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients were enrolled in this study. 78 patients administered topical NSAIDs, 40 administered systemic NSAIDs and 31 administered combination of both routes. Efficacy of NSAID therapy for all routes was reported in 132 participants (89 %) distributed as 64 in topical, 37 in systemic and 31 in combination. Bi-variate analysis showed no significant difference in efficacy between topical versus systemic (p = 0.99) and topical versus combination (p = 0.14). The mean onset of topical NSAIDs was significantly faster than systemic by 12.7 min (p < 0.05). The mean duration of pain relief of systemic NSAIDs was significantly longer than topical by 3 h (p < 0.05). Patients administered systemic NSAIDs (either alone or in combination) reported increase in blood pressure and gastric-upset 8 and 38 cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant statistical difference between NSAIDs route's of administration for the treatment of mild to moderate musculoskeletal pain in Lebanese community pharmacy patients. Topical NSAIDs were fast in onset and effective in reducing pain with no significant adverse effects.

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat chronic 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 chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults', originally published in Issue 9, 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised, double-blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and our own in-house database; the date of the last search was February 2016. We also searched the references lists of included studies and reviews, and sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' web sites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, active or inert carrier (placebo) controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain of moderate or severe intensity. Studies had to meet stringent quality criteria and 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 risk ratio and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to carrier or other active treatment. We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs. The primary outcome was 'clinical success', defined as at least a 50% reduction in pain, or an equivalent measure such as a 'very good' or 'excellent' global assessment of treatment, or 'none' or 'slight' pain on rest or movement, measured on a categorical scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new studies for this update, which now has information from 10,631 participants in 39 studies, a 38% increase in participants from the earlier review; 33 studies compared a topical NSAID with carrier. All studies examined topical NSAIDs for treatment of osteoarthritis, and for pooled analyses studies were generally of moderate or high methodological quality, although we considered some at risk of bias from short duration and small size.In studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen were significantly more effective than carrier for reducing pain; about 60% of participants had much reduced pain. With topical diclofenac, the NNT for clinical success in six trials (2343 participants) was 9.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1 to 16) (moderate quality evidence). With topical ketoprofen, the NNT for clinical success in four trials (2573 participants) was 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3) (moderate quality evidence). There was too little information for analysis of other individual topical NSAIDs compared with carrier. Few trials compared a topical NSAID to an oral NSAID, but overall they showed similar efficacy (low quality evidence). These efficacy results were almost completely derived from people with knee osteoarthritis.There was an increase in local adverse events (mostly mild skin reactions) with topical diclofenac compared with carrier or oral NSAIDs, but no increase with topical ketoprofen (moderate quality evidence). Reporting of systemic adverse events (such as gastrointestinal upsets) was poor, but where reported there was no difference between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were infrequent and not different between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence).Clinical success with carrier occurred commonly - in around half the participants in studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks. Both direct and indirect comparison of clinical success with oral placebo indicates that response rates with carrier (topical placebo) are about twice those seen with oral placebo.A substantial amount of data from completed, unpublished studies was unavailable (up to 6000 participants). To the best of our knowledge, much of this probably relates to formulations that have never been marketed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen can provide good levels of pain relief beyond carrier in osteoarthritis for a minority of people, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. There is emerging evidence that at least some of the substantial placebo effects seen in longer duration studies derive from effects imparted by the NSAID carrier itself, and that NSAIDs add to that.

A Mechanism-Based Approach to the Management of Osteoarthritis Pain

Pain from osteoarthritis (OA) affects millions of people worldwide, yet treatments are limited to acetaminophen, NSAIDs, physical therapy, and ultimately, surgery when there is significant disability. In recent years, our understanding of pain pathways in OA has developed considerably. Though joint damage and inflammation play a significant role in pain generation, it is now understood that both central and peripheral nervous system mechanisms exacerbate symptoms. Evolving management strategies for OA address central factors (e.g., sleep difficulties, catastrophizing, and depression) with treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise. In addition, emerging data suggest that antibodies against peripheral signaling neuropeptides, such as nerve growth factor-1 (NGF-1), may significantly alleviate pain. However, concerns regarding potential adverse effects, such as rapidly progressive OA, still remain. A nuanced understanding is essential if we are to make headway in developing more effective treatments for OA.

Effectiveness and safety of topical versus oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) represent a relatively recent alternative to oral NSAIDs. Topical NSAIDs are designed to target their therapeutic effect locally to damaged tissue while minimizing systemic exposure. To better inform patients considering topical NSAIDs as an alternative to oral NSAIDs, this is the first comprehensive review to present all available evidence comparing topical NSAIDs with oral NSAIDs in the treatment of both acute and chronic musculoskeletal injury.

METHODS

Six studies, including 600 subjects, compared the use of topical versus oral NSAIDs in the treatment of a variety of acute injuries. Nine trials, including 2403 subjects, studied topical versus oral NSAIDs for chronic injury treatment, almost exclusively for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. This review included all available comparative studies, the majority of which were well-designed, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trials. Relevant meta-analyses were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Topical and oral NSAIDs performed statistically better than placebo for chronic injury treatment. Limited evidence comparing topical NSAIDs with placebo for acute injury treatment was available in the included studies, but supported greater effectiveness for topical NSAIDs. In all head-to-head comparisons, topical and oral NSAIDs demonstrated similar efficacy for treatment of both acute and chronic injuries. There were more gastrointestinal side effects in patients receiving oral NSAIDs, while local skin reactions occurred more frequently in patients treated with topical NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Overall, topical NSAIDs may be considered as comparable alternatives to oral NSAIDs and are associated with fewer serious adverse events (specifically GI reactions) when compared with oral NSAIDs. Caution should be exercised with the use of both topical and oral NSAIDs, including close adherence to dosing regimens and monitoring, particularly for patients with previous adverse reactions to NSAIDs.

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly taken orally, but they are also available in topical preparations to be applied to or rubbed onto the skin of a painful joint, typically one affected by arthritis, with the aim of relieving pain locally. Topical NSAIDs are widely used in some parts of the world for acute and chronic painful conditions, but have not been universally accepted until recently. One of the problems has been that older clinical studies were generally short, lasting four weeks or less, and short duration studies are not regarded as adequate in ongoing painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the use of topical NSAIDs in chronic musculoskeletal pain, focusing on studies of high methodological quality, and examining the measured effect of the preparations according to study duration. The principal aim was to estimate treatment efficacy in longer duration studies of at least 8 weeks.

SEARCH METHODS

A series of electronic searches, together with bibliographic searches, and searches of in-house databases were combined with electronic searches of clinical trial registers and manufacturers of topical NSAIDs, or companies known to be actively researching topical NSAIDs. There had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind studies with placebo or active comparators, where at least one treatment was a topical NSAID product, in any topical formulation (cream, gel, patch, solution), in studies lasting at least two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and validity, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Information was available from 7688 participants in 34 studies from 32 publications; 23 studies compared a topical NSAID with placebo. Topical NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo for reducing pain due to chronic musculoskeletal conditions. The best data were for topical diclofenac in osteoarthritis, where the NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 8 to 12 weeks compared with placebo was 6.4 for the solution, and 11 for the gel formulation. There were too few data of good quality to calculate NNTs for other individual topical NSAIDs compared with placebo. Direct comparison of topical NSAID with an oral NSAID did not show any difference in efficacy. There was an increase in local adverse events (mostly mild skin reactions) with topical NSAIDs compared with placebo or oral NSAIDs, but no increase in serious adverse events. Gastrointestinal adverse events with topical NSAID did not differ from placebo, but were less frequent than with oral NSAIDs.A substantial amount of data from unpublished studies was unavailable. Much of this probably relates to formulations that have never been marketed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical NSAIDs can provide good levels of pain relief; topical diclofenac solution is equivalent to that of oral NSAIDs in knee and hand osteoarthritis, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. Formulation can influence efficacy. The incidence of local adverse events is increased with topical NSAIDs, but gastrointestinal adverse events are reduced compared with oral NSAIDs.

Tolerability of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel for osteoarthritis in seniors and patients with comorbidities

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a dose-related risk of cardiovascular, renal, and gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs). Topical NSAIDs produce lower systemic NSAID exposure compared with oral NSAIDs, offering potential benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) for knee and hand osteoarthritis (OA) in older and younger patients and in patients with versus without comorbid hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of pooled data from 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving 1426 patients (aged ≥35 years) with mild to moderate OA of the knee and 783 patients (aged ≥40 years) with mild to moderate OA of the hand. Patients applied 4 g of DSG or vehicle to affected knees QID for 12 weeks or 2 g of DSG or vehicle to affected hands QID for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

In patients with knee OA, the percentage with ≥1 adverse event was similar in patients aged <65 years (56.6%) versus ≥65 years (55.8%) and was similar in patients with versus without comorbid hypertension (53.4% vs 59.0%, respectively), type 2 diabetes mellitus (50.0% vs 57.2%), or cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease (53.8% vs 56.5%). In patients with hand OA, the percentage with ≥1 AE was similar in patients aged ≥65 years (42.7%) versus <65 years (39.1%) and was similar in patients with versus without hypertension (39.6% vs 41.7%, respectively), lower in patients with versus without type 2 diabetes mellitus (28.0% vs 41.6%), and higher in patients with versus without cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease (48.5% vs 39.2%). Gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal AEs were rare and did not differ according to age or comorbidity. Application site reactions were the primary cause for the greater frequency of AEs with DSG versus vehicle.

CONCLUSION

The similar and low rates of AEs in DSG-treated patients aged ≥65 years and <65 years and in those with and without comorbid hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease suggest that DSG treatment is generally well tolerated.

Safety profile of topical diclofenac: a meta-analysis of blinded, randomized, controlled trials in musculoskeletal conditions

BACKGROUND

Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are clinically proven for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. It is important that prescribers and patients are aware of the safety profile of topical NSAIDs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk of adverse events (AEs) associated with topical diclofenac for the treatment of acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, randomized, placebo-, vehicle- or active-controlled trials.

RESULTS

The risk of any type of AE experienced with topical diclofenac was slightly higher compared with placebo/vehicle (RR 1.11), but was more than 50% lower than the risk observed with active topical comparators (RR 0.53). Absolute risk values indicated differences in the risk of AEs depending on the diclofenac formulation used; in particular, lower rates of local skin reactions were observed with diclofenac patches (e.g. 2.5% in placebo/vehicle-controlled studies) and gels (4.2%) compared with diclofenac solutions containing dimethylsulfoxide (34.2%). Dry skin/crusting and rash were the most common local skin reactions reported (9.0% and 3.0% of patients, respectively, in placebo/vehicle-controlled studies), which were usually mild-to-moderate and self-resolving. The discontinuation rate due to local skin reactions with topical diclofenac (1.9%) was low and comparable with non-active comparators (0.7%), and the tolerability of topical diclofenac treatment was rated as 'good' to 'excellent' by >90% physicians and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical diclofenac appears to be generally well tolerated for cutaneous use in acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions.

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are mainstays of the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) but have dose- and age-related risks of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal adverse events (AEs). As a result, US and international guidelines recommend caution when prescribing oral NSAIDs, particularly in older patients and those with significant comorbidities. For OA of the hands and knees, topical NSAIDs provide efficacy similar to oral NSAIDs, with far less systemic distribution. Treatment-related cardiovascular, renal, and other serious AEs with topical NSAIDs have not been reported. At present, only 2 topical NSAIDs are approved in the United States for the treatment of OA: diclofenac sodium 1% gel for hand or knee OA and diclofenac sodium 1.5% in 45.5% dimethylsulfoxide solution for knee OA. Clinical trial data for these products have demonstrated efficacy superior to placebo or similar to oral diclofenac with AE profiles similar to placebo, except for application site reactions. In large double-blind trials, gastrointestinal AEs were infrequent and did not include ulcers, perforations, or bleeding. The purpose of this brief review is to examine the data from controlled double-blind trials evaluating the use of topical NSAIDs in patients with OA. Articles included were identified via a search of PubMed covering the period from January 1, 2005 through March 31, 2010. Reference lists from OA treatment guidelines and meta-analyses were reviewed for additional citations of importance.

Modern management of mild-to-moderate joint pain due to osteoarthritis: a holistic approach

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and it is often associated with significant disability and impaired quality of life. Once thought to be caused by an age-related 'wearing out' of articular cartilage, it is now recognized to be a dynamic process in which cartilage degradation alternates with repair. Several expert guidelines for the management of OA exist, which concur in their recommendations for a stepwise approach to the employment of pharmacological agents and the introduction of suggestions to extend the use of agents such as topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, especially for mild-to-moderate forms of the disease. They also emphasize the importance of non-pharmacological measures, such as nutraceuticals, education, diet, exercise and the use of aids in improving signs and symptoms and slowing progression. In many countries, effective medicinal and nutraceutical agents are available 'over-the-counter'. This review explains the modern approach to the management of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritic pain.

Systemic bioavailability of topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% versus oral diclofenac sodium in healthy volunteers

Systemic bioavailability and pharmacodynamics of topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% were compared with those of oral diclofenac sodium 50-mg tablets. In a randomized, 3-way crossover study, healthy volunteers (n = 40) received three 7-day diclofenac regimens: (A) 16 g gel applied as 4 g to 1 knee 4 times daily (4 g on surface area 400 cm(2)), (B) 48 g gel applied as 4 g per knee 4 times daily to 2 knees plus 2 g gel per hand applied 4 times daily to 2 hands (12 g on 1200 cm(2)), and (C) 150 mg oral diclofenac applied as 50-mg tablets 3 times daily. Thirty-nine participants completed all 3 regimens. Systemic exposure was greater with oral diclofenac (AUC(0-24), 3890 +/- 1710 ng x h/mL) than with topical treatments A (AUC(0-24), 233 +/- 128 ng x h/mL) and B (AUC(0-24), 807 +/- 478 ng x h/mL). Oral diclofenac inhibited platelet aggregation, cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1), and COX-2. Topical diclofenac did not inhibit platelet aggregation and inhibited COX-1 and COX-2 less than oral diclofenac. Treatment-related adverse events were mild and limited to application site reactions with diclofenac sodium gel 1% (n = 4) and gastrointestinal reactions with oral diclofenac (n = 3). Systemic exposure with diclofenac sodium gel 1% was 5- to 17-fold lower than with oral diclofenac. Systemic effects with topical diclofenac were less pronounced.

Effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug plasters for knee osteoarthritis in Japanese: a randomized controlled trial

The objective of this study was to examine the effect of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) plaster for knee osteoarthritis among Japanese patients. An open-labeled, randomized, controlled, multiclinic trial was performed involving outpatient clinic groups. Two comparative groups-plaster NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs-were randomly allocated. The drugs used were limited to the current top three in both groups in Japan. Treatments were assessed after four weeks and compared with the baseline scores. Outcomes were evaluated by two psychometric measures: Japanese knee osteoarthritis measure, and pain with the visual analogue scale. The total number of patients included in the final evaluation was 165 (87 for the plaster group and 78 for the oral group). Between these two groups there were no significant differences in gender, age, body height and weight, body mass index, and X-ray grading. The subjects in both groups showed improvements in both scores at the end of intervention. The differences in the improvements in scores between the two groups were not significant, though the mean rank score and the 95% CI of the plaster group were slightly better than those of the oral group. In conclusion, the local application of a plaster with NSAIDs leads to the same level of improvement in knee osteoarthritis as oral NSAIDs.

Systematic review of non-surgical therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand: an update

OBJECTIVE

To update our earlier systematic review which evaluated all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Surgical therapies were not evaluated.

METHOD

RCTs published between August 2004 and February 2008 were added to the original systematic review.

RESULTS

A total of 44 RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this update. Generally, these RCTs were of low quality. RCTs were weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and by a lack of standardized outcome assessments. The methods used for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment were rarely described. The number and location of symptomatic hand joints per treatment group at baseline was usually not stated. The number and location of evaluated hand joints at the end of the study was also usually not stated. A meta-analysis could not be performed since most of the treatments studied did not have more than one identical comparison to allow pooling of the data.

CONCLUSIONS

It is apparent that hand OA is a more complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies when compared to hip and knee OA. The recently published OARSI Consensus Recommendations will improve the design and conduct of future RCTs in hand OA.

Diclofenac sodium gel in patients with primary hand osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To measure the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium gel in patients with primary hand osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, men and women aged > or = 40 years diagnosed with primary OA in the dominant hand were randomly assigned to self-apply topical 1% diclofenac sodium gel (Voltaren Gel) (n = 198) or vehicle (n = 187) to both hands 4 times daily for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measures included OA pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale), total Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) score, and global rating of disease activity at 4 and 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included onset of efficacy in Weeks 1 and 2, durability of efficacy at 8 weeks, measures of disease activity in the dominant hand, pain intensity in the non-dominant hand, AUSCAN subindices, end of study rating of efficacy, and Osteoarthritis Research Society International response criteria.

RESULTS

Diclofenac sodium gel decreased pain intensity scores by 42%-45%, total AUSCAN scores by 35%-40%, and global rating of disease by 36%-40%. Significant differences favoring diclofenac sodium gel over vehicle were observed at Week 4 for pain intensity and AUSCAN, with a trend for global rating of disease activity. At Week 6, diclofenac sodium gel treatment significantly improved each primary outcome measure compared with vehicle. Secondary outcomes generally supported the primary outcomes. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was application-site paresthesia. Most AE were mild. No cardiac events, gastrointestinal bleeding, or ulcers were reported.

CONCLUSION

Topical diclofenac sodium gel was generally well tolerated and effective in primary hand OA. (NCT ID: NCT00171665).

Review of the pharmaceutical properties and clinical effects of the topical NSAID formulation, diclofenac epolamine

BACKGROUND

Topical formulations of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in particular diclofenac (DI), have become popular for treating various acute and chronic painful inflammatory conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a literature review of (1) the use of topical NSAIDs; (2) the pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of a medicated plaster (patch) containing diclofenac epolamine (DI-EP, Flector Tissugel, Flector patch) compared with other formulations of topical NSAIDs; and (3) evaluation of the clinical findings from studies with this novel DI-EP patch.

OUTCOMES

(1) Pharmacokinetic studies involved determination of DI from DI-EP and separately epolamine (EP) and the epoxide metabolite (N-oxide-EP) in laboratory animals and humans; the latter being the major metabolite in humans. About 2% of DI is absorbed by the skin in humans and is excreted in the urine. Maximum plasma concentrations of 17.4 ng/mL DI are reached at 5.4 hours (approximate steady state conditions); the plasma elimination half-time (t(1/2)) being 26.4 hours. Low systemic levels of DI and EP are produced from DI-EP. Pronounced accumulation of DI occurs in the muscle layers and in synovial fluids of arthritic patients; (2) No significant toxicity occurs from EP nor N-oxide-EP, while that of oral DI-EP was similar to that from DI; and (3) In acute musculoskeletal conditions (sprains, tendonitis and sports injuries) and osteoarthritis DI-EP patches control pain and signs of joint or physical injury compared with placebo controls by 3-5 days with almost complete pain relief at 14 days. DI-EP was shown to have equivalent therapeutic effect to another DI diethylammonium gel formulation (Voltaren Emulgel). There were no reports of serious adverse events in the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract, kidneys or liver from DI-EP. Mild GI symptoms and skin reactions occur in 2 and 10% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The patch delivery of DI in DI-EP affords controlled delivery of the active drug in contrast to that from application of gels or ointments of NSAIDs.

Effectiveness of leech therapy in women with symptomatic arthrosis of the first carpometacarpal joint: a randomized controlled trial

Leech therapy has been shown to be effective for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of leech therapy in another type of osteoarthritis, osteoarthritis of the first carpometacarpal joint (thumb saddle joint). Thirty-two women with symptomatic painful osteoarthritis of the first carpometacarpal joint and who scored>40 mm on a 100mm VAS pain scale were randomized to a single treatment with 2-3 locally applied leeches (leech group) or a 30-day course with topical diclofenac twice a day. Primary outcome measure was change of overall pain (mean of VAS for pain at rest, in motion, during grip) from baseline to day 7. Secondary outcomes were functional disability (DASH-questionnaire), quality of life (QoL, SF-36) and grip strength. Patients were examined baseline and at days 7, 30 and 60 after treatment. Overall pain score at day 7 was reduced from 59.6+/-13.8 to 27.1+/-20.6 in the leech group (n=16) and from 50.6+/-13.3 to 46.9+/-18.5 with diclofenac (n=16) (group difference -26.5, 95%CI -40.3; -12.7; p=0.0003). Group differences for pain relief favoring the leech treatment increased at days 30 and 60. Significant treatment effects were also observed for the DASH score, QoL and grip. Results were not affected by outcome expectation or consumption of analgetics. A single course of leech therapy is effective in relieving pain, improving disability and QoL for at least 2 months. The potential of leech therapy for treatment of arthritic pain and underlying mechanisms should be further investigated.

Efficacy of a comfrey root (Symphyti offic. radix) extract ointment in the treatment of patients with painful osteoarthritis of the knee: results of a double-blind, randomised, bicenter, placebo-controlled trial

This randomised, double-blind, bicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigated the effect of a daily application of 6g Kytta-Salbe f (3 x 2 g) over a 3 week period with patients suffering from painful osteoarthritis of the knee. The two hundred and twenty patients examined consisted of 153 women and 67 men of an average age of 57.9 years. On average, the complaints relating to osteoarthritis of the knee had persisted for 6.5 years. Two hundred and twenty patients were included in the Full Analysis Set (FAS) and safety collective, 186 (84.5%) in the Valid Case Analysis Set (VCAS) collective. In the course of the trial, the visual analog scale (VAS) total score (primary target value) in the verum group dropped by 51.6 mm (54.7%) and in the placebo group by 10.1 mm (10.7%). The average difference between the groups of 41.5 mm (95% confidence interval=34.8 to 48.2 mm) or 44.0% is significant (p<0.001). The significance is confirmed through the evaluation of the diary, the VCAS evaluation and the separate assessment of the two centres. This also applies to the separate assessment of the VAS total score following pain at rest and on movement. The WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) total score (secondary target value) also improved similar to the VAS total score. At the end of the trial, a reduction by 60.4 mm (58.0%) was recorded for the verum group and a reduction of 14.7 mm (14.1%) for the placebo group. The average group difference of 45.7 mm (95% confidence interval=37.1 to 54.3 mm) or 43.9% is significant (p<0.001). The difference between the treatment groups increased systematically and significantly, in parallel with the duration of the treatment. Thus, the superiority of the treatment with Kytta-Salbe f over that with the placebo is proven, even by means of the multi-factorial multivariate analysis for repetitive measurements. In respect of the explorative secondary target values SF-36 (quality of life), angle measurement (mobility of the knee), CGI (clinical global impression) and global assessment of efficacy by the physician and the patient, a significant superiority (p<0.001 each) of the verum group over the placebo group was also proven. The results suggest that the comfrey root extract ointment is well suited for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Pain is reduced, mobility of the knee improved and quality of life increased.

Efficacy of a comfrey root extract ointment in comparison to a diclofenac gel in the treatment of ankle distortions: results of an observer-blind, randomized, multicenter study

In the treatment of minor blunt injuries several topical drugs are known to have anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. They represent, however, two fundamentally different major pharmacological therapy approaches: the "chemical-synthetical" and the "phytotherapeutical" approach. The main objective of this trial (CODEC_2004) was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an ointment of Comfrey extract (Extr. Rad. Symphyti) with that of a Diclofenac gel in the treatment of acute unilateral ankle sprain (distortion). In a single-blind, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter and confirmatory clinical trial outpatients with acute unilateral ankle sprains (n=164, mean age 29.0 years, 47.6% female) received either a 6 cm long ointment layer of Kytta-Salbe f (Comfrey extract) (n=82) or of Diclofenac gel containing 1.16 g of diclofenac diethylamine salt (n=82) for 7 +/- 1 days, four times a day. Primary variable was the area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the pain reaction to pressure on the injured area measured by a calibrated caliper (tonometer). Secondary variables were the circumference of the joint (swelling; figure-of-eight method), the individual spontaneous pain sensation at rest and at movement according to a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the judgment of impaired movements of the injured joint by the method of "neutral-zero", consumption of rescue medication (paracetamol), as well as the global efficacy evaluation and the global assessment of tolerability (both by physician and patient, 4 ranks). In this study the primary variable was also to be validated prospectively. It was confirmatorily shown that Comfrey extract is non-inferior to diclofenac. The 95% confidence interval for the AUC (Comfrey extract minus Diclofenac gel) was 19.01-103.09h*N/cm2 and was completely above the margin of non-inferiority. Moreover, the results of the primary and secondary variables indicate that Comfrey extract may be superior to Diclofenac gel.

Systematic review of therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA), with an emphasis on trial methodology.

METHODS

RCTs published between 1966 and August 2004 were identified by searching several electronic data sources as well as by searching reference lists. Details of study demographics, methodology, quality and outcomes were analyzed. A meta-analysis was planned, if feasible.

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this systematic review. When compared with hip and knee OA, there are surprisingly few published RCTs in hand OA. Generally, these RCTs are of low quality. RCTs are weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and by a lack of standardized outcome assessments. The methods used for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment were rarely described. The number and location of symptomatic hand joints per treatment group at baseline was usually not stated. The number and location of evaluated hand joints at the end of the study was also usually not stated. A meta-analysis could not be performed since most of the treatments studied did not have more than one identical comparison to allow pooling of the data.

CONCLUSION

It is apparent that hand OA is a more complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies when compared to hip and knee OA. Consensus guidelines are urgently needed to help improve the design and conduct of RCTs in hand OA. Additional RCTs of high quality that follow consensus recommendations are needed to evaluate the wide range of possible therapeutic options available for patients with hand OA.

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice.