Efficacy of celecoxib, a COX-2-specific inhibitor, and naproxen in the management of acute ankle sprain: results of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

[Shoulder instability: review of current concepts of diagnosis and treatment]

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of modern literature data on the modern approaches in diagnosis and treatment of shoulder instability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Searching for literature data was performed using the Pubmed and Google Scholar databases.

RESULTS

The authors analyzed the results of conservative treatment of patients with shoulder instability and emphasized higher risk of instability recurrence, degeneration of anatomical structures and functional impairment in these patients. Surgery is advisable to restore shoulder stability and normalize its function. Several methods for stabilizing the shoulder have been proposed.

The approaches to diagnosis and treatment of shoulder instability have been updated.

CONCLUSION

Successful treatment of shoulder instability is based on qualitative and complete assessment of soft tissues and bone structures. An individual approach considering bone tissue deficiency and individual needs of the patient is required.

Comparison of Regularly Scheduled Ibuprofen Versus "Pro Re Nata" for Ankle Sprains in Children Treated in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared pain and degree of disability in patients with acute ankle sprains receiving regular scheduled ibuprofen versus pro re nata (PRN).

METHODS

This study is a randomized single-blinded controlled trial of children aged 7 to 17 years presenting with acute ankle sprain to an emergency department. Patients were randomized to receive 10 mg/kg of ibuprofen per dose (maximum 600 mg) every 6 hours regular scheduled versus PRN. Outcome measures included a 100-mm visual analog scale pain and degree of disability at day 4. A sample size of 72 children had a power of 80% to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 20 mm between the regular and PRN group.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned 99 patients to receive regular scheduled (n = 50) or PRN (n = 49) ibuprofen. Pain scores and degree of disability at day 4 showed no significant differences between groups. The rate of reported adverse effects was higher in the regular scheduled group (11.4% vs 9.5%) versus the PRN group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that there is little benefit from routinely using a regular scheduled ibuprofen regimen for acute pediatric ankle sprains.

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.

Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of ankle sprains: update of an evidence-based clinical guideline

This guideline aimed to advance current understandings regarding the diagnosis, prevention and therapeutic interventions for ankle sprains by updating the existing guideline and incorporate new research. A secondary objective was to provide an update related to the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic procedures, therapeutic interventions and prevention strategies. It was posited that subsequent interaction of clinicians with this guideline could help reduce health impairments and patient burden associated with this prevalent musculoskeletal injury. The previous guideline provided evidence that the severity of ligament damage can be assessed most reliably by delayed physical examination (4-5 days post trauma). After correct diagnosis, it can be stated that even though a short time of immobilisation may be helpful in relieving pain and swelling, the patient with an acute lateral ankle ligament rupture benefits most from use of tape or a brace in combination with an exercise programme.New in this update: Participation in certain sports is associated with a heightened risk of sustaining a lateral ankle sprain. Care should be taken with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) usage after an ankle sprain. They may be used to reduce pain and swelling, but usage is not without complications and NSAIDs may suppress the natural healing process. Concerning treatment, supervised exercise-based programmes preferred over passive modalities as it stimulates the recovery of functional joint stability. Surgery should be reserved for cases that do not respond to thorough and comprehensive exercise-based treatment. For the prevention of recurrent lateral ankle sprains, ankle braces should be considered as an efficacious option.

Treatment and prevention of acute and recurrent ankle sprain: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ankle sprains are highly prevalent with high risk of recurrence. Consequently, there are a significant number of research reports examining strategies for treating and preventing acute and recurrent sprains (otherwise known as chronic ankle instability (CAI)), with a coinciding proliferation of review articles summarising these reports.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic overview of the systematic reviews evaluating treatment strategies for acute ankle sprain and CAI.

DESIGN

Overview of intervention systematic reviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals with acute ankle sprain/CAI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcomes were injury/reinjury incidence and function.

RESULTS

46 papers were included in this systematic review. The reviews had a mean score of 6.5/11 on the AMSTAR quality assessment tool. There was strong evidence for bracing and moderate evidence for neuromuscular training in preventing recurrence of an ankle sprain. For the combined outcomes of pain, swelling and function after an acute sprain, there was strong evidence for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and early mobilisation, with moderate evidence supporting exercise and manual therapy techniques. There was conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of surgery and acupuncture for the treatment of acute ankle sprains. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of ultrasound in the treatment of acute ankle sprains.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of acute ankle sprain, there is strong evidence for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and early mobilisation, with moderate evidence supporting exercise and manual therapy techniques, for pain, swelling and function. Exercise therapy and bracing are supported in the prevention of CAI.

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.

Naproxen Twice Daily Versus as Needed (PRN) Dosing: Efficacy and Tolerability for Treatment of Acute Ankle Sprain, a Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of naproxen 500 mg twice daily (BID) versus naproxen 500 mg as needed (PRN) for treatment of ankle sprain.

Methods

In this seven-day, randomized, parallel group trial, 135 patients with ankle sprain occurring less than 48 hours prior to the first dose of study medication were randomized to receive naproxen 500 mg BID (67 patients) and naproxen 500 mg as needed (PRN) (68 patients). The ankle pain was assessed at rest and on full weight bearing using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the worst imaginable pain). Ankle swelling was assessed as a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (no swelling) to 3 (severe swelling) rated by the investigator. The primary efficacy end point was the patient's assessment of ankle pain via NRS and the degree of swelling on day seven.

Results

Results showed a significant decrease in pain on weight bearing, pain at rest and the extent of swelling (P<0.001) in both groups, but there was no substantial difference between the two groups (P>0.05) after seven days. Assessing the safety profile of the two different dosing, 13.3% of the naproxen BID group and 6.7% of the as needed group had adverse events, showing that the as needed regimen was safer (P<0.001).

Conclusion

Results showed that naproxen as needed may reduce the pain and edema of the sprained ankle with no significant difference compared to the BID regimen, while it possesses better safety profile and lower total drug use.

Efficacy and safety of diclofenac diethylamine 2.32% gel in acute ankle sprain

BACKGROUND

Topical diclofenac diethylamine (DDEA) 2.32% gel achieves lasting efficacy in localized pain with two applications per day, while maintaining the favorable safety profile of topical diclofenac and potentially improving convenience and patient compliance.

METHODS

This randomized double-blind controlled study enrolled patients with acute ankle sprain treated with DDEA 2.32% gel two times per day (bid) (n = 80) or three times per day (tid) (n = 80) or placebo (n = 82). Efficacy (including pain and swelling) and local tolerability were evaluated during 8 ± 1 d.

RESULTS

By day 5, the reduction in pain on movement (POM) (primary efficacy variable) with DDEA bid and tid (49.1 and 49.7 mm, respectively; 100-mm visual analog scale) was almost double that with placebo (25.4 mm) (P < 0.0001). In patients with severe baseline POM (≥ 80 mm), mean change in POM from baseline to day 5 with DDEA bid or tid was 30-40 mm greater than that with placebo, which was double the difference (15-20 mm) in patients with mild-moderate baseline POM (<80 mm). More than 70% of all DDEA patients experienced ≥ 50% reduction in POM between days 1 and 5 versus 21% of placebo patients (P < 0.0001). By study end (day 8), ankle swelling in patients treated with DDEA (0.3 cm) was one-third that in those treated with placebo (0.9 cm) (P < 0.0001), which had still not achieved the level of ankle joint function seen with DDEA on day 5 (P < 0.0001). At day 5, treatment satisfaction was "good" to "excellent" in almost 90% of DDEA patients but only "good" or "very good" in 23% of placebo patients (P < 0.0001). DDEA 2.32% gel was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

DDEA 2.32% gel twice daily (applied in the morning and evening) was well tolerated and provided lasting relief from pain, improved function, and reduced symptomatic healing time in uncomplicated ankle sprain.

Rehabilitation of syndesmotic (high) ankle sprains

CONTEXT

High ankle sprains are common in athletes who play contact sports. Most high ankle sprains are treated nonsurgically with a rehabilitation program.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

All years of PUBMED, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL PLUS, SPORTDiscuss, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched to August 2010, cross-referencing existing publications. Keywords included syndesmosis ankle sprain or high ankle sprain and the following terms: rehabilitation, treatment, cryotherapy, braces, orthosis, therapeutic modalities, joint mobilization, massage, pain, pain medications, TENS (ie, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation), acupuncture, aquatic therapy, strength, neuromuscular training, perturbation training, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Level of evidence, 5. A 3-phase rehabilitation program is described. The acute phase is directed at protecting the joint while minimizing pain, inflammation, muscle weakness, and loss of motion. Most patients are treated with some form of immobilization and have weightbearing restrictions. A range of therapeutic modalities are used to minimize pain and inflammation. Gentle mobilization and resistance exercises are used to gain mobility and maintain muscle size and strength. The subacute phase is directed at normalizing range of motion, strength, and function in activities of daily living. Progressive mobilization and strengthening are hallmarks of this phase. Neuromuscular training is begun and becomes the central component of rehabilitation. The advanced training phase focuses on preparing the patient for return to sports participation. Perturbation of support surfaces, agility drills, plyometrics, and sport-specific training are central components of this phase.

CONCLUSION

The rehabilitation guidelines discussed may assist clinicians in managing syndesmotic ankle sprains.

Acupuncture as analgesia for low back pain, ankle sprain and migraine in emergency departments: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain is the most common reason that patients present to an emergency department (ED) and is often inadequately managed. Evidence suggests that acupuncture is effective for pain relief, yet it is rarely practiced in the ED. The current study aims to assess the efficacy of acupuncture for providing effective analgesia to patients presenting with acute low back pain, migraine and ankle sprain at the EDs of four hospitals in Melbourne, Australia.

METHOD

The study is a multi-site, randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial of acupuncture analgesia in patients who present to an ED with low back pain, migraine or ankle sprain. Patients will be block randomized to receive either acupuncture alone, acupuncture as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy or pharmacotherapy alone. Acupuncture will be applied according to Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA). Pain after one hour, measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS), is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes measures include the following instruments; the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, 24-hour Migraine Quality of Life questionnaire and Patient's Global Assessment of Ankle Injury Scale. These measures will be recorded at baseline, 1 hour after intervention, each hour until discharge and 48±12 hours of ED discharge. Data will also be collected on the safety and acceptability of acupuncture and health resource utilization.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will determine if acupuncture, alone or as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy provides effective, safe and acceptable pain relief for patients presenting to EDs with acute back pain, migraine or ankle sprain. The results will also identify the impact that acupuncture treatment may have upon health resource utilisation in the ED setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12609000989246.

Gastrointestinal tolerability of diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3%: a pooled analysis of 14 clinical studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability profile of diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3% (DETP) during short-term treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate pain.

DESIGN

Fourteen clinical trials of DETP were examined; 10 placebo-controlled studies were further integrated for analyses. All adverse event (AE) data were coded to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of GI AEs was summarized by treatment, preferred term, sex, and age group.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients reporting GI AEs were similar between patients treated with the DETP and placebo, with only 3 of the 10 placebo-controlled trials reporting events in >2% of patients; there was no significant difference between DETP and placebo for any preferred GI term. The most common GI AE reported for both treatment groups was nausea (1.5% DETP, 1.1% placebo). There was no significant difference between treatment groups and sex in the number of reported events and no noted difference between age groups.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that DETP is a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is a well-tolerated treatment option, demonstrating a low incidence of GI AEs across 14 clinical trials, making it a possible alternative to short-term oral NSAIDs, which are commonly associated with GI complications.

Diclofenac epolamine topical patch relieves pain associated with ankle sprain

Background:

Sports-related injuries, such as sprains and strains, commonly occur during exercise and athletic events. Current therapy includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have a high incidence of upper gastrointestinal side effects. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of the diclofenac epolamine topical patch (DETP, 1.3%), a topical NSAID for the treatment of acute minor sprains and strains.

Methods:

This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study enrolled adult patients (n = 134) with acute ankle pain (due to a minor sprain) occurring less than 48 hours prior to entering the study. Patients were treated with either the DETP or a placebo topical patch daily for seven days. Pain intensity was evaluated during the first six hours after application of the patch, and on treatment days 1, 2, 3, and 7.

Results:

Patients treated with the DETP experienced a significantly greater reduction in pain associated with their ankle injury compared with placebo, beginning four hours after the first patch application (P = 0.02). The DETP was well tolerated and was comparable with placebo in terms of safety.

Conclusion:

Overall, the results of this study demonstrate that the DETP is an effective analgesic for local treatment of pain in mild acute ankle sprain.

Review of the efficacy and tolerability of the diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3% in patients with acute pain due to soft tissue injuries

BACKGROUND

The diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3% (DETP) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2007 for the treatment of soft tissue injuries such as strains, sprains, and contusions, although it has been available for many years in >40 countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review the efficacy and tolerability of the DETP in relieving acute pain caused by soft tissue injuries.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Derwent Drug File, BIOSIS, and EMBASE databases were searched for literature published between 1984 and October 30, 2009, in any language, using the terms diclofenac epolamine patch, diclofenac hydroxyethylpyrrolidine patch, and FLECTOR Patch. Clinical studies of the efficacy and/or tolerability of the DETP in patients with acute pain due to soft tissue injuries or localized periarticular disorders were included. Efficacy studies that enrolled patients with other medical conditions were excluded, except for reports that focused on tolerability, which were included to supplement tolerability data. The bibliographies of included studies were reviewed manually for relevant articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the manufacturer was contacted for additional relevant postmarketing surveillance information and presentations from scientific meetings.

RESULTS

The search identified 6 placebo-controlled clinical studies, 1 active-comparator-controlled clinical study, and 1 open-label comparator clinical study of the efficacy and tolerability of the DETP in patients with soft tissue injuries. Three studies reported on tolerability. Primary analyses among the 8 studies reported DETP-associated reductions in spontaneous pain from baseline, assessed using a visual analog scale, ranging from 26% to 88% on day 7 and 56% to 61% on day 14. The use of the DETP was associated with significantly greater reductions in pain scores compared with a placebo patch (2 studies) on day 7 (88% vs 74%; P = 0.001) and day 14 (56.5% vs 46.8%; P = 0.001) and compared with diclofenac diethylammonium topical gel (1 study) on day 14 (60.8% vs 40.8%; P < 0.001). With the use of the DETP, median time to pain resolution was 3 days less than with placebo (8.8 vs 12.4 days; P = 0.009). The prevalences of adverse events across the 11 studies were low (3.1%-14.0%) and not significantly different from those with placebo (5.8%-16.0%). The most commonly reported adverse events were cutaneous application-site reactions (pruritus, rash, and dermatitis) and gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea).

CONCLUSION

Based on data from clinical studies and postmarketing experience, the DETP was associated with significant pain relief in patients with soft tissue injuries, with good tolerability.

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain due to soft tissue injury: diclofenac epolamine topical patch

The objective of this article is to review published clinical data on diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3% (DETP) in the treatment of acute soft tissue injuries, such as strains, sprains, and contusions. Review of published literature on topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), diclofenac, and DETP in patients with acute soft tissue injuries was included. Relevant literature was identified on MEDLINE using the search terms topical NSAIDs, diclofenac, diclofenac epolamine, acute pain, sports injury, soft tissue injury, strain, sprain, and contusion, and from citations in retrieved articles covering the years 1978-2008. Review of published, randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses shows that topical NSAIDs are significantly more effective than placebo in relieving acute pain; the pooled average relative benefit was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-1.9). In a limited number of comparisons, topical and oral NSAIDs provided comparable pain relief, but the use of topical agents produced lower plasma drug concentrations and fewer systemic adverse events (AEs). The physical-chemical properties of diclofenac epolamine make it well suited for topical use. In patients with acute soft tissue injuries treated with DETP, clinical data report an analgesic benefit within hours of the first application, and significant pain relief relative to placebo within 3 days. Moreover, DETP displayed tolerability comparable with placebo; the most common AEs were pruritus and other application site reactions. Review of published literature suggests that DETP is generally safe and well tolerated, clinically efficacious, and a rational treatment option for patients experiencing acute pain associated with strains, sprains, and contusions, and other localized painful conditions.

Topical diclofenac epolamine patch 1.3% for treatment of acute pain caused by soft tissue injury

Acute pain caused by musculoskeletal disorders is very common and has a significant negative impact on quality-of-life and societal costs. Many types of acute pain have been managed with traditional oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs). Data from prospective, randomised controlled clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance indicate that use of oral traditional NSAIDs and coxibs is associated with an elevated risk of developing gastrointestinal, renovascular and/or cardiovascular adverse events (AEs). Increasing awareness of the AEs associated with NSAID therapy, including coxibs, has led many physicians and patients to reconsider use of these drugs and look for alternative treatment options. Treatment with NSAIDs via the topical route of administration has been shown to provide clinically effective analgesia at the site of application while minimising systemic absorption. The anti-inflammatory and analgesic potency of the traditional oral NSAID diclofenac, along with its physicochemical properties, makes it well suited for topical delivery. Several topical formulations of diclofenac have been developed. A topical patch containing diclofenac epolamine 1.3% (DETP, FLECTOR(®) Patch), approved for use in Europe in 1993, has recently been approved for use in the United States and is indicated for the treatment of acute pain caused by minor strains, sprains and contusions. In this article, we review the available clinical trial data for this product in the treatment of pain caused by soft tissue injury.

Oral cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors versus other oral analgesics for acute soft tissue injury: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute soft tissue injuries are common and carry significant societal costs. Cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors (coxibs), non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other analgesics are used to treat acute soft tissue injuries, with ongoing debate about their analgesic efficacy, effects on tissue healing and adverse effects (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence comparing oral coxibs with other oral analgesics for acute soft tissue injuries, using the outcomes: pain, swelling, function and AEs.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro and SPORTDiscus. Further studies were sought through clinical trials registries, dissertations, correspondence with pharmaceutical companies and manual searches of relevant journals. There was no language restriction.

DEFINITIONS

'Coxibs' were defined as drugs that inhibit COX-2 >5-fold more than COX-1; 'acute' was defined as injury occurring within 48 hours of enrollment; 'soft tissue injury' was defined as closed injuries to upper or lower limb soft tissues (ligaments, muscles or tendons).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials in humans comparing a coxib to a different class of oral analgesic agent for the treatment of acute soft tissue injuries for <30 days, and in which >or=80% of participants met the definition of acute soft tissue injury, were included. Studies were excluded if >20% of participants enrolled had back pain, cervical spine injury, repetitive strain injuries, delayed-onset muscle soreness, fractures, cartilage injury, penetrating wounds or primary inflammatory conditions (tendonitis, bursitis and arthritis). Nine out of 23 (39.1%) potentially relevant studies met the selection criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

A standard form was used to extract data. Included studies were screened by the authors for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and evidence was graded for quality using the GRADE tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Clinical heterogeneity was minimized by application of strict selection criteria. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and meta-analysis was undertaken if appropriate. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to assess pain, relative risk (RR) to assess AEs, and Peto odds ratio (OR) to assess return to function.

RESULTS

The nine RCTs evaluated in the meta-analysis included 3060 patients. Coxibs were found to be equal to NSAIDs (day 7+, n = 1884, 100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS]), WMD = 0.18 mm (95% CI -1.76, 2.13), p = 0.85 and tramadol (day 7+, n = 706, 100 mm VAS), WMD = -6.6 mm (95% CI -9.63, -3.47) [single study, difference clinically insignificant] for treating pain after soft tissue injuries. Coxibs had fewer gastrointestinal AEs than NSAIDs, even with short-term use (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.41, 0.85], p = 0.004) [low quality evidence]. Swelling was measured in two studies with no difference being found between groups, but the presentation of the data was not sufficient to allow further analysis. Coxibs were found to be unlikely to be different to NSAIDs in helping patients return to function (OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.77, 1.3], p = 0.99); however, a single study suggested they may improve time to return to function (moderate quality evidence) and may have fewer AEs than tramadol (very low quality evidence). The risk of serious AEs with both coxibs and NSAIDs in this setting was low (but incompletely defined).

CONCLUSIONS

More studies comparing coxibs with NSAIDs and other analgesics in the setting of acute soft tissue injuries are necessary. A different review methodology would be required to answer the question of cardiovascular risk associated with short-term use of coxibs and NSAIDs.

Time to significant pain reduction following DETP application vs placebo for acute soft tissue injuries

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provide fast and effective acute pain relief, but systemic administration has increased risk for some adverse reactions. The diclofenac epolamine 1.3% topical patch (DETP) is a topical NSAID with demonstrated safety and efficacy in treatment of acute pain from minor soft tissue injuries. Significant pain reduction has been observed in clinical trials within several hours following DETP application, suggesting rapid pain relief; however, this has not been extensively studied for topical NSAIDs in general. This retrospective post-hoc analysis examined time to onset of significant pain reduction after DETP application compared to a placebo patch for patients with mild-to-moderate acute ankle sprain, evaluating the primary efficacy endpoint from two nearly identical studies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from two double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies (N = 274) of safety and efficacy of the DETP applied once daily for 7 days for acute ankle sprain were evaluated post-hoc using statistical modeling to estimate time to onset of significant pain reduction following DETP application.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain on active movement on a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) recorded in patient diaries; physician- and patient-assessed tolerability; and adverse events.

RESULTS

DETP treatment resulted in significant pain reduction within approximately 3 hours compared to placebo. Within-treatment post-hoc analysis based on a statistical model suggested significant pain reduction occurred as early as 1.27 hours for the DETP group. The study may have been limited by the retrospective nature of the analyses. In both studies, the DETP was well tolerated with few adverse events, limited primarily to application site skin reactions.

CONCLUSION

The DETP is an effective treatment for acute minor soft tissue injury, providing pain relief as rapidly as 1.27 hours post-treatment. Statistical modeling may be useful in estimating time to onset of pain relief for comparison of topical and oral NSAIDs.

Soft-tissue ankle injuries

Soft-tissue ankle injuries are extremely common and frequently present in the emergency department or to the general practitioner. The lateral ligament complex is most commonly affected, usually following an injury with the ankle in an inverted, plantar-flexed position. The diagnosis is usually clinical, and delayed examination and reassessment 3—5 days after injury is recommended as pain and swelling hinder accurate assessment immediately following injury. Applying the Ottawa ankle rules can reduce the number of unnecessary radiographs. Treatment is usually non-operative with the focus on controlling ankle swelling and pain, and early restoration of ankle movements. Surgical repair of ligaments may be indicated in certain cases, though the role of surgery in the acute setting remains unclear. In the present review, we discuss the anatomy, mechanism of injury, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment and outcome of soft-tissue ankle injuries as well as consider how such injuries may be prevented.

Effect of celecoxib on emotional stress and pain-related behaviors evoked by experimental tooth movement in the rat

OBJECTIVE

To test the efficacy of an animal model of pain and stress and evaluate the effects of celecoxib administered when orthodontic force is applied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 20-g reciprocal force was applied via an orthodontic appliance to the maxillary left first and second molars of 7-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats. Rat behavior was evaluated at 5, 24, and 48 hours after the appliance was set. Behavior was assessed in a test field by the number of lines crossed in the first 30 seconds and 5 minutes following force application; number of lines crossed to the center; rearing time; and facial grooming time. Experimental group 1 received intraperitoneal administration of 30 mg/kg celecoxib before every behavioral test. Experimental group 2 received 90 mg/kg before the first behavioral test, and physiologic saline was administered before the remaining behavioral tests. Control groups received saline before every behavioral test and were given passive (passive control group) and active (active control group) appliances, respectively.

RESULTS

Parameters related to pain increased in the active controls, whereas the parameters in the experimental groups decreased to the level seen in the passive controls. Statistically significant differences in pain-related behavior between control and experimental groups were found at 5 and 24 hours after placing the appliance. Stress-related behavior was significantly less in the experimental groups compared to the active control group during experimental periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of celecoxib relieves pain- and stress-related behavior evoked by orthodontic tooth movement in the rat. This model might be a useful tool for the evaluation of pain and stress.

Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib in the Treatment of Acute Pain due to Ankle Sprain in a Latin American and Middle Eastern Population

Ankle sprains are common acute soft-tissue injuries. This 7-day open-label, multicentre, randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of celecoxib with non-selective non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating acute ankle sprain with moderate-to-severe ankle pain in 278 patients. Patients received either celecoxib (400 mg loading dose followed by 200 mg twice daily) or standard doses of non-selective NSAIDs. The primary endpoint was a change in the patient's assessment of ankle pain on a 0 mm (no pain) −100 mm (worst possible pain) visual analogue scale (VAS) at day 3 compared with baseline. From a baseline of 73 mm, mean VAS pain scores decreased to 29 and 32 mm in the celecoxib and non-selective NSAID groups, respectively. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference with regard to change from baseline was greater than the pre-established non-inferiority margin of −10 mm. Using an initial loading dose, celecoxib was at least as efficacious as non-selective NSAIDs in treating acute pain due to ankle sprain.

Celecoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: results from two randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover studies

BACKGROUND

Celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, has established analgesic efficacy for the treatment of acute pain resulting from a variety of causes.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes 2 studies designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in patients with primary dysmenorrhea.

METHODS

Two identical, 3-day, multiple-dose, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover studies were carried out in women aged 18 to 44 years with primary dysmenorrhea (studies 1 and 2). The studies employed a 6-sequence, 3-period, complete-block crossover design over 3 menstrual cycles. Patients received celecoxib 400 mg, followed by celecoxib 200 mg no sooner than 12 hours after first dose (day 1), then celecoxib 200 mg q12h as necessary (days 2 and 3); naproxen sodium 550 mg followed by naproxen sodium 550 mg no sooner than 12 hours after first dose (day 1), then naproxen sodium 550 mg q12h as necessary (days 2 and 3); or placebo. Primary efficacy measures were time-weighted sum of total pain relief and time-weighted sum of pain intensity difference at 8 hours after administration of the first dose of study medication (TOTPAR[8] and SPID[8], respectively). Tolerability was assessed using routine physical examination, including vital sign measurements, and clinical laboratory analyses at screening and end of study.

RESULTS

In total, 149 and 154 patients were randomized to 1 of the 6 treatment sequences in studies 1 and 2, respectively. Across treatment sequences, mean age ranges were 23.4 to 26.9 years (study 1) and 28.3 to 34.1 years (study 2). Mean weight ranges were 62.7 to 74.5 kg (study 1) and 69.2 to 86.7 kg (study 2). Most patients (96.6% in study 1, 80.5% in study 2) were white. Mean TOTPAR[8] values with celecoxib (study 1/study 2, 18.28/17.98) and naproxen sodium (20.59/21.27) were significantly greater than with placebo (12.82/12.98) (all, P < 0.001). Mean SPID[8] values were significantly greater with celecoxib (10.06/9.60) and naproxen sodium (11.48/11.71) than with placebo (5.96/6.41) (all, P < 0.001). Naproxen sodium was significantly different from celecoxib in TOTPAR[8] (study 2 only) and SPID[8] (both studies) (all, P < 0.001). In both studies, the adverse-events (AEs) profile was not significantly different between treatments, with the majority of AEs being related to primary dysmenorrhea and not medication. Less than 10% of patients experienced severe AEs in any treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

In these 2 identically designed studies in women aged 18 to 44 years, celecoxib 400 mg (followed by 200 mg q12h) was more effective, as measured using pain scores, in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea compared with placebo. In each study, the primary efficacy measures-TOTPAR[8] and SPID[8] scores-were significantly improved with celecoxib and naproxen sodium compared with placebo. SPID[8] in both studies and TOTPAR[8] in study 2 were significantly improved with naproxen sodium compared with celecoxib. Both celecoxib and naproxen sodium were well tolerated and provided relief from menstrual pain within 1 hour of administration.

Soft tissue injections in the athlete

BACKGROUND

Injections into or adjacent to soft tissue structures, including muscle, tendon, bursa, and fascia, for pain relief and an earlier return to play have become common in the field of sports medicine.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical review.

RESULTS

Corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and ketorolac tromethamine (Toradol) are the most commonly used injectable agents in athletes. The use of these injectable agents have proven efficacy in some disorders, whereas the clinical benefit for others remain questionable. All soft tissue injections performed for pain control and/or an anti-inflammatory effect have potentially serious side effects, which must be considered, especially in the pregame setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary concern regarding corticosteroid and local anesthetic injections is an increased risk of tendon rupture associated with the direct injection into the tendon. Intramuscular Toradol injections provide significant analgesia, as well as an anti-inflammatory effect via its inhibitory effect on the cyclooxygenase pathway. The risk of bleeding associated with Toradol use is recognized but not accurately quantified.

Original research: long-term efficacy and safety of periarticular hyaluronic acid in acute ankle sprain

The objectives of this study were to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of periarticular hyaluronic acid (HA) injections in acute lateral ankle sprain. A randomized, controlled, prospective trial in a primary sports medicine and emergency practice involved 158 competitive athletes who suffered an acute grade 1 or 2 lateral ankle sprain, and who were randomly assigned within 48 hours of injury. Patients were randomly assigned at baseline to periarticular injection with HA + standard of care (rest, ice, elevation, and compression [RICE]) or placebo injection (PL) + standard of care (RICE) treatment at baseline assessment and day 4 after injury. Follow-up was at 30, 90, and 712 days after treatment. Assessments at baseline and days 4, 8, 30, 90, and 712 included visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10 cm) pain on weight bearing and walking 20 m, patient global assessment of ankle injury (5-point categorical scale), patient satisfaction with treatment (5-point categorical scale), time to return to pain-free and disability-free sport, recurrent ankle sprain, total number of days missing from primary sport activity, and adverse events (AEs). Time to intervention was 39 +/- 4 hours with no difference between groups. A significant reduction in VAS pain on both weight bearing and walking was observed at all follow-up assessments for HA compared with PL (P < 0.001). Time to pain-free and disability-free return to sport was 11 (+/- 8) versus 17 (+/- 8) days for HA and PL, respectively (P < 0.05). At 24 months, in the PL versus HA group, there were 2 versus 0 lower limb fractures, 16 versus 7 second ankle sprains (P < 0.05), 3 versus 1 third ankle sprains, and a significantly greater number of days missing primary sport activity (41 vs 21; P < 0.002). Significantly greater patient satisfaction was also observed for HA versus PL at all follow-up assessments. No serious AEs were recorded throughout follow-up. Periarticular HA treatment for acute ankle sprain was highly satisfactory in the short and long term versus PL. This was associated with reduced pain, more rapid return to sport, fewer recurrent ankle sprains, fewer missed days from sport, and with few associated AEs to 24 months.

A randomised, double-blind study comparing lumiracoxib with naproxen for acute musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Some selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors have been shown to provide analgesic efficacy in patients with acute pain.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of the COX-2 inhibitor lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily (qd) and naproxen 500 mg twice daily (bid) in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain caused by uncomplicated soft tissue injury.

METHODS

This was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority study set in 39 primary care centres in the UK. Patients were randomised to lumiracoxib 400 mg qd or naproxen 500 mg bid and took the study medication for as long as they felt that it was needed, up to day 7. The primary efficacy analysis was the sum of the pain intensity difference (0-100 mm visual analogue scale) determined morning and evening over the first 5 days of treatment (SPID-5).

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 406 patients [lumiracoxib 400 mg qd (n = 207); naproxen 500 mg bid (n = 199)]. Both treatments were effective in reducing pain intensity over 5 days. The mean SPID-5 scores were 117.0 mm.day for lumiracoxib and 118.2 mm.day for naproxen [the treatment difference based on adjusted means from the ANCOVA was -2.78 mm.day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.4, 11.9]. The lower margin of the 95% CI was above the predetermined non-inferiority margin (-50 mm.day) for SPID-5, indicating non-inferiority of lumiracoxib compared with naproxen. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Lumiracoxib 400 mg qd is as effective as naproxen 500 mg bid for the management of moderate-to-severe acute musculoskeletal pain.

Some conservative strategies are effective when added to controlled mobilisation with external support after acute ankle sprain: a systematic review

QUESTIONS

Which intervention(s) best augment early mobilisation and external support after an acute ankle sprain? What is the most appropriate method of preventing re-injury?

DESIGN

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials published from 1993 to April 2005.

PARTICIPANTS

People with an acute ankle sprain.

INTERVENTION

Any pharmacological, physiotherapeutic, complementary or electrotherapeutic intervention added to controlled mobilisation with external support. Immobilisation, surgical intervention, and use of external ankle supports in isolation were excluded.

OUTCOMES

Pain, function, swelling, re-injury, and global improvement; assessed at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

23 trials were included with a mean PEDro score of 6/10. There was strong evidence that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can reduce pain and improve short-term ankle function. There was moderate evidence that neuromuscular training decreases functional instability and minimises re-injury; and that comfrey root ointment decreases pain and improves function. There was also moderate evidence that manual therapy techniques improve ankle dorsiflexion. There was no evidence to support the use of electrophysical agents or hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Very few long-term follow-ups were undertaken, and few studies focused on preventing long-term morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, comfrey root ointment, and manual therapy can significantly improve short-term symptoms after ankle sprain, and neuromuscular training may prevent re-injury. More high quality studies are needed to develop evidence-based guidelines on ankle rehabilitation beyond the acute phases of injury management.

Clinical use and pharmacological properties of selective COX-2 inhibitors

Selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) are approved for the relief of acute pain and symptoms of chronic inflammatory conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They have similar pharmacological properties but a slightly improved gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile if compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). However, long-term use of coxibs can be associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) adverse events (AEs). For this reason, two coxibs were withdrawn from the market. Currently celecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib are used. These three coxibs differ in their chemical structure and selectivity for COX-2, which might explain some of their pharmacological features. Following oral administration, the less lipophilic celecoxib has a lower bioavailability (20-40%) than the other two coxibs (74-100%). All are eliminated by hepatic metabolism involving mainly CYP2C9 (celecoxib, lumiracoxib) and CYP3A4 (etoricoxib). Elimination half-life varies from 5 to 8 h (lumiracoxib), 11 to 16 h (celecoxib) and 19 to 32 h (etoricoxib). In patients with liver disease, plasma levels of celecoxib and etoricoxib are increased about two-fold. Clinical efficacies of the coxibs are comparable to tNSAIDs. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the slightly better GI tolerability (which is lost if acetylsalicylic acid is coadministered) of the coxibs is offset by their elevated risks for CV AEs (also seen with tNSAIDs other than naproxen), which apparently increase with dose and duration of exposure. In addition, the higher costs for coxibs (if compared to tNSAIDs, even when a "gastroprotective" proton pump inhibitor is coadministered) should be taken into consideration, if a coxib will be selected for certain patients with a high risk for GI complications. For such treatment, the lowest effective dose should be used for a limited time. Monitoring of kidney function and blood pressure appears advisable. It is hoped that further controlled studies can better define the therapeutic place of the coxibs.

Periarticular hyaluronic acid in acute ankle sprain

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of periarticular hyaluronic acid injections in acute lateral ankle sprain during 9 months at a sports injuries center.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled prospective trial.

SETTING

Primary sport medicine and emergency practice.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty-eight consecutive competitive athletes who suffered acute grade 1 or 2 lateral ankle sprains were randomized within 48 hours of injury.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized at baseline to periarticular injection with hyaluronic acid (HA) + standard of care [rest, ice, compression, and elevation (RICE)] or placebo injection (PL) + standard of care (RICE) treatment at baseline assessment and on day 4 after injury.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Assessments at baseline and days 4, 8, 30, and 90 included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0-10 cm) pain on weight bearing and walking 20 m, patient global assessment of ankle injury (five-point categorical scale), patient satisfaction with treatment (five-point categorical scale), time to return to pain-free and disability-free sport, and adverse events. Differences between groups were determined using an intent-to-treat analysis of variance.

RESULTS

About 30% of the ankle sprains were "first" events, and no differences in clinical assessments with those presenting but not volunteering for the study (n = 341) were observed. Time to intervention was 39 +/- 4 hours, with no difference between groups. No serious adverse events were recorded during the 8-day treatment period. No difference in concomitant treatment or physical therapy was observed between groups. A significant reduction in VAS pain on both weight bearing and walking was observed at day 8 for HA compared with PL (P < 0.05). Significantly greater patient satisfaction was observed for HA versus PL at days 4 (P < 0.05), 8 (P < 0.001), 30 (P < 0.001), and 90 (P < 0.05). Patient global assessment of ankle injury was significantly better compared with baseline in the HA group at day 8, but this was not different between groups. Time to pain-free and disability-free return to sport was 11 (+/-8) versus 17 (+/-8) days for HA and PL, respectively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HA treatment for acute ankle sprain was highly satisfactory in the short term and the long term versus PL. This was associated with reduced pain and more rapid return to sport, with few associated adverse events.

Valdecoxib provides effective pain relief following acute ankle sprain

We sought to determine whether valdecoxib is as effective as diclofenac in treating acute ankle sprain. Patients (n=202) with acute first- and second-degree ankle sprain were randomized to valdecoxib (40 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 40 mg once daily on days 2-7) or diclofenac (75 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy end-point was the Patient's Assessment of Ankle Pain visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100 mm) value on day 4. Valdecoxib was as efficacious as diclofenac in treating the signs and symptoms of acute ankle sprain. The mean VAS reduction in ankle pain on day 4 was not different between groups; the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group difference was within the prespecified limit for non-inferiority (10 mm). There were no significant differences between groups for all secondary efficacy end-points. The two treatments were similarly effective and well tolerated for treatment of acute ankle sprain.

The COX-2 specific inhibitor Valdecoxib versus tramadol in acute ankle sprain: a multicenter randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor valdecoxib has not been approved in the United States for treatment of acute pain.

HYPOTHESIS

Valdecoxib 20 mg twice daily or once daily (both with a 40-mg loading dose) is not clinically inferior to tramadol for treating the signs and symptoms of acute ankle pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Patients (N = 829) with acute first- or second-degree ankle sprain received 7 days' treatment with valdecoxib 20 mg either twice daily or once daily (both with 40-mg loading dose), tramadol 50 mg 4 times daily, or placebo. The primary end point was Patient's Assessment of Ankle Pain visual analog scale on day 4; a test of noninferiority compared valdecoxib with tramadol.

RESULTS

On day 4, both valdecoxib doses were significantly better versus placebo and were comparable with tramadol in relieving ankle pain. On day 7, valdecoxib, but not tramadol, significantly reduced pain versus placebo. On days 4 and 7, more patients resumed normal walking with valdecoxib (45%-47% and 73%-79%, respectively) than with placebo (35% and 64%, respectively) or tramadol (38% and 67%, respectively). In contrast to valdecoxib, the number of withdrawals due to adverse events was significantly higher in the tramadol group (12.2% vs 3.4%; P = .0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Valdecoxib was comparable with tramadol and was significantly better than placebo in treating acute ankle sprain, and it enabled more patients to resume normal walking on days 4 and 7. Both valdecoxib and tramadol were well tolerated.

Practical management: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) use in athletic injuries

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently used in the treatment of acute athletic injuries, often for analgesic purposes as the evidence to support enhanced healing is limited. However, the current evidence on NSAID use in athletic injury is slowly growing. On the basis of animal models and limited human studies, some practical management guidelines can be drawn to assist the sports physician. Specifically, NSAIDs are not recommended in the treatment of completed fractures, stress fractures at higher risk of nonunion, or in the setting of chronic muscle injury. The only exception may be very short-term use (eg, a few days) for analgesic purposes only. Judicious use of NSAIDs may be more appropriate in the management of acute ligament sprains, muscle strains, tendinitis, and eccentric muscle injury. However, length of treatment should always be kept as short as possible, with consideration of the specific type of injury, level of dysfunction, and pain.

Cyclo-Oxygenase-2 Inhibitors

The major goal of clinicians when treating acute musculoskeletal injuries is to return athletes to their pre-injury level of function, ideally in the shortest time possible and without compromising tissue-level healing. In this regard, a commonly used intervention is the taking of NSAIDs. These are used to limit the amount and duration of inflammation, and to control pain. While NSAIDs have become synonymous with the management of acute musculoskeletal injuries, their efficacy has yet to be proven. This is of particular concern in view of recent research investigating the latest class of NSAIDs - selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (COXIBs). COXIBs were developed to reduce the adverse gastrointestinal (GI) effects of traditional NSAIDs. While they have beneficial anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties, and appear to facilitate earlier return to function following acute injury, the effect of COXIBs on tissue-level healing is currently unknown. In experimental animal models of acute injury, COXIBs have been shown to be detrimental to tissue-level repair. Specifically, they have been shown to impair mechanical strength return following acute injury to bone, ligament and tendon. Clinically, this may have implications for ongoing morbidity and future injury susceptibility. However, the current animal studies have limited translation to the clinical setting, particularly because of significant limitations relating to drug use and dosage in these studies. There is currently no randomised, controlled trial evidence of the tissue-level effects of COXIBs on acute musculoskeletal injuries. In addition to questions relating to the effect of COXIBs on tissue-level healing, further questions regarding the use of these agents have been raised given a recent link being shown between one COXIB (rofecoxib) and an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Whether this finding is related to the individual properties of rofecoxib or is a class phenomenon is the subject of ongoing investigation. However, in light of the potential risks associated with using COXIBs, an acceptable and possibly safer alternative in the management of acute musculoskeletal injuries may be to use traditional NSAIDs. Traditional NSAIDs do carry the potential for greater adverse GI effects and their clinical effects on tissue-level healing remain relatively unknown. However, they do not appear to be associated with adverse cardiovascular effects, and they are effective pain relievers and cheaper alternatives.