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

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.

Avulsion fracture of the distal fibula is associated with recurrent sprain after ankle sprain in children

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to clarify radiographic and clinical outcomes, as well as their association, of ankle sprain in children.

METHODS

Patients who sustained a first-time ankle sprain were prospectively surveyed. Patients underwent radiography of the ankle in the mortise, lateral, anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL), and calcaneofibular ligament views at the first clinic visit to assess avulsion fractures of the distal fibula. Patients with avulsion fractures underwent radiography after 8 weeks to assess bone union. The treatment method was not standardized and was determined by the patient, their parents, and the treating physician. Recurrent sprain and quality of life were evaluated by using the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire and reviewing the medical records of patients. The association between avulsion fracture and recurrent sprain was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 143 patients with a median age of 9 (range 6-12) years were analyzed. Avulsion fractures were present in 89 (62%) patients. The sensitivity of the ATFL view for the diagnosis of avulsion fractures was 0.94, whereas that for the anteroposterior and lateral views was significantly lower at 0.46 (P < 0.001). Only 17% of fractures united at 8 weeks. Of 114 (follow-up rate, 80%) patients who were followed up for a median period of 24 months, recurrent sprain occurred in 41 (36%) patients. The incidence rate was significantly higher in patients with avulsion fractures than in patients without the fractures (44 vs. 23%, P = 0.027). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, avulsion fracture was independently associated with recurrent sprain (P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

More than one-third of patients experienced recurrent sprain. The presence of avulsion fracture was associated with an increased risk of recurrent sprain. Patients with avulsion fracture and their parents should be informed about the risk of recurrent sprain and subsequent ankle instability, and careful follow-up is needed for these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Current Evidence for Acute Pain Management of Musculoskeletal Injuries and Postoperative Pain in Pediatric and Adolescent Athletes

OBJECTIVE

Sports-related injuries in young athletes are increasingly prevalent with an estimated 2.6 million children and adolescents sustaining a sports-related injury annually. Acute sports-related injuries and surgical correction of sports-related injuries cause physical pain and psychological burdens on pediatric athletes and their families. This article aims to evaluate current acute pain management options in pediatric athletes and acute pain management strategies for postoperative pain after sports-related injuries. This article will also elucidate which areas of pain management for pediatric athletes are lacking evidence and help direct future clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a literature search through PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to provide an extensive review of initial and postoperative pain management strategies for pediatric sports-related musculoskeletal injuries.

MAIN RESULTS

The current knowledge of acute pain management for initial sports-related injuries, postoperative pain management for orthopedic surgeries, as well as complementary and alternative medical therapies in pediatric sports-related injuries is presented. Studies evaluating conservative management, enteral and nonenteral medications, regional anesthesia, and complementary medical therapies are included.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate pain management is important for sports injuries in children and adolescents for emotional as well as physical healing, but a balance must be achieved to provide acceptable pain relief while minimizing opioid use and side effects from analgesic medications. More studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of nonopioid analgesic medications and complementary therapies in pediatric patients with acute sports-related injuries.

How Safe Are Common Analgesics for the Treatment of Acute Pain for Children? A Systematic Review

Background. Fear of adverse events and occurrence of side effects are commonly cited by families and physicians as obstructive to appropriate use of pain medication in children. We examined evidence comparing the safety profiles of three groups of oral medications, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids, to manage acute nonsurgical pain in children (<18 years) treated in ambulatory settings. Methods. A comprehensive search was performed to July 2015, including review of national data registries. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Risks (incidence rates) were pooled using a random effects model. Results. Forty-four studies were included; 23 reported on adverse events. Based on limited current evidence, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and opioids have similar nausea and vomiting profiles. Opioids have the greatest risk of central nervous system adverse events. Dual therapy with a nonopioid/opioid combination resulted in a lower risk of adverse events than opioids alone. Conclusions. Ibuprofen and acetaminophen have similar reported adverse effects and notably less adverse events than opioids. Dual therapy with a nonopioid/opioid combination confers a protective effect for adverse events over opioids alone. This research highlights challenges in assessing medication safety, including lack of more detailed information in registry data, and inconsistent reporting in trials.

Pain Management of Pediatric Musculoskeletal Injury in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

Background. Pain management for children with musculoskeletal injuries is suboptimal and, in the absence of clear evidence-based guidelines, varies significantly. Objective. To systematically review the most effective pain management for children presenting to the emergency department with musculoskeletal injuries. Methods. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for children aged 0-18 years, with musculoskeletal injury, in the emergency department. The primary outcome was the risk ratio for successful reduction in pain scores. Results. Of 34 studies reviewed, 8 met inclusion criteria and provided data on 1169 children from 3 to 18 years old. Analgesics used greatly varied, making comparisons difficult. Only two studies compared the same analgesics with similar routes of administration. Two serious adverse events occurred without fatalities. All studies showed similar pain reduction between groups except one study that favoured ibuprofen when compared to acetaminophen. Conclusions. Due to heterogeneity of medications and routes of administration in the articles reviewed, an optimal analgesic cannot be recommended for all pain categories. Larger trials are required for further evaluation of analgesics, especially trials combining a nonopioid with an opioid agent or with a nonpharmacological intervention.

Recent Advances in Pediatric Use of Oral Paracetamol in Fever and Pain Management

Paracetamol is a common analgesic and antipyretic drug for management of fever and mild-to-moderate pain in infants and children, and it is considered as first-line therapy for the treatment of both according to international guidelines and recommendations. The mechanism of action of paracetamol is complex and multifactorial, and several aspects of the pharmacology impact its clinical use, especially in the selection of the correct analgesic and antipyretic dose. A systematic literature search was performed by following procedures for transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To maximize efficacy and avoid delays in effect, use of the appropriate dose of paracetamol is paramount. Older clinical studies using paracetamol at subtherapeutic doses of ≤10 mg/kg generally show that it is less effective than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, recent evidence shows that when used at dose of 15 mg/kg for fever and pain management, paracetamol is significantly more effective than placebo, and at least as effective as NSAIDs. Paracetamol 15 mg/kg has a tolerability profile similar to that of placebo and NSAIDs such as ibuprofen and ketoprofen used for short-term treatment of fever. However, when used at repetitive doses for consecutive days, paracetamol shows lower risk of adverse events compared to NSAIDs. Also, unlike NSAIDs, paracetamol is indicated for use in children of all ages. Overall, clinical evidence qualifies paracetamol 15 mg/kg a safe and effective option for treatment of pain and fever in children.

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.

Doctor, I sprained my ankle

Ankle sprains constitute the majority of ankle injuries, and result in pain, limited mobility/exercise and loss of school/work days. Ankle sprains involve at least one of the ankle ligaments and range from a micro tear to complete tear of the ligament or group of ligaments. The most common mechanism of ankle sprains is inversion stress of a plantar-flexed foot, while the most frequently injured ligament is the anterior talofibular ligament. The attending clinician needs to stratify the risk of fracture through history-taking and physical examination, manage the pain, assess long‑term complications and provide certification for rest and recovery. The Ottawa ankle rules may be useful. Graduated exercises to maintain the ankle's range of motion should be started early, after the resolution of initial pain and swelling. The risk of recurrent ankle injuries is often a combination of both mechanical and functional disabilities.

Pediatric ankle sprains and their imitators

Ankle injuries are common in sports, and the ankle sprain is the most common of ankle injuries, but there are many injuries that can mimic a sprain. In the skeletally immature athlete, bone injuries, particularly those that affect the physis, are more likely to occur than a ligamentous injury. Knowledge of relevant anatomy, physical exam, and appropriate imaging can assist the primary care provider in accurately diagnosing the majority of ankle injuries in the young athlete.

Interventions for enhancing medication adherence

BACKGROUND

People who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of interventions intended to enhance patient adherence to prescribed medications for medical conditions, on both medication adherence and clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest) on 11 January 2013 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included unconfounded RCTs of interventions to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and clinical outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive findings at earlier time points.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Pooling results according to one of these characteristics still leaves highly heterogeneous groups, and we could not justify meta-analysis. Instead, we conducted a qualitative analysis with a focus on the RCTs with the lowest risk of bias for study design and the primary clinical outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The present update included 109 new RCTs published since the previous update in January 2007, bringing the total number of RCTs to 182; we found five RCTs from the previous update to be ineligible and excluded them. Studies were heterogeneous for patients, medical problems, treatment regimens, adherence interventions, and adherence and clinical outcome measurements, and most had high risk of bias. The main changes in comparison with the previous update include that we now: 1) report a lack of convincing evidence also specifically among the studies with the lowest risk of bias; 2) do not try to classify studies according to intervention type any more, due to the large heterogeneity; 3) make our database available for collaboration on sub-analyses, in acknowledgement of the need to make collective advancement in this difficult field of research. Of all 182 RCTs, 17 had the lowest risk of bias for study design features and their primary clinical outcome, 11 from the present update and six from the previous update. The RCTs at lowest risk of bias generally involved complex interventions with multiple components, trying to overcome barriers to adherence by means of tailored ongoing support from allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered intense education, counseling (including motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioral therapy by professionals) or daily treatment support (or both), and sometimes additional support from family or peers. Only five of these RCTs reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common intervention characteristics were apparent. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence or clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Across the body of evidence, effects were inconsistent from study to study, and only a minority of lowest risk of bias RCTs improved both adherence and clinical outcomes. Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. The research in this field needs advances, including improved design of feasible long-term interventions, objective adherence measures, and sufficient study power to detect improvements in patient-important clinical outcomes. By making our comprehensive database available for sharing we hope to contribute to achieving these advances.

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.

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.