Update on the use of topical NSAIDs for the treatment of soft tissue and musculoskeletal pain: a review of recent data and current treatment options

Model-Based Meta-Analysis Supporting the Combination of Acetaminophen and Topical Diclofenac in Acute Pain: A Therapy for Mild-to-Moderate Osteoarthritis Pain?

INTRODUCTION

Acetaminophen and topical diclofenac (AtopD) have complementary mechanisms of action and are therefore candidates for combination use in osteoarthritis (OA) pain. However, an evidence gap exists on their combination use in OA pain. This study aimed to assess the effects of this combination and compare its performance relative to monotherapies on pain score reduction and opioid-sparing effect by leveraging evidence from acute pain setting using a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE database to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the combination for acute pain. Subsequently, an MBMA of RCTs was implemented in conjunction with extrapolation principles to infer efficacy in the population of interest. Pain score reduction and opioid-sparing effect (OSE) were selected as the measures of efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs encompassing 1396 patients were included. Exploratory evaluation revealed AtopD combination to show greater pain score reduction versus acetaminophen monotherapy. However, pain score reduction was more susceptible to confounding by opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) than OSE. Therefore, a parsimonious MBMA evaluating OSE was developed from 5 of the 11 RCTs (n = 353 patients). The analysis revealed a statistically significant interaction coefficient, suggesting a reduction of 32% in opioid use with the combination versus acetaminophen monotherapy. Differences in the effect size of the combination were less conclusive versus diclofenac monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate greater pain reduction and opioid-sparing efficacy for the AtopD combination versus acetaminophen monotherapy. Given the similar pain pathways and mechanisms of action of the two drugs in acute and mild-to-moderate OA pain, comparable beneficial effects from the combination therapy may be anticipated following extrapolation to chronic OA pain. Prospective RCTs and real-world studies in OA pain are needed to confirm the differences in the efficacy of the combination treatment observed in our study.

Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activity of DW-1021, the ionic complex of pelubiprofen and tramadol, in rodents

Although drugs such as acetaminophen, opioids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), are commonly used for pain management, the side effects of these drugs such as hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, nausea, and vomiting, can not be neglected. Therefore, combinations of analgesics with different mechanisms raise the possibility of developing novel analgesics. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate whether DW-1021, the ionic complex of pelubiprofen (NSAID) and tramadol (opioid), has synergic antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects in nociceptive as well as inflammation-induced nociceptive models compared to pelubiprofen- or tramadol-only administration. Strong synergistic antinociceptive efficacy of DW-1021 was observed in the mouse writhing test and von Frey paw withdrawal threshold test in the carrageenan-induced rats. The hot plate test in mice and the Randall-Selitto mechanical paw pressure test in carrageenan-induced rats revealed that DW-1021 had a preferable effect on relieving pain to pelubiprofen, but not as much as tramadol. In the carrageenan-induced rats, DW-1021 had a more potent effect on reducing paw inflammation (paw volume, width, and thickness) via the suppression of PGE₂ production than tramadol, but less than that of pelubiprofen. Taken together, our results suggest that the administration of DW-1021, a combination of pelubiprofen and tramadol, exerted a potent effect and can be used as a potential therapeutic agent for relieving pain and inflammation.

Morniflumate in the treatment of upper airways affections in adults: a review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We compared, by a meta-analytic process, the antipyretic and symptomatic activity, and the safety profile of morniflumate (ATC code: M01AX22) with those of other commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in acute ear, nose and throat (ENT) diseases.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Our search strategy was performed in various database, included Google Scholar, PubMed and Embase, the key word was "morniflumate". Interventional studies in adults with ENT or lower airway inflammatory diseases were compared in a meta-analysis for the number of symptom-free and fever-free patients at day 3 of therapy, and of drug interruptions due to adverse events (AEs). For symptoms, we included only studies on ENT inflammatory diseases; for fever and AEs, we also considered studies on lower airway inflammatory diseases. Of 33 studies retrieved, 8 (24.2%) met the inclusion criteria and compared morniflumate to placebo, nimesulide, paracetamol and other NSAIDs.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

On day 3, the number of symptom-free patients was significantly higher with morniflumate vs placebo and nimesulide (+20% and +30%, respectively) and similar to the other comparators. The number of fever-free patients significantly increased (up to 70%) with morniflumate vs all comparators except paracetamol (similar). No difference was found in the number of AE-related interruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

morniflumate showed good antipyretic and symptomatic activity and a short-term safety profile at least comparable to that of other NSAIDs.

Topical Ketoprofen Versus Placebo in Children Presenting With Ankle Sprain to the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

Despite the favorable data concerning topical agents use in outpatient clinics, they are not commonly in emergency departments (EDs). The present study aimed to compare the effect of 2.5% topical ketoprofen (gel form) to placebo in children presenting with ankle sprain to the ED.

STUDY DESIGN

Children between 7 and 18 years old presenting with ankle sprain composed the study population. Study patients were randomized into 2 study arms: 2.5% ketoprofen gel and placebo administered in a 5-cm area locally. Pain improvements at 15 and 30 minutes were measured by visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Median pain reductions at 15 minutes for ketoprofen and placebo groups were 27.5 (16-39) and 5 (4-10), respectively. Median changes in pain intensity at 30 minutes for ketoprofen and placebo gel groups were 48 (43-52) and 9 (6-16), respectively. When compared 2 arms for the pain improvement at 15 and 30 minutes, the differences between 2 study drugs were 20 (13-28) and 35 (29-41), respectively. There were 7 (12.7%) rescue drug needs in the placebo group and 1 (1.7%) in the ketoprofen group (difference, 10.9%; 95% confidence interval, -6% to 7%; P = 0.83). There were no adverse effects in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketoprofen gel is superior to placebo in ceasing pain in children presenting with ankle sprain to the ED with a high safety profile.

Topical Ketoprofen Versus Placebo in Treatment of Acute Ankle Sprain in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Topical agents have been shown to be effective in soft tissue injuries and commonly used in outpatient clinics. However, the data regarding topical agents in the emergency department is insufficient, and they are not used often in the emergency department setting. The present study aimed to compare the effect of 2.5% topical ketoprofen (gel form) to placebo in patients presenting with ankle sprain to the emergency department.

METHODS

Patients presenting with ankle sprain composed the study population. Study patients were randomized into 2 study arms: 2.5% ketoprofen gel and placebo administered over a 5-cm area locally. Pain alleviation was measured by visual analog scale at 15 and 30 minutes. A total of 100 patients were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

The median pain reduction in ketoprofen and placebo groups at 15 minutes was 27 (19.8-33.4) and 9 (7.6-17), respectively. The median pain reduction at 30 minutes for both groups was 42 (36-50.8) and 20 (17.6-24.4), respectively. Pain improvement either at 15 minutes (median difference: 16 [9-22]) or 30 minutes (median difference: 21 [15-27]) was better in the ketoprofen group than placebo. There were no adverse effects in either group.

CONCLUSION

Ketoprofen gel was superior to placebo at 30 minutes in alleviating pain secondary to ankle sprain in the ED with a high safety profile. Further studies are needed concerning the effect of ketoprofen gel for long-term effects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, high quality prospective randomized study.

Pharmacologic Therapies in Musculoskeletal Conditions

Musculoskeletal conditions are common, and there are many options for pharmacologic therapy. Unfortunately, there is not strong evidence for the use of many of these medications. Acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are generally first-line medications for most musculoskeletal pain, but there is more evidence these medications are not as safe as once thought. Other analgesic and antispasmodic medications can be effective for acute pain but generally are not as effective for chronic pain. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants can be more effective for chronic or neuropathic pain. Topical formulations of NSAIDs can be effective for pain with fewer side effects.

Topical Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: The Importance of Drug, Delivery, and Therapeutic Outcome

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain associated with a variety of indications, including arthritic conditions, but their usefulness is often limited by dose-dependent adverse events (AEs), such as gastrointestinal disturbances, cardiovascular events, and renal toxicity. The risk of such effects could be reduced by the use of topical formulations, which offer the potential to deliver analgesic concentrations locally, at the site of inflammation, while minimizing systemic concentrations. The topical preparations currently approved in the United States are diclofenac sodium 1.5% topical solution (containing dimethyl sulfoxide as a penetration enhancer), diclofenac sodium gel 1%, and a diclofenac hydroxyethylpyrrolidine 1.3% patch. Each of these topical NSAIDs provide drug delivery to subcutaneous tissues for the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis or soft-tissue injuries. Furthermore, these formulations are not significantly associated with the systemic AEs associated with oral NSAIDs; the most common AEs associated with topical formulations are local skin reactions, which are usually mild and self-limiting. Other topical NSAID preparations approved in the European Union include ibuprofen creams and gels, ketoprofen gel, felbinac gel and cutaneous foam, and piroxicam gel. Meta-analyses have confirmed the efficacy and safety of these preparations. However, it is important to recognize that pharmacokinetic absorption from topical formulations can vary markedly, even between different formulations of the same drug, depending on the agent, the underlying disorder, and the site of application. It is therefore essential to consider the patient, the drug, and the drug delivery mechanism when selecting a topical NSAID preparation.

Skin Matters: A Review of Topical Treatments for Chronic Pain. Part Two: Treatments and Applications

In Part One of this two-part series, we discussed skin physiology and anatomy as well as generalities concerning topical analgesics. This modality of therapy has lesser side effects and drug-drug interactions, and patients tolerate this form of therapy better than many oral options. Unfortunately, this modality is not used as often as it could be in chronic pain states, such as that from neuropathic pain. Part Two discusses specific therapies, local anesthetics, and other drugs, as well as how a clinician might use specific aspects of a patient's neuropathic pain presentation to help guide them in the selection of a topical agent.

Challenges of pain masking in the management of soft tissue disorders: optimizing patient outcomes with a multi-targeted approach

Current approaches to managing soft tissue injuries often rely upon the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The use of NSAIDs in this manner is contentious, and some believe that the risks of using NSAIDs can outweigh any potential benefit. In this article the issues of toxicity, pain masking and return to full activity are reviewed, and an alternative strategy for the management of inflammation in soft tissue injuries is proposed. We consider that a multi-targeted approach has the potential to improve healing, reduce additional injury from premature return to full activity as a consequence of pain masking, and improve prognosis for many patients with soft tissue injuries.

Effects of topical diclofenac plus heparin (DHEP+H plaster) on somatic pain sensitivity in healthy subjects with a latent algogenic condition of the lower limb

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a diclofenac epolamine + heparin topical (plaster) is more effective than diclofenac plaster alone in reducing deep somatic hyperalgesia in subjects without spontaneous pain and whether the effect is linked to or independent of the anti-edematous action of heparin.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, randomized and controlled, four-arm parallel design trial.

SUBJECTS

One hundred and four patients (84 women, 20 men, mean age 42.2 ± 13.3 years), with deep somatic hyperalgesia in one thigh, randomly assigned to one of 4 groups of 26 each.

INTERVENTION

Each group underwent one of the following plaster treatments on one thigh: diclofenac+heparin; diclofenac; heparin; placebo, for 7 days, renewing the plaster every 24 hours.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Before treatment (day 1), at day 4 and day 8, assessment of (a) pressure and electrical pain thresholds of vastus lateralis and overlying subcutis and skin; and (b) structure/thickness of subcutis and muscle with ultrasounds at the same level.

RESULTS

During treatment, in placebo and heparin, no significant threshold changes, except subcutis thresholds which increased slightly (P < 0.02); in diclofenac and diclofenac+heparin, significant increase in all thresholds (0.0001 < P < 0.04). Electrical muscle pain thresholds increased significantly more in diclofenac+heparin than in diclofenac, heparin, and placebo (0.0001 < P < 0.04). In all groups: no edema and thickness changes at ultrasounds in muscle and subcutis.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical diclofenac+heparin is significantly more effective than diclofenac alone in reducing muscle hyperalgesia in subjects without spontaneous pain, independently of the anti-edematous action of heparin. The results provide a rationale for the use of diclofenac+heparin also in algogenic conditions without evident signs of injury/edema/hematoma.

A phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of nimesulide 1% spray in patients with soft-tissue injuries

Aim:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nimesulide 1% w/w spray in minor soft-tissue injuries in adult Indians through a multicentric, open-labeled, phase III trial.

Materials and Methods:

125 eligible patients, who met the selection criteria and gave written informed consent, were screened, enrolled, and treated with nimesulide 1% spray for seven days. Patients were assessed at baseline, day 1, day 4, and day 8 for efficacy and safety. Primary efficacy variable pain intensity, was measured using a NRS 1-100 mm (numerical rating scale). Secondary efficacy variables were degree of inflammation and edema and degree of functional impairment; overall assessment of efficacy was done by patient (patient global assessment – PGA) and by investigator (investigator global assessment – IGA) on days 4 and 8.

Result:

There was a statistically significant reduction in the NRS score, degree of pain, edema (inflammation), and improvement in functional impairment on days 4 and 8 and in serum creatine kinase levels on day 8 in comparison with baseline. Global assessment of efficacy on day 8 was rated as “very good (21%),” “good (67.70%),” and “fair (11.30%)” by investigators and “very good (25%),” “good (58.90%),” and “fair (16.1%)” by patients. Two mild adverse events were reported in two patients, which resolved without any intervention. One (local irritation) was reported as not related, while the other (itching sensation) was probably related to the study drug.

Conclusion:

Nimesulide 1% spray was effective with a good safety profile and can be considered is a good alternative to oral analgesic therapy in minor soft-tissue injuries.

[Use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents in an urban health center. Comparison with the current evidence]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prescribing of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in an urban health center (Zaragoza, Spain).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on subjects who belonged to an urban center and were studied during the year 2010. The sample size with a confidence level of 95%, was calculated, a total of 843 prescriptions were analyzed. The sample was single random, and 150 cases were selected. The prevalence and confidence intervals were calculated. The statistical package STATA 9.1 was used for the calculations.

RESULTS

The most used drug was diclofenac, in 27.33% (95% CI: 20.65-34.88). NSAIDs were most used in females. In 18% of the cases the area of application was the knee, followed by the 15% in the lower back area (95% CI: 10,22-21,78). There were no adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent use is made of topical NSAIDs in a basic health area. Current recommendations support the use in the knee and in the hand, but not in the back, where its use is common. The use of topical NSAIDs decreases side effects and drug interactions, therefore their use is recommended in patients on multiple drug therapy and in the elderly.

A microdialysis study of topically applied diclofenac to healthy humans: Passive versus iontophoretic delivery

Topical application of NSAIDs is an alternative route to systemic administration when a local anti-inflammatory effect of the underlying tissue is a treatment option. The aim of the present microdialysis study was to assess and compare plasma and tissue levels of diclofenac when topically applied with or without iontophoresis in healthy adults. Fourteen healthy adults (26±9.4 years) were randomized to diclofenac applied by iontophoresis, or by a gel, in a crossover design. Diclofenac concentrations were measured in plasma and in microdialysis perfusates from the underlying tissues. Iontophoretic application resulted in the highest plasma concentration of 3.4±0.5 ng/ml (SEM given) compared to 0.4 ng/ml (at the detection limit) with gel, whereas no differences were observed between tissue concentrations for the two application methods, both being very low, below or around the detection limit. Iontophoresis caused skin reactions in 25% of the participants. Iontophoresis of diclofenac as compared to traditional topical application was not superior in order to increase the NSAID concentration locally and appears to have a higher frequency of skin reactions.

The NSAID dilemma: managing osteoarthritis in high-risk patients

For decades, evidence-based data and reported experience have warned that the common chronic oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy for osteoarthritis (OA) in elderly patients is ultimately dangerous. Elderly patients with OA are at heightened risk for developing serious gastrointestional and cardiovascular adverse events, including gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prescribing NSAIDs, especially in an elderly population, continues to be discouraged because of these significant risks. A dilemma exists for individuals who need the established efficacy associated with oral NSAIDs but who are at increased risk for serious adverse events associated with these agents. The goal of this clinical review was to evaluate the risks versus benefits of current options in the treatment of OA. This review found that topical NSAIDs seem to be the safest choice among all options to mitigate gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks and should be considered prior to the initiation of oral nonselective or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAIDs for individuals presenting with a localized expression of OA. Further research is needed to evaluate and compare these therapies in treating both pain and inflammation effectively while mitigating safety risks in high-risk populations.

Cancer rehabilitation

Cancer rehabilitation is the subspecialty of rehabilitation medicine concerned with restoring and maintaining the highest possible level of function, independence, and quality of life to patients at all stages of their cancer diagnosis, including those undergoing potentially curative therapy and those receiving palliative care, as well as cancer survivors. Cancer rehabilitation physicians specialize in the evaluation and treatment of neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, and functional complications of cancer and cancer treatments such as acute and chronic pain, weakness, muscle spasm, myelopathy, radiculopathy, plexopathy, neuropathy, myopathy, deconditioning, contracture, spasticity, lymphedema, amputation, shoulder dysfunction, and gait disorders, among others. Late effects of radiation represents a particular challenge for cancer rehabilitation physicians as radiation fibrosis may affect multiple structures, including the spinal cord, nerve roots, plexus, local nerves, and muscles, as well as their supporting structures. A comprehensive clinical evaluation involving an in-depth working knowledge of neuromuscular and musculoskeletal anatomy and incorporating specialized physical examination maneuvers allows the physiatrist to clarify the specific etiology of pain and functional disorders. A safe and effective rehabilitation program will depend heavily on an accurate diagnosis of the cause of pain or dysfunction.