Salicylate-containing rubefacients for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

Short-term cutaneous vasodilatory and thermosensory effects of topical methyl salicylate

Introduction

Methyl salicylate, the main compound of wintergreen oil, is widely used in topical applications. However, its vascular and thermosensory effects are not fully understood. The primary aim was to investigate the effects of topical methyl salicylate on skin temperature (Tskin), skin microcirculation (MCskin) and muscle oxygen saturation (SmO2) compared to a placebo gel. The secondary aim was to assess thermosensory responses (thermal sensation, thermal comfort) and to explore to which extent these sensations correspond to the physiological responses over time.

Methods

21 healthy women (22.2 ± 2.9 years) participated in this single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Custom-made natural wintergreen oil (12.9%), containing methyl salicylate (>99%) and a placebo gel, 1 g each, were applied simultaneously to two paravertebral skin areas (5 cm × 10 cm, Th4-Th7). Tskin (infrared thermal imaging), MCskin (laser speckle contrast imaging) and SmO2 (deep tissue oxygenation monitoring) and thermosensation (Likert scales) were assessed at baseline (BL) and at 5-min intervals during a 45 min post-application period (T0-T45).

Results

Both gels caused an initial decrease in Tskin, with Tskin(min) at T5 for both methyl salicylate (BL-T5: Δ-3.36°C) and placebo (BL-T5: Δ-3.90°C), followed by a gradual increase (p < .001). Methyl salicylate gel resulted in significantly higher Tskin than placebo between T5 and T40 (p < .05). For methyl salicylate, MCskin increased, with MCskin(max) at T5 (BL-T5: Δ88.7%). For placebo, MCskin decreased (BL-T5: Δ-17.5%), with significantly lower values compared to methyl salicylate between T0 and T45 (p < .05). Both gels had minimal effects on SmO2, with no significant differences between methyl salicylate and placebo (p > .05). Thermal sensation responses to topical methyl salicylate ranged from "cool" to "hot", with more intense sensations reported at T5.

Discussion

The findings indicate that topical methyl salicylate induces short-term cutaneous vasodilation, but it may not enhance skeletal muscle blood flow. This study highlights the complex sensory responses to its application, which may be based on the short-term modulation of thermosensitive transient receptor potential channels.

Efficacy of topical versus oral analgesic medication compared to a placebo in injured athletes: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Athletes are injured frequently and often take analgesic medication. Moreover, athletes commonly use non-prescription topical and oral medications with little guidance. Despite wide use, relatively few studies exist on the efficacy of pain medication in injured athletes compared to a placebo.

OBJECTIVE

To determine efficacy of topical or oral medications in pain reduction compared to a placebo in injured athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search using Medline/Pubmed, Web of Science, Ovid, and SportDiscus for all literature relating to topical or oral medications in athletes for pain management post-injury. Two reviewers screened the studies and measured their quality. To determine efficacy, we calculated the Hedges' g value. We created forest plots with 95% CI to graphically summarize the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

There was a significant pooled effect size reflecting a reduction in pain outcomes for the topical treatment versus placebo (g = -0.64; 95% CI [-0.89, -0.39]; p < 0.001). There was not a significant reduction in pain outcomes for the oral treatment versus placebo (g = -0.26; 95% CI [-0.60, 0.17]; p = 0.272).

CONCLUSION

Topical medications were significantly better at reducing pain compared to oral medications versus a placebo in injured athletes. These results are different when compared to other studies that used experimentally induced pain versus musculoskeletal injuries. The results from our study suggest that athletes should use topical medications for pain reduction, as it is more effective, and there are less reported adverse effects compared to oral medication.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Safety and efficacy of compound methyl salicylate liniment for topical pain: A multicenter real-world study in China

Compound methyl salicylate liniment (Ammeltz) is composed of various components, such as methyl salicylate, menthol, camphor, chlorpheniramine maleate, and thymol. It was approved for listing in China in 2011. The purpose of this phase Ⅳ clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ammeltz in a real-life environment in China. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were used to assess the safety of the monitored drugs. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were evaluated to assess the severity of pain and the pain relief rate was used to evaluate the efficacy of the study drug. Of 3,600 subjects enrolled, 3,515 (97.64%) subjects completed the study and 85 (2.36%) terminated the study prematurely. A total of 277 adverse events occurred in 258 subjects (7.28%). The most common adverse events included upper respiratory infections (130 cases, 3.67%), local pruritus (17 cases, 0.48%), and diarrhea (12 cases, 0.34%). A total of 50 (1.41%) subjects experienced 58 adverse drug reactions. The most common adverse drug reactions included local pruritus (17 cases, 0.48%), a burning sensation at the application site (10 cases, 0.28%), and irritation at the application site (local) (7 cases, 0.2%). No adverse reactions were identified as new adverse drug reactions. The majority of adverse drug reactions were mild (48 cases, 1.36%), and no severe adverse drug reactions occurred. The subjects experienced significant pain relief after using Ammeltz (mean VAS scores: 5.34 vs. 2.79; Day 7 ± 1 vs. Baseline; p < 0.0001). The pain relief rate was 47.11% ± 23.13%, and in 2,769 cases (78.31%) the drug was effective in pain relief. After excluding subjects who used drugs that could affect the efficacy of the study drug, the subgroups of subjects experienced significant pain relief after using Ammeltz (mean VAS scores: 5.31 vs 2.77; Day 7 ± 1 vs Baseline; p < 0.0001). The pain relief rate was 47.34% ± 23.00%, and 2,612 subjects (78.75%) experienced effective pain relief. In conclusion, Ammeltz is safe and effective in real-life use. It can significantly relieve soft tissue pain caused by shoulder and neck pain, back pain, or muscle pain. No new adverse drug reactions were found in our multicenter real-world study. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05489939?cond=Safety+and+efficacy+of+compound+methyl+salicylate+liniment+for+topical+pain%3A+A+multicenter+real-world+study+in+China&draw=2&rank=1, identifier NCT05489939.

The burden of musculoskeletal pain and the role of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in its treatment. Ten underpinning statements from a global pain faculty

This document presents the conclusions of a detailed discussion on the role of topical NSAIDs during a round table Global Pain Faculty meeting held in Amsterdam in 2019 and subsequent discussions online. The aim of this evidence-based document is to describe the impact of musculoskeletal pain both in terms of the large numbers of sufferers and its economic impact. The document considers the place of topical therapies alongside other pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and presents the evidence for the benefits and harms of topical NSAIDS including indicators of efficacy for three main topical NSAIDs- diclofenac, ibuprofen and ketoprofen - based on almost 15,000 participants in randomized controlled trials for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain. These topical NSAIDs have the largest body of evidence. For acute pain, numbers needed to treat to achieve at least 50% reduction in pain are as follows with 95% confidence intervals in brackets: Diclofenac emulgel 1.8(1.5-2.1) (5170 participants), Ibuprofen gel 2.7 (1.7-4.2) (436 participants), Ketoprofen gel 2.2 (1.7-2.8) (683 participants). For chronic pain, the NNTs are Diclofenac any formulation 9.5(7-14) (5995 participants). Ketoprofen 6.9(5.5-9.3) (2573 participants). Randomized controlled trial evidence suggests that adverse events for active topical NSAIDs are similar to placebo. Finally the gaps in knowledge are considered with suggestions on how further research might help. The global pain faculty was brought together by GSK under an unrestricted educational grant.

Foot osteoarthritis: latest evidence and developments

Foot osteoarthritis (OA) is a common problem in older adults yet is under-researched compared to knee or hand OA. Most existing studies focus on the first metatarsophalangeal joint, with evidence relating to midfoot OA being particularly sparse. Symptomatic radiographic foot OA affects 17% of adults aged 50 years and over. The first metatarsophalangeal joint is most commonly affected, followed by the second cuneometatarsal and talonavicular joints. Epidemiological studies suggest the existence of distinct first metatarsophalangeal joint and polyarticular phenotypes, which have differing clinical and risk factor profiles. There are few randomized controlled trials in foot OA. Existing trials provide some evidence of the effectiveness for pain relief of physical therapy, rocker-sole shoes, foot orthoses and surgical interventions in first metatarsophalangeal joint OA and prefabricated orthoses in midfoot OA. Prospective epidemiological studies and randomized trials are needed to establish the incidence, progression and prognosis of foot OA and determine the effectiveness of both commonly used and more novel interventions.

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.

CONCLUSION

This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.

Relative efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and topical capsaicin in osteoarthritis: protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain is the most troubling issue to patients with osteoarthritis (OA), yet current pharmacological treatments offer only small-to-moderate pain reduction. Current guidelines therefore emphasise the need to identify predictors of treatment response. In line with these recommendations, an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis will be conducted. The study aims to investigate the relative treatment effects of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and topical capsaicin in OA and to identify patient-level predictors of treatment response.

METHODS

IPD will be collected from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical NSAIDs and capsaicin in OA. Multilevel regression modelling will be conducted to determine predictors for the specific and the overall treatment effect.

DISCUSSION

Through the identification of treatment responders, this IPD meta-analysis may improve the current understanding of the pain mechanisms in OA and guide clinical decision-making. Identifying and prescribing the treatment most likely to be beneficial for an individual with OA will improve the efficiency of patient management.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42016035254.

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat chronic musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. This review is an update of 'Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults', originally published in Issue 9, 2012.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, active or inert carrier (placebo) controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain of moderate or severe intensity. Studies had to meet stringent quality criteria and there had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to carrier or other active treatment. We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs. The primary outcome was 'clinical success', defined as at least a 50% reduction in pain, or an equivalent measure such as a 'very good' or 'excellent' global assessment of treatment, or 'none' or 'slight' pain on rest or movement, measured on a categorical scale.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Osteoarthritis year in review 2015: clinical

The purpose of this review is to highlight clinical research in osteoarthritis (OA). A literature search was conducted using PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) with the search terms "osteoarthritis [All Fields] AND treatment [All Fields]" and the following limits activated: humans, English language, all adult 19+ years, published between April 1, 2014 and April 1, 2015. A second literature search was then conducted with the search terms "osteoarthritis [All Fields] AND epidemiology [All Fields]", with the same limits. Reports of surgical outcome, case series, surgical technique, tissue sample or culture studies, trial protocols, and pilot studies were excluded. Of 1523, 150 were considered relevant. Among epidemiologic and observational clinical studies, themes included physical activity, early knee OA, and confidence/instability/falls. Symptom outcomes of pharmacologic treatments were reported for methotrexate, adalimumab, anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibodies, strontium ranelate, bisphosphonates, glucosamine, and chondroitin sulfate, and structural outcomes of pharmacologic treatments for strontium ranelate, recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18, and glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate. Symptom outcomes of non-pharmacologic interventions were reported for: neuromuscular exercise, quadriceps strengthening, weight reduction and maintenance, TENS, therapeutic ultrasound, stepped care strategies, cognitive behavior therapy for sleep disturbance, acupuncture, gait modification, booster physical therapy, a web-based therapeutic exercise resource center for knee OA; hip physical therapy for hip OA; and joint protection and hand exercises for hand OA. Structure outcomes of non-pharmacologic interventions were reported for patellofemoral bracing.

Repeated tender point injections of granisetron alleviate chronic myofascial pain--a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial

Background

Serotonin (5-HT) mediates pain by peripheral 5-HT₃-receptors. Results from a few studies indicate that intramuscular injections of 5-HT₃-antagonists may reduce musculoskeletal pain. The aim of this study was to investigate if repeated intramuscular tender-point injections of the 5-HT₃-antagonist granisetron alleviate pain in patients with myofascial temporomandibular disorders (M-TMD).

Methods

This prospective, randomized, controlled, double blind, parallel-arm trial (RCT) was carried out during at two centers in Stockholm, Sweden. The randomization was performed by a researcher who did not participate in data collection with an internet-based application (www.randomization.com). 40 patients with a diagnose of M-TMD according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) were randomized to receive repeated injections, one week apart, with either granisetron (GRA; 3 mg) or isotonic saline as control (CTR).

Results

The median weekly pain intensities decreased significantly at all follow-ups (1-, 2-, 6-months) in the GRA-group (Friedman test; P < 0.05), but not in the CTR-group (Friedman-test; P > 0.075). The numbers needed to treat (NNT) were 4 at the 1- and 6-month follow-ups, and 3.3 at the 2-month follow-up in favor of granisetron.

Conclusions

Repeated intramuscular tender-point injections with granisetron provide a new pharmacological treatment possibility for myofascial pain patients with repeated intramuscular tender-point injections with the serotonin type 3 antagonist granisetron. It showed a clinically relevant pain reducing effect in the temporomandibular region, both in a short- and long-term aspect.

Trial registration

European Clinical Trials Database 2005-006042-41 as well as at Clinical Trials NCT02230371.

Topical NSAIDs for acute musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. This review is an update of 'Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults' originally published in Issue 6, 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs in acute musculoskeletal pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to February 2015. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers websites. For the earlier review, we also searched our own in-house database and contacted manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, active or placebo (inert carrier)-controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with acute pain resulting from strains, sprains or sports or overuse-type injuries (twisted ankle, for instance). There had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate the risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or additional harmful outcome (NNH) compared with placebo or other active treatment. We reported 95% confidence intervals (CI). We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we added 14 new included studies (3489 participants), and excluded four studies. We also identified 20 additional reports of completed or ongoing studies that have not been published in full. The earlier review included 47 studies.This update included 61 studies. Most compared topical NSAIDs in the form of a gel, spray, or cream with a similar topical placebo; 5311 participants were treated with a topical NSAID, 3470 with placebo, and 220 with an oral NSAID. This was a 63% increase in the number of included participants over the previous version of this review. We also identified a number of studies in clinical trial registries with unavailable results amounting to about 5900 participants for efficacy and 5300 for adverse events.Formulations of topical diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, piroxicam, and indomethacin demonstrated significantly higher rates of clinical success (more participants with at least 50% pain relief) than matching topical placebo (moderate or high quality data). Benzydamine did not. Three drug and formulation combinations had NNTs for clinical success below 4. For diclofenac, the Emulgel® formulation had the lowest NNT of 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1) in two studies using at least 50% pain intensity reduction as the outcome. Diclofenac plasters other than Flector® also had a low NNT of 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2) based on good or excellent responses in some studies. Ketoprofen gel had an NNT of 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4), from five studies in the 1980s, some with less well defined outcomes. Ibuprofen gel had an NNT of 3.9 (2.7 to 6.7) from two studies with outcomes of marked improvement or complete remission. All other drug and formulation combinations had NNT values above 4, indicating lesser efficacy.There were insufficient data to compare reliably individual topical NSAIDs with each other or the same oral NSAID.Local skin reactions were generally mild and transient, and did not differ from placebo (high quality data). There were very few systemic adverse events (high quality data) or withdrawals due to adverse events (low quality data).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical NSAIDs provided good levels of pain relief in acute conditions such as sprains, strains and overuse injuries, probably similar to that provided by oral NSAIDs. Gel formulations of diclofenac (as Emugel®), ibuprofen, and ketoprofen, and some diclofenac patches, provided the best effects. Adverse events were usually minimal.Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have provided additional information. In particular, information on topical diclofenac is greatly expanded. The present review supports the previous review in concluding that topical NSAIDs are effective in providing pain relief, and goes further to demonstrate that certain formulations, mainly gel formulations of diclofenac, ibuprofen, and ketoprofen, provide the best results. Large amounts of unpublished data have been identified, and this could influence results in updates of this review.