Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and admission to hospital for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation: a record linkage case-control study

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Topical NSAIDs in the Treatment of Sports Injuries

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat sports injuries, but evidence-based medical guidance for their standardized and rational use is lacking. This guideline working group identified clinically important issues, obtained the full opinions of patients and clinical staff, and discussed them with the expert group. Based on evidence from the literature, the "clinical practice guidelines for topical NSAIDs in the treatment of sports injuries" were formulated following the methods and principles of international guidelines. According to these guidelines, 7 clinical concerns were ultimately selected, and 22 recommendations were formed. These included the status, indications, contraindications, efficacy, combined application, use in special populations, adverse reactions, and countermeasures of topical NSAIDs in the treatment of sports injuries. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations for practitioners in the fields of orthopedics, sports medicine, rehabilitation medicine, and sports science, as well as other fields, in the treatment of sports injuries to promote more standardized and rational use of topical NSAIDs.

Formulation and investigation of hydrogels containing an increased level of diclofenac sodium using risk assessment tools

Transdermal delivery of active ingredients is a challenge for pharmaceutical technology due to their inadequate penetration properties and the barrier function of the skin. The necessity of painless, effective, topical therapy for the aging population is growing, and a variety of diclofenac sodium-containing semi-solid preparations are available to alleviate the symptoms of these ailments. Our purpose was to formulate a novel composition with higher drug content to enhance drug release and permeation, thereby providing more effective therapy. Another goal was to maintain the concentration of the organic solvent mixture below 30%, to protect the skin barrier. Firstly, literature and market research were conducted, based on which the appropriate excipients for the target formulation were selected. Solubility tests were conducted with binary and ternary mixtures. As a result, the optimal ternary mixture was chosen. Hydrogels containing 1, 5, and 7% of diclofenac sodium were prepared and the stability of the formulations were studied by microscopic measurements and cytotoxicity test were carried out of the components also. The release and permeation of diclofenac sodium were investigated in different concentrations. It can be concluded that we have succeeded in preparing a topically applicable stable diclofenac sodium hydrogel with higher concentration, drug release, and improved skin permeation than the formulations available on the market.

Efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen cataplasms versus loxoprofen sodium cataplasms in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial evidence is limited to identify better topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen cataplasms (FPC) with loxoprofen sodium cataplasms (LSC) in treating patients with knee OA.

METHODS

This is an open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial conducted at Peking University Shougang Hospital. Overall, 250 patients with knee OA admitted from October 2021 to April 2022 were randomly assigned to FPC and LSC treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio. Both medications were administered to patients for 28 days. The primary outcome was the change of pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline to day 28 (range, 0-10 points; higher score indicates worse pain; non-inferiority margin: 1 point; superiority margin: 0 point). There were four secondary outcomes, including the extent of pain relief, the change trends of VAS scores, joint function scores measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 250 randomized patients (One patient without complete baseline record in the flurbiprofen cataplasms was excluded; age, 62.8 ± 10.5 years; 61.4% [153/249] women), 234 (93.6%) finally completed the trial. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the decline of the VAS score for the 24-h most intense pain in the FPC group was non-inferior, and also superior to that in the LSC group (differences and 95% confidence interval, 0.414 (0.147-0.681); P <0.001 for non-inferiority; P = 0.001 for superiority). Similar results were observed of the VAS scores for the current pain and pain during exercise. WOMAC scores were also lower in the FPC group at week 4 (12.50 [8.00-22.50] vs . 16.00 [11.00-27.00], P = 0.010), mainly driven by the dimension of daily activity difficulty. In addition, the FPC group experienced a significantly lower incidence of adverse events (5.6% [7/124] vs . 33.6% [42/125], P <0.001), including irritation, rash and pain of the skin, and sticky hair uncovering pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested that FPC is superior to LSC for treating patients with knee OA in pain relief, joint function improvement, and safety profile.

Case Report: Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn and Narrowing of the Ductus Arteriosus After Topical Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory During Pregnancy

Background: The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) during the third trimester of pregnancy can cause premature constriction of the ductus arteriosus. This report describes a case of in utero narrowing of the ductus arteriosus (DA) diagnosed postnatally in a baby with Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn (PPHN), after maternal use of Diclofenac-Epolamine 140 mg patch during the second and third trimester.

Case Presentation: A fetal ultrasounds revealed an enlarged hypertrophic right ventricle at 32 weeks of gestation. Detailed questioning of the mother highlighted that topical Diclofenac (FLECTOR^®) had been used at 26 and at 31 weeks of gestation. An echocardiography performed 8 h postnatally showed supra-systemic pulmonary hypertension, a restrictive ductus arteriosus and a dilated right ventricle. The newborn was treated by inhaled nitric oxide and oral Sildenafil and was discharged from hospital on day 24. He had a complete normalization of his pulmonary vascular resistance on day 48.

Conclusion: This case illustrates the potential fetal and neonatal complications associated with maternal topical Diclofenac medication during pregnancy resulting in antenatal closure of the DA.

From Chemical Burn to Below Knee Amputation: Amputation Secondary to Application of Over-the-Counter Topical Analgesic With Menthol and Methyl Salicylate

Topical analgesics and topical rubefacients are widely used to control acute as well as chronic pain every day. Due to their availability without a prescription, consumers often overlook any potentially harmful effects and consider them largely benign. Here, we present a rare case of chemical burn triggered by a typical over-the-counter (OTC) analgesic containing menthol and methyl salicylate resulting in chemical burn, complicated by necrotizing infection treated by below the knee amputation.

Comparison of Skin Permeation and Putative Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Commercially Available Topical Products Containing Ibuprofen and Diclofenac

Purpose

The therapeutic effect of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) depends on the drug’s ability to penetrate and permeate the skin and subsequently inhibit cyclo-oxygenase (COX) isoforms responsible for pain and inflammation. Most commercially available topical NSAID formulations are clinically effective, but direct comparisons of anti-inflammatory activity including both skin absorption and inhibitory potency are lacking. This study examined the skin absorption of representative commercially available topical diclofenac- and ibuprofen-based formulations along with published potency values to determine formulations with superior anti-inflammatory activity.

Materials and Methods

Cumulative absorption and flux profiles of 12 commercially available topical NSAIDs (6 diclofenac-based and 6 ibuprofen-based) were evaluated in vitro using human skin in static Franz diffusion cells. Each formulation was applied as a single dose. In vitro permeation parameters and published COX-2 inhibition values were used to calculate a modified index of topical anti-inflammatory activity (mITAA).

Results

All diclofenac and ibuprofen formulations permeated human skin in vitro. The rate and degree of absorption differed between diclofenac and ibuprofen formulations and between formulations of the same drug. NSAID concentration within a product was not solely responsible for the permeation flux or degree of absorption. Ibuprofen formulations permeated the skin more rapidly and to a greater degree than diclofenac, but calculated mITAAs were higher for diclofenac.

Conclusion

Diclofenac exhibited superior anti-inflammatory activity as measured by the index. Differences beyond drug concentration, including excipients, drug salt form, and dosage form, contribute to differences in absorption and thus in anti-inflammatory activity. Both absorption and COX-2 inhibition potency are important for anti-inflammatory activity, but their priority depends upon the products being compared—with the same NSAID, absorption determines superiority; with different NSAIDs, superiority is determined by the balance between absorption and COX-2 potency. These findings should be considered when selecting a topical NSAID for treating patient pain and inflammation.

Initial analgesic prescriptions for osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom, 2000–2016

Objectives

To examine trends in the initial prescription of commonly-prescribed analgesics and patient- as well as practice-level factors related to their selection in incident OA.

Methods

Patients consulting with incident clinical OA between 2000–2016 were identified within The Health Improvement Network in the United Kingdom (UK) general practice. Excluded were patients who had history of cancer or were prescribed the analgesics of interest within 6 months before diagnosis of OA. Initial analgesic prescription included oral non-selective NSAID, oral selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, topical NSAID, paracetamol, topical salicylate or oral/transdermal opioid within 1 month after OA diagnosis.

Results

∼44% of patients with incident OA (n = 125 696) were prescribed one of these analgesics. Incidence of oral NSAID prescriptions decreased whereas other analgesic prescriptions, including oral opioid prescriptions, increased (all P-for-trend &lt; 0.001). Patients with a history of gastrointestinal disease were more likely to receive topical NSAIDs, paracetamol or oral/transdermal opioids. Only 38% of patients with history of gastrointestinal disease and 21% of patients without it had co-prescription of gastroprotective agent with oral NSAIDs. Oral/transdermal opioid prescription was higher among the elderly (≥65 years), women, obesity, current smoker, and patients with gastrointestinal, cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. Prescription of oral opioids increased with social deprivation (P-for-trend &lt; 0.05) and was highest in Scotland, whereas transdermal opioid prescription was highest in Northern Ireland (all P-for-homogeneity-test &lt; 0.05).

Conclusion

The initial prescription pattern of analgesics for OA has changed over time in the UK. Co-prescription of gastroprotective agents with oral NSAIDs remains suboptimal, even among those with prior gastrointestinal disease.

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

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

An open-label, prospective, multicenter, clinical study to evaluate efficacy of Ayuartis capsules in patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee(s)

Background

The management of chronic degenerative joint disorders such as osteoarthritis (OA) with ayurvedic medicines provides a safe and effective alternative. Ayurvedic medicines possess analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and immunomodulator activities.

Aims

The main aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of Ayuartis capsule in patients suffering from OA of the knee(s).

Materials and Methods

Thirty-one patients suffering from OA knee(s) were recruited after evaluating them as per inclusion/exclusion criteria. Patients were advised to take two Ayuartis capsules twice daily orally for 90 days. Knee joint(s) pain was assessed on the Visual Analog Scale. Patients' joint pain, stiffness, and physical functions were assessed on the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index. Quality of life (QOL) and the time required to walk 50 feet was evaluated. Patients were called for follow-up visits on every 15^th day till 90 days. Adverse events and vitals were recorded at every visit. Safety laboratory investigations were done before and after the completion of trial.

Statistical Analysis

Data describing quantitative measures are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The comparison of variables representing categorical data was performed using pair t-test.

Results

The mean joint pain reduced significantly by 53.82% on day 90. The mean WOMAC combined score, pain score, stiffness score and difficulty score reduced significantly by 50.88%, 54.96%, 58.76% and 49.02%, respectively on day 90. A significant improvement was observed in mean QOL of patients. A significant reduction in mean time required to walk 50 feet was observed. Majority of the patients had shown good overall improvement and excellent tolerability to the trial drug.

Conclusion

Ayuartis capsule is a safe and effective medicine for the treatment of OA of the knee(s).

Analgesic efficacy and safety of non-prescription doses of naproxen sodium in the management of moderate osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

OBJECTIVES

Current osteoarthritis therapies aim to alleviate pain and maintain joint function. Non-prescription oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are frequently used alone for pain relief in osteoarthritis. This post-hoc pooled analysis evaluated the analgesic efficacy and safety of two non-prescription doses of naproxen sodium for short-term use in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. A separate sub-group analysis of older patients who were administered a lower dose of naproxen sodium was performed.

METHODS

In four multi-center, multi-dose, randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, oral naproxen sodium (age-based dosing regimen: <65 years, 660 mg/day; ≥65 years, 440 mg/day) or placebo was administered over 7 days. Data at baseline and after 7 days in 818 patients who received naproxen sodium or placebo (n = 409 in each group) was pooled and analyzed. Five-point rating scales were used to assess knee or hip joint pain, stiffness after rest, day and night pain, and patient and investigator assessment of treatment, while function was evaluated using a timed 50-foot walk test.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, there were significant improvements in pain and physical function with naproxen sodium (p < .05), and treatment was rated "good" to "excellent" significantly more often (p < .001) by investigators and patients. Efficacy results were similar among younger and older patients. There were no significant differences in adverse events between groups, regardless of age.

CONCLUSIONS

For the acute management of underlying pain in patients with moderate osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, non-prescription naproxen sodium is effective and well tolerated in patients of all ages.

Relative efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including salicylate, for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1966 to January 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical NSAIDs with placebo or each other in patients with OA and observational studies comparing topical NSAIDs with no treatment or each other irrespective of disease were included. Two investigators identified studies and independently extracted data. Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcomes were pain relief for RCTs and risk of adverse effects (AEs) for observational studies.

Results

43 studies, comprising 36 RCTs (7 900 patients with OA) and seven observational studies (218 074 participants), were included. Overall, topical NSAIDs were superior to placebo for relieving pain (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.30, 95% CI −0.40 to –0.20) and improving function (SMD=−0.35, 95% CI −0.45 to –0.24) in OA. Of all topical NSAIDs, diclofenac patches were most effective for OA pain (SMD=−0.81, 95% CI −1.12 to –0.52) and piroxicam was most effective for functional improvement (SMD=−1.04, 95% CI −1.60 to –0.48) compared with placebo. Although salicylate gel was associated with higher withdrawal rates due to AEs, the remaining topical NSAIDs were not associated with any increased local or systemic AEs.

Conclusions

Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe for OA. Diclofenac patches may be the most effective topical NSAID for pain relief. No serious gastrointestinal and renal AEs were observed in trials or the general population. However, confirmation of the cardiovascular safety of topical NSAIDs still warrants further observational study.

Patient-Physician Differences in Desired Characteristics of NSAID Plasters: An Online Survey

In Japan, adhesive skin plasters containing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently used to treat pain of musculoskeletal origin. There are many reports on their efficacy but few on patients' impressions of usability or levels of satisfaction. Objectives. To elucidate the differences in perception between patients and physicians concerning NSAID plasters. Subjects. We conducted two surveys about NSAID plasters on patients and physicians. 600 patients currently using plasters and 200 physicians currently prescribing NSAID plasters were studied. Methods. Questionnaire included items concerning usage, efficacy and side effects, site and intensity of their pain, pain management strategies, characteristics they desired from NSAID plasters, and their satisfaction with them. Results. The characteristic most frequently reported as desirable by patients was analgesic efficacy, followed by avoiding skin irritation and low medication cost. The characteristics most frequently reported as desirable by physicians were analgesic efficacy, alignment with patient preference, safety to skin, and comfort when applied. Our survey revealed that both patients and physicians prioritized analgesic efficacy of NSAID plasters. However, approximately half of the patients and physicians were unsatisfied with the analgesic efficacy of plasters. Conclusions. Physicians may improve patient satisfaction by discussing analgesic efficacy, skin complications, and price with patients before prescription.

Topical Administration of Ibuprofen for Injured Athletes: Considerations, Formulations, and Comparison to Oral Delivery

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a class of drugs commonly used to treat both the acute and chronic injuries sustained by athletes during training and competition. In many parts of the world, NSAIDs can be purchased over-the-counter and used without any physician oversight. However, the chronic nature of overuse injuries requires NSAIDs to be taken orally for an extended period of time. As a result, they can have significant adverse effects on athletes, namely gastrointestinal (GI), renal, and cardiovascular damage. Dyspepsia and upper GI ulceration and bleeding are of great concern in chronic NSAID use, and as such oral NSAIDs are generally contraindicated in those with a history of peptic ulcers or irritable bowel disease. In the setting of chronic overuse soft tissue or joint disease, topically administered NSAIDs offer an alternate route of administration that has the potential to deliver a similar level of pain and anti-inflammatory relief while bypassing the harmful side effects associated with oral intake. Topically applied NSAIDs are able to achieve high concentrations within the targeted site of action while simultaneously keeping plasma concentrations low, offering several advantages over oral administration. One commonly used generic NSAID is ibuprofen (2-(4-isobutylphenyl)propanoic acid). First synthesized in the 1960s, ibuprofen has since become widely available as an over-the-counter pharmaceutical. In this review, we outline new and different techniques that have been used to deliver ibuprofen into diseased tissues, including supersaturations, microemulsions, gels, nanosystems, and microneedles. We also review relevant clinical trials comparing transdermally delivered ibuprofen to placebo and orally administered ibuprofen.

Skin penetration and tissue permeation after topical administration of diclofenac

OBJECTIVE

Topical delivery of drugs is an alternative to oral administration, often with similar efficacy but potentially a more favorable tolerability profile. However, topical formulations need to be able to penetrate the skin and permeate to the target areas in quantities sufficient to exert a therapeutic effect. Many factors can affect this process, including the physicochemical properties of the drug, the formulation used, and the site and mode of application. It is believed that measurement of drug concentrations at the sites of action may be an indicator of their likely efficacy. This review addresses these issues, with reference to topically administered diclofenac in osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Articles relevant to this review were identified after a systematic search of Medline and Embase, using the key words "diclofenac", "topical administration" and "osteoarthritis" in the search strategy.

RESULTS

The sparse data available indicate that topical diclofenac can penetrate and permeate to deeper tissues, with a lower plasma to tissue ratio than oral diclofenac. The tissue diclofenac levels after topical delivery are sustained over time (at least several hours). However, there is not enough data to establish how diclofenac levels in the joint compare with IC₅₀ levels (50% of the maximum inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis) established following oral administration.

CONCLUSIONS

After topical application, diclofenac can penetrate the skin and permeate to deeper tissues, where it reaches a concentration that appears to be sufficient to exert a therapeutic effect. More robust methods are required for in vivo characterization to better estimate the clinical efficacy of topically applied drugs.

Pharmacokinetics of Transdermal Etofenamate and Diclofenac in Healthy Volunteers

Little is known about the course of the plasma concentration and the bioavailability of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) contained in dermal patches. We compared an etofenamate prototype patch (patent EP 1833471) and a commercially available diclofenac epolamine patch regarding the bioavailability of the active ingredients relative to respective i.m. applications and regarding their plasma concentration-time course. Twenty-four healthy human volunteers were treated using a parallel group design (n = 12 per group) with a single dermal patch (removed after 12 hr) followed (after a latency of 48 hr) by eight consecutive dermal patches every 12 hr to reach steady-state conditions. The patches were generally well tolerated, but one volunteer treated with etofenamate developed an allergic contact dermatitis. After the first patch, C_max was 0.81 ± 0.11 (mean ± S.E.M.) ng/mL (reached 12 hr after patch removal) for diclofenac and 31.3 ± 3.8 ng/mL for flufenamic acid (reached at patch removal), the main metabolite of etofenamate. Etofenamate was not detectable. After repetitive dosing, trough plasma concentrations after the eighth dose were 1.72 ± 0.32 ng/mL for diclofenac and 48.7 ± 6.6 ng/mL for flufenamic acid. Bioavailabilities (single dose) relative to i.m. applications were 0.22 ± 0.04% for diclofenac and 1.15 ± 0.06% for flufenamic acid. In conclusion, the relative bioavailability (compared to the respective i.m. application) of both drugs is low. The maximal plasma concentrations after topical administration of these drugs are well below the IC₅₀ values for COX-1 and COX-2, explaining the absence of dose-dependent toxicities.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 4 week study

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are standard therapy for osteoarthritis (OA). Topically applied NSAIDs reduce systemic exposure compared with oral NSAIDS, and European guidelines recommend their use. The NSAID diclofenac is available in a range of topical formulations. Diclofenac 1% gel and 1.5% four times daily and 2% twice daily (BID) solutions are approved to reduce pain from OA of the knee(s). The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution BID versus vehicle control solution for treating pain associated with OA of the knee.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A phase II, 4 week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, two-arm, vehicle-controlled study compared pain relief with diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution versus control (vehicle only) in patients aged 40 to 85 years with radiographically confirmed primary OA of the knee.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01119898.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline to the final visit in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcomes included additional WOMAC subscales and patient global assessment of OA. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), skin irritation, and vital signs were assessed and collected throughout the study.

RESULTS

Of 260 patients randomized, 259 received ≥1 dose of study drug. Significantly greater reductions in least-squares mean (standard error) WOMAC pain scores were observed for diclofenac-treated (-4.4 [0.4]) versus vehicle-treated patients (-3.4 [0.4]) at the final visit (p = 0.040). The most commonly reported TEAEs were administration site conditions. The vehicle-treated group experienced slightly more TEAEs than the active treatment group (38.8% vs. 31.5%). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution BID resulted in significantly greater improvement in pain reduction in patients with OA of the knee versus vehicle control and was generally well tolerated.

Topical diclofenac therapy for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac therapy for osteoarthritis (OA). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. A comprehensive literature search, covering the databases of Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE, was conducted in September 2014 to identify the randomized controlled trials which adopted the topical diclofenac therapy for OA. A total of nine papers were included in this meta-analysis. Topical diclofenac appears to be effective in both pain relief (standard mean differences (SMD) = 0.40; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.62; P = 0.0003) and function improvement (SMD = 0.23; 95 % CI 0.03 to 0.43; P = 0.03) when compared with the control group. The sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis showed that the result of pain intensity was stable and reliable, while the result of physical function improvement was vague. With respect to safety, topical diclofenac demonstrated a higher incidence of adverse events such as dry skin, rash, dermatitis, neck pain, and withdrawal. Topical diclofenac is effective in pain relief as a treatment of OA. It may also have a potential effect in function improvement, which needs further studies to be explored. Although, some adverse effects were observed in the application of topical diclofenac, none of them was serious.

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.

Alternative methods of pain management for the older adult population: Review of topical pain medications

The older adult population is one of the fastest growing age groups in the United States. As this population continues to expand, determining the safest way to provide pain management has become increasingly important. More than 50% of community-dwelling older adults experience pain on a daily basis, and up to 83% of those in assisted living facilities experience persistent pain. Pain is exceedingly challenging to treat safely and effectively in the elderly because of the physiologic changes that occur as people age. In addition, many nonnarcotic medications with analgesic properties are listed in both the 2012 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults and the Pharmacy Quality Alliance high-risk medications lists. An approach to the growing challenge of managing pain in the elderly that is gaining popularity among community-dwelling patients is the use of topical pain medications. The goal of this article is to review some of the available literature regarding the use of various topical analgesics alone or in combination, and to discuss their known or theoretical mechanisms of peripheral pain modulation. Commercially available or compounded topical pain medications may be used to replace or augment doses of oral medications in an effort to decrease the risk of adverse drug events for older adult patients. When prescribing topical pain medications physicians should consider the nature of the pain targeted, the type of analgesia expected from each ingredient, the potential for systemic absorption, and related side effects.

Thyroid storm precipitated by duodenal ulcer perforation

Thyroid storm is a rare and life-threatening complication of thyrotoxicosis that requires prompt treatment. Thyroid storm is also known to be associated with precipitating events. The simultaneous treatment of thyroid storm and its precipitant, when they are recognized, in a patient is recommended; otherwise such disorders, including thyroid storm, can exacerbate each other. Here we report the case of a thyroid storm patient (a 55-year-old Japanese male) complicated with a perforated duodenal ulcer. The patient was successfully treated with intensive treatment for thyroid storm and a prompt operation. Although it is believed that peptic ulcer rarely coexists with hyperthyroidism, among patients with thyroid storm, perforation of a peptic ulcer has been reported as one of the causes of fatal outcome. We determined that surgical intervention was required in this patient, reported despite ongoing severe thyrotoxicosis, and reported herein a successful outcome.

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.

Pharmaceutical therapy for osteoarthritis

There are a variety of oral and topical pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of osteoarthritis. To date there is no pharmacologic agent proved to prevent disease progression. This article focuses primarily on the medications used for symptomatic relief and palliation of pain. The article reviews the medications' mechanisms of action and the available efficacy literature, as well as indications, contraindications, and common adverse effects.

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

An open-label, long-term safety and tolerability trial of diclofenac sodium 1% gel in patients with knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) for up to 12 months.

METHODS

This was a multicenter open-label, extension of two 3-month, randomized, double-blind studies of DSG in patients with knee OA (NCT ID: NCT00171691, "Safety of Diclofenac Sodium Gel in Knee Osteoarthritis"). To ensure adequate enrollment, some DSG-naïve patients with OA who had not participated in the double-blind studies were also enrolled. Patients applied 4 g DSG to 1 or both knees 4 times daily for 9 to 12 months. Safety was evaluated through adverse event (AE) reporting, physical examination, and laboratory investigations. Patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and physical function scales every 3 months to assess long-term effectiveness.

RESULTS

The extension study enrolled 583 patients; 294 patients completed the study. Use of DSG was documented for 578 patients (safety population). The mean age was 62.3 years, and 63.7% of patients were women. Overall, 112 (19.4%) patients reported ≥ 1 treatment-related AE, and the only treatment-related AE occurring in ≥ 1% of patients was application-site dermatitis. Treatment-related gastrointestinal, renal-function, hepatic-function, and cardiovascular AEs were reported by 3, 1, 2, and 0 patients, respectively. There were no serious AEs or deaths. At 1 year, improvements from baseline for WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function scale scores were 39.8%, 33.4%, and 36.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The long-term safety profile of DSG was consistent with previous 12-week studies, and DSG remained effective for a 1-year period.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium gel for knee osteoarthritis in elderly and younger patients: pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials

BACKGROUND

NSAIDs used for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) have dose-related risks for gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and renal adverse events (AEs), particularly in elderly patients. Topical NSAIDs reduce systemic NSAID exposure and may mitigate these risks.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) versus vehicle in patients aged 25-64 or ≥65 years who have been diagnosed with knee OA.

STUDY DESIGN

Pooled data from three 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trials.

SETTING

US primary care, internal medicine, orthopaedic and rheumatology practices.

PATIENTS

Aged ≥25 years with mild to moderate (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-3) knee OA.

INTERVENTION

After a 1-week analgesic washout, patients applied 4 g of DSG or vehicle four times daily to one knee. Rescue paracetamol (acetaminophen) up to 4 g/day was allowed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Key efficacy outcomes common to the three trials were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain (0-20) and physical function (0-68) subscales, global rating of disease (GRD; 100-mm visual analogue scale [VAS]) and pain on movement (POM; 100-mm VAS). ANOVA was used to compare efficacy outcome differences (DSG vs vehicle) by age (25-64 or ≥65 years). A flare design was used that defined a subset of patients who experienced increased pain during the washout period (modified efficacy subpopulation [MES]).

RESULTS

The MES included both patients aged 25-64 (n = 602) and ≥65 (n = 374) years. Patients in each age group applied >90% of scheduled doses. Among patients aged 25-64 years, the improvement from baseline to week 12 (least squares mean [standard error]) was greater for DSG versus vehicle for WOMAC pain (-5.8 [0.3] vs -4.7 [0.3], p = 0.007), WOMAC physical function (-17.9 [0.9] vs -14.2 [0.9], p = 0.002), GRD (-29.5 [1.6] vs -23.8 [1.6], p = 0.01) and POM (-37.3 [1.8] vs -29.0 [1.8], p < 0.001). Among patients aged ≥65 years, the improvements from baseline for most efficacy outcome scores were significantly greater with DSG versus vehicle: WOMAC pain (-5.3 [0.3] vs -4.1 [0.4], p = 0.02), WOMAC physical function (-15.5 [1.1] vs -11.0 [1.1], p = 0.004) and POM (-33.7 [2.2] vs -26.4 [2.2], p = 0.02). The efficacy of DSG did not differ significantly between patients aged 25-64 years and ≥65 years: WOMAC pain (p = 0.85), WOMAC physical function (p = 0.70), GRD (p = 0.86) and POM (p = 0.81). The incidence of any AE was greater with DSG than with vehicle among patients aged 25-64 years (56.6% vs 50.8%) and ≥65 years (55.8% vs 43.9%). Treatment-related application site dermatitis was more common with DSG compared with vehicle in both younger (4.0% vs 0.7%, respectively) and older (5.8% vs 0.4%, respectively) patients and was the main reason for the difference in treatment-related AEs between the DSG and vehicle groups. Gastrointestinal AEs were infrequent among patients treated with DSG and similar to incidence rates with vehicle in both age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DSG was effective and generally well tolerated in adults regardless of age. These data support the topical application of DSG for relief of OA knee pain in elderly and younger patients. Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers NCT00171626, NCT00171678, NCT00426621.

A long-term, open-label study to confirm the safety of topical diclofenac solution containing dimethyl sulfoxide in the treatment of the osteoarthritic knee

To assess the long-term safety of a topical solution of diclofenac sodium in a vehicle containing dimethyl sulfoxide (TDiclo), subjects with radiologically confirmed, symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee(s) applied the clinical dose of TDiclo (40 drops, four times daily) to each painful knee for up to 52 weeks. Safety assessment included adverse events, skin irritation scores of the treated knee(s), ocular examinations, and routine laboratory tests. There were 793 subjects (mean age, 62.5 years) who applied TDiclo to one or both (72%) knees for an average of 204 days, including 463 subjects for 6 months and 144 for 1 year. The most frequent adverse events were at the application site with no increase in incidence with prolonged exposure: dry skin (25.3%), contact dermatitis without vesicles (13.0%) or with vesicles (9.5%). Skin irritation score was 0 (normal) in 61.0% of subjects, 0.5 (dryness or flaking) in 23.9%, 1 or 2 (erythema without or with induration) in 6.9%, and 3 or 4 (erythema with induration and vesicles/bullae) in 8.2%. Subject dropouts included 114 (14.4%) with an application site skin adverse event. Individual subject laboratory test shift to abnormal occurred for hemoglobin (3.2%), aspartate aminotransferase (6.4%), alanine aminotransferase (7.3%), and creatinine (4.2%), but few shifts (less than 0.3% per variable) were clinically significant. No increased risk of cardiovascular or cataract events was noted. This long-term study of TDiclo revealed a safety profile comparable to that shown in multiple, shorter, well-controlled, double-blind trials with the predominant adverse effect noted being an application site reaction.

An alternative to oral NSAIDs for acute musculoskeletal injuries

A topical NSAID can relieve acute musculoskeletal pain, with little risk of side effects.

New guidelines for topical NSAIDs in the osteoarthritis treatment paradigm

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA), the most common form of arthritis, often affects hands, hips, and knees and involves an estimated 26.9 million US adults. Women have a higher prevalence of OA, and the risk of developing OA increases with age, obesity, and joint malalignment. OA typically presents with pain and reduced function. Therapeutic programs are often multimodal and must take into account pharmaceutical toxicities and patient comorbidities. For example, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal adverse events. Topical NSAIDs offer efficacy with reduced systemic drug exposure.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a review of current guideline recommendations regarding the use of topical NSAIDs in OA of the hand and knee. Articles were identified by PubMed search (January 1, 2000 to May 21, 2010).

RESULTS

Several current guidelines for management of OA recommend topical NSAIDs, indicating them as a safe and effective treatment. One guideline recommends that topical NSAIDs be considered as first-line pharmacologic therapy. A US guideline for knee OA recommends topical NSAIDs in older patients and in patients with increased gastrointestinal risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus across US and European OA guidelines is that topical NSAIDs are a safe and effective treatment for OA. Because the research base on topical NSAIDs for OA is small, guidelines will continue to evolve.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions is widely accepted in some parts of the world, but not in others. Their main attraction is their potential to provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and our own in-house database to December 2009. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching on-line clinical trial registers and manufacturers web sites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, active or placebo (inert carrier)-controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adult patients 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 trial quality and validity, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies were included; most compared topical NSAIDs in the form of a gel, spray, or cream with a similar placebo, with 3455 participants in the overall analysis of efficacy. For all topical NSAIDs combined, compared with placebo, the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for clinical success, equivalent to 50% pain relief, was 4.5 (3.9 to 5.3) for treatment periods of 6 to 14 days. Topical diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and piroxicam were of similar efficacy, but indomethacin and benzydamine were not significantly better than placebo. Local skin reactions were generally mild and transient, and did not differ from placebo. There were very few systemic adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were insufficient data to reliably compare individual topical NSAIDs with each other or the same oral NSAID.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical NSAIDs can provide good levels of pain relief, without the systemic adverse events associated with oral NSAIDs, when used to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions.

Safety and efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide an alternative to oral NSAIDs to relieve pain from osteoarthritis (OA), reducing systemic exposure. This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial examined the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) for symptomatic knee OA.

METHODS

Eligible patients were aged >/= 35 years with symptomatic Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) 1 to 3 OA in 1 or both knees for >/= 6 months. Patients meeting entry criteria applied DSG 4 g or vehicle 4 times daily to the symptomatic knee(s). Primary endpoints were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and global rating of benefit at week 12. Pain on movement at week 4 was an additional primary endpoint for European regulatory purposes. Secondary endpoints included primary outcomes at weeks 1, 4, and 8; WOMAC stiffness subscale; spontaneous pain; global rating of disease; and global evaluation of treatment. Subanalyses were performed according to KLG, the number of knees treated, and age.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to DSG (n = 208) or vehicle (n = 212). At week 12, DSG provided significantly greater reductions in WOMAC pain (52.6% vs 43.1%; P = 0.008) and physical function (49.7% vs 39.4%; P = 0.004) versus vehicle and provided significant improvements in most secondary endpoints. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were infrequent (DSG, 7.7%; vehicle, 4.2%), with application site dermatitis being the most common AE (DSG, 4.8%; vehicle, 0%). No treatment-related gastrointestinal or serious AEs occurred with DSG.

CONCLUSION

Topical DSG treatment provided effective pain relief and functional improvement of OA in 1 or both knees and was well tolerated, irrespective of disease severity or patient age.

Adverse effects of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in older adults with osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on reported adverse effects (AE) associated with use of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) in older adults with osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline (1950 to November 2009), Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Dissertation and American College of Rheumatology meeting abstracts was performed to identify original randomized controlled trials, case reports, observational studies, editorials, or dissertations reporting AE from topical NSAID in older adults with OA. Information was sought on study and participant characteristics, detailed recording of application site, and systemic AE as well as withdrawals due to AE.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 953 articles of which 19 met eligibility criteria. Subjects receiving topical NSAID reported up to 39.3% application site AE, and up to 17.5% systemic AE. Five cases of warfarin potentiation with topical agents were reported, 1 resulting in gastrointestinal bleeding. In formal trials, the withdrawal rate from AE ranged from 0 to 21% in the topical agents, 0 to 25% in the oral NSAID, and 0 to 16% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Although topical NSAID are safer than oral NSAID (fewer severe gastrointestinal AE), a substantial proportion of older adults report systemic AE with topical agents. The withdrawal rate due to AE with topical agents is comparable to that of oral NSAID. Given the safety profile and withdrawal rates described in this study, further data are needed to determine the incremental benefits of topical NSAID compared to other treatment modalities in older adults with OA.

Treatment of osteoarthritis in hypertensive patients

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Osteoarthritis and hypertension commonly co-exist. Treatment of osteoarthritis in hypertensive patients is a therapeutic challenge due to the adverse effects of some analgesics, especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), on blood pressure. Even small drug-induced rises in blood pressure due to therapy may significantly increase cardiovascular risk in these patients if sustained over the long term. Patients treated with certain classes of antihypertensive agent may be at particular risk of deterioration in blood pressure control with NSAID therapy. NSAIDs may also increase cardiovascular risk due to mechanisms other than by raising blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

We discuss the management of osteoarthritis in the hypertensive patient, review the evidence for the effects of paracetamol and NSAIDs on blood pressure and discuss novel therapeutic strategies for osteoarthritis that might diminish this problem. A literature search was undertaken in PubMed including the years 1980 - 2009.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Insight will be gained into the complexity of treating patients with co-existent osteoarthritis and hypertension and into possible new approaches to treating osteoarthritis symptoms effectively in these patients while minimising any adverse impact on blood pressure control.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

There are ways to minimise the adverse impact of treatment of osteoarthritis on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: part III: Changes in evidence following systematic cumulative update of research published through January 2009

OBJECTIVE

To update evidence for available therapies in the treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether research evidence has changed from 31 January 2006 to 31 January 2009.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. The quality of studies was assessed. Effect sizes (ESs) and numbers needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risks, hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios were estimated for side effects. Publication bias and heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to compare the evidence pooled in different years and different qualities. Cumulative meta-analysis was used to examine the stability of evidence.

RESULTS

Sixty-four systematic reviews, 266 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 new economic evaluations (EEs) were published between 2006 and 2009. Of 51 treatment modalities, new data on efficacy have been published for more than half (26/39, 67%) of those for which research evidence was available in 2006. Among non-pharmacological therapies, ES for pain relief was unchanged for self-management, education, exercise and acupuncture. However, with new evidence the ES for pain relief for weight reduction reached statistical significance, increasing from 0.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12, 0.36] in 2006 to 0.20 (95% CI 0.00, 0.39) in 2009. By contrast, the ES for electromagnetic therapy which was large in 2006 (ES=0.77, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17) was no longer significant (ES=0.16, 95% CI -0.08, 0.39). Among pharmacological therapies, the cumulative evidence for the benefits and harms of oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diacerhein and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid was not greatly changed. The ES for pain relief with acetaminophen diminished numerically, but not significantly, from 0.21 (0.02, 0.41) to 0.14 (0.05, 0.22) and was no longer significant when analysis was restricted to high quality trials (ES=0.10, 95% CI -0.0, 0.23). New evidence for increased risks of hospitalisation due to perforation, peptic ulceration and bleeding with acetaminophen >3g/day have been published (HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.03, 1.40). ES for pain relief from IA hyaluronic acid, glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and avocado soybean unsponifiables also diminished and there was greater heterogeneity of outcomes and more evidence of publication bias. Among surgical treatments further negative RCTs of lavage/debridement were published and the pooled results demonstrated that benefits from this modality of therapy were no greater than those obtained from placebo.

CONCLUSION

Publication of a large amount of new research evidence has resulted in changes in the calculated risk-benefit ratio for some treatments for OA. Regular updating of research evidence can help to guide best clinical practice.

Randomized controlled trial of diclofenac sodium gel in knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have dose-related adverse effects. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may offer local efficacy with low systemic drug levels. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) in mild to moderate symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial, 492 adults aged >or=35 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis of >or=6 months' duration were randomized to DSG 4 g (n = 254) or vehicle (n = 238) 4 times daily for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy outcomes at week 12 were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale, WOMAC physical function subscale, and global rating of disease. Secondary outcomes included these outcomes assessed after 1, 4, and 8 weeks, and pain on movement assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale. All adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

At week 12, the DSG group had significant decreases versus the vehicle group in mean WOMAC pain (P = 0.01), mean WOMAC physical function (P = 0.001), and mean global rating of disease (P < 0.001). Efficacy outcomes significantly favored DSG versus vehicle beginning at week 1. Application site reactions occurred in 5.1% and 2.5% of patients in the DSG and vehicle groups, respectively. The incidence of gastrointestinal disorders was 5.9% with DSG and 5.0% with vehicle.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a 3-month treatment period, topical treatment with DSG achieved statistically and clinically significant improvements of pain and measures of physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Correlation of pain relief with physical function in hand osteoarthritis: randomized controlled trial post hoc analysis

Introduction

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are recommended for the relief of pain associated with hand osteoarthritis (OA) but do not alter the underlying structural changes that contribute to impaired physical function. The current analysis examined the relationship of pain relief with measures of function and global rating of disease in patients with hand OA.

Methods

This was a combined analysis of 2 prospective, randomized, double-blind, 8-week, multicenter, parallel-group studies comparing diclofenac sodium 1% gel with placebo gel (vehicle) in patients with radiographically confirmed mild to moderate hand OA. Patients (n = 783) aged ≥ 40 years applied diclofenac sodium 1% gel (2 g) or vehicle to each hand 4 times daily for 8 weeks. Outcome measures included pain intensity assessed on a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS); the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) subscales for pain, stiffness, and physical function (100-mm VAS); and a global rating of disease (100-mm VAS). Change in VAS pain intensity from baseline to week 8 was categorized (<0%, 0%-<15%, 15%-<30%, 30%-<50%, 50%-<70%, and ≥ 70%) without regard to treatment and compared in each category with the mean change from baseline in each AUSCAN subindex and the global rating of disease. Pearson correlations between changes in outcome measures from baseline to week 8 were calculated.

Results

Changes in VAS pain intensity were accompanied by similar changes in AUSCAN scores and global rating of disease. Pearson correlations confirmed significant associations (P < 0.001) between change in VAS pain intensity and changes in AUSCAN pain (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.81), AUSCAN function (r = 0.75), AUSCAN stiffness (r = 0.66), and global rating of disease (r = 0.76).

Conclusions

Pain relief correlated with improvements in physical function, stiffness, and global rating of disease in patients with hand OA, irrespective of treatment. This suggests that pain or anticipation of pain inhibits physical function and influences patient perception of disease severity in hand OA. These results also suggest that any intervention to relieve the pain of hand OA may improve function and patient perception of disease severity, despite the absence of a disease-modifying mechanism of action.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00171652, NCT00171665.