Intra-articular use of tenoxicam in degenerative osteoarthritis of the knee joint

Does intra-articular injection of tenoxicam after arthrocentesis heal outcomes of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis? A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ-OA) is a degenerative disease and manifests itself with pain and limitation of movement in the jaws. Arthrocentesis alone or in combination with intraarticular injections is one of the most commonly used treatment methods in these patients. The aim of the study is to examine the effectiveness of arthrocentesis plus tenoxicam injection and to compare it with arthrocentesis alone in patients with TMJ-OA.

METHODS

Thirty patients with TMJ-OA who were treated randomly with either arthrocentesis plus tenoxicam injection (TX group) or arthrocentesis alone (control group) were examined. Maximum mouth opening (MMO), visual analog scale (VAS) pain values, and joint sounds were the outcome variables, which were evaluated at pre-treatment and at 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The gender distribution and mean age were not significantly different between the two groups. Pain values (p < 0.001), MMO (p < 0.001), and joint sounds (p < 0.001) improved significantly in both groups. However, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of outcome variables [pain (p = 0.085), MMO (p = 0.174), joint sounds (p = 0.131)].

CONCLUSIONS

Arthrocentesis plus tenoxicam injection showed no better outcomes in terms of MMO, pain, and joint sounds compared with arthrocentesis alone in patients with TMJ-OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Injection of Tenoxicam Versus Arthrocentesis Alone in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis, NCT05497570. Registered 11 May 2022. Retrospectively registered, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000CD7A&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0006FC4&ts=6&cx=f3anuq.

Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of intra-articular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis: A narrative review

What is known and Objective

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of joint disease and activity limitation in adults. Common therapies to treat OA‐related pain are oral and topical non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and intra‐articular (IA) corticosteroids. However, prolonged courses of oral NSAIDs are associated with systemic adverse effects and repeat IA corticosteroid injections may cause cartilage degeneration. IA NSAIDs may be an alternative therapy possibly minimizing systemic side effects while maintaining efficacy. Therefore, we sought to summarize the pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of IA NSAIDs to help providers make a more informed decision on the use of IA NSAIDs.

Methods

We searched the National Library of Medicine Database with terms “intraarticular and nsaid”, yielding 1032 results. Only traditional formulations of NSAIDs were considered for inclusion. Animal studies were included if animals were healthy or if the method of arthritis induction was a reasonable model of osteoarthritis. Human studies were included if humans were healthy or if the primary disease studied was osteoarthritis of a large joint. Of 1032 results, 31 research articles met the inclusion criteria and were summarized in this review.

Results and Discussion

We found that single doses of IA NSAIDs provided far less total systemic and synovial exposure compared to a one week course of oral NSAIDs, but maximum concentrations to the synovium with IA administration were much higher. IA NSAIDs had an excellent safety profile in small animals, large animals and humans, although these injections were associated with non‐specific cartilage inflammation in healthy animals. In animal models, IA NSAIDs had similar efficacy to PO NSAIDs in treating OA‐related pain. In humans, IA NSAIDs had similar efficacy to PO NSAIDS and IA corticosteroids in treating OA‐related pain; however, many trials did not have a placebo control and outcome measures were heterogeneous.

What is new and Conclusion

Overall, single doses of IA NSAIDs appear safe and efficacious across animals and humans. The optimal use of IA NSAIDs is still to be determined and further research is needed. However IA NSAIDs may be an additional beneficial therapy to treat OA‐related pain. Potential uses may be to augment IA corticosteroids injections, to interrupt multiple IA corticosteroid injections or as an alternative in patients that are high risk for corticosteroid‐related adverse events.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of intra-articular steroid, tenoxicam, and combined steroid-tenoxicam injections in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Although intra-articular corticosteroid injections are widely applied in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), its effect is short term. Additionally, apart from oral use, tenoxicam is also applied as an intra-articular treatment option to minimize gastrointestinal side effects of NSAIDs. Clinical evidence suggests that the combined use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids is synergistic (especially macular edema after cataract surgery in ophthalmology). Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine whether the combination of intra-articular steroid and tenoxicam was more effective for a long period rather than only tenoxicam and steroid injection alone in OA treatment.

METHODS

Ninety patients were randomly divided into three groups (30 patients per group): group 1, group 2, and group 3 were treated by intra-articular injection of tenoxicam, triamcinolone hexacetonide, and triamcinolone hexacetonide plus tenoxicam, respectively. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were enrolled at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months post-injection.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 68.07 ± 8.08, 65.83 ± 10.13, and 67.07 ± 6.01 in group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively. In tenoxicam group, median pre- and post-treatment (at 1, 3, and 6 months) VAS/WOMAC scores were 7.30 ± 0.53/32.50 ± 3.79, 2.27 ± 0.98/10.83 ± 2.61, 6.73 ± 1.14/30.33 ± 5.93, and 7.03 ± 0.80/31.37 ± 4.38, respectively. In steroid group, median pre- and post-treatment VAS/WOMAC scores were 7.60 ± 0.49/34.33 ± 3.40, 1.37 ± 1.21/8.83 ± 2.70, 6.87 ± 1.35/30.80 ± 7.70, and 7.27 ± 0.86/32.83 ± 4.87, respectively. In steroid plus tenoxicam group, median pre- and post-treatment VAS/WOMAC scores were 7.57 ± 0.50/33.20 ± 3.66, 0.33 ± 0.47/6.67 ± 0.95, 0.93 ± 0.98/7.87 ± 1.96, and 1.97 ± 1.12/10.43 ± 3.70, respectively. VAS and WOMAC scores in 1 month after the injection significantly decreased in both groups compared to baseline (p < 0.01). Steroid plus tenoxicam group showed significantly improved VAS and WOMAC scores when compared to only steroid and tenoxicam group at follow-up 3 and 6 months (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The combined therapy seems to produce a more effective result for a long period than monotherapy in reducing pain and improving functional recovery.

KEY POINTS

• There is an evidence of short-term effects of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in treatment of knee OA; however, there is no consensus for the long-term benefit of this treatment yet. • Apart from oral use, tenoxicam is also applied as an intra-articular treatment option to minimize gastrointestinal side effects of NSAIDs. • Clinical evidence suggests that the combined use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids is synergistic (especially macular edema after cataract surgery in ophthalmology). • The combined therapy seems to produce a more effective result for a long period than alone therapy.

Comparison of the effectivity of oral and intra-articular administration of tenoxicam in patients with knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Tenoxicam is widely used in osteoarthritis treatment and we aimed to compare the effectivity of oral and intra-articular administration of tenoxicam in osteoarthritis treatment.

METHODS

This study was performed between 2011 and 2012 by retrospectively analyzing and comparing the findings of 60 patients who were clinically and radiologically diagnosed with knee degenerative osteoarthritis in Bünyan state hospital pain policlinic. 60 patients included in the study were divided into two groups. The first group (tenoxicam IA, n=30) included patient findings of those subjected to intra-articular injection of 20mg tenoxicam to the knee once a week for three weeks and the second group (oral tenoxicam, n=30) included patients who were administered 20mg oral tenoxicam once a day for three weeks. All patients were clinically evaluated pre-treatment and in the 1st week, 1st month and 3rd month post-treatment according to specified criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Twenty two of 60 patients included in the study were male and 38 were female. In both groups significant improvements were detected in all of the observed parameters: visual analog scale, Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (pain, physical activity, knee stiffness) and Lequesne index scores and in the evaluations performed in 1st week, 1st month and 3rd month with respect to pre-treatment values. Besides, a better compliance to treatment and gastrointestinal system tolerability in tenoxicam IA group was also observed. Intra-articular tenoxicam administration could be thought as an alternative treatment method in patients with knee osteoarthritis who cannot use oral tenoxicam especially due to systemic gastrointestinal system side effects and those who have difficulties in adapting to treatment.

Intra-articular morphine versus bupivacaine for knee motion among patients with osteoarthritis: randomized double-blind clinical trial

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis causes pain and disability in a high percentage of elderly people. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of intra-articular morphine and bupivacaine on the joint flexion and extension angles of patients with knee osteoarthritis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A randomized double-blind study was performed at a pain clinic of Universidade Federal de São Paulo.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with pain for more than three months, of intensity greater than three on a numerical scale (zero to 10), were included. G1 patients received 1 mg (1 ml) of morphine diluted in 9 ml of saline, intra-articularly, and G2 patients received 25 mg (10 ml) of 0.25% bupivacaine without epinephrine. Pain was assessed on a numerical scale and knee flexion and extension angles were measured after administration of the drugs at rest and during movement. The total amount of analgesic supplementation using 500 mg doses of paracetamol was also determined.

RESULTS

No significant difference in pain intensity was observed between G1 and G2. Significant decreases in pain at rest and during movement and significant increases in mean flexion and extension angles were observed in both groups, with no significant difference between the two groups. The mean total amount of paracetamol used over a seven-day period was 3578 mg in G1 and 5333 mg in G2 (P = 0.2355; Mann-Whitney test).

CONCLUSION

The analgesic effects of 1 mg of morphine and 25 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine were similar among patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

Intra-articular injection of a nutritive mixture solution protects articular cartilage from osteoarthritic progression induced by anterior cruciate ligament transection in mature rabbits: a randomized controlled trial

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease that disrupts the collagenous matrix of articular cartilage and is difficult to cure because articular cartilage is a nonvascular tissue. Treatment of OA has targeted macromolecular substitutes for cartilage components, such as hyaluronic acid or genetically engineered materials. However, the goal of the present study was to examine whether intra-articular injection of the elementary nutrients restores the matrix of arthritic knee joints in mature animals. A nutritive mixture solution (NMS) was composed of elementary nutrients such as glucose or dextrose, amino acids and ascorbic acid. It was administered five times (at weeks 6, 8, 10, 13 and 16) into the unilateral anterior cruciate ligament transected knee joints of mature New Zealand White rabbits, and the effect of NMS injection was compared with that of normal saline. OA progression was histopathologically evaluated by haematoxylin and eosin staining, by the Mankin grading method and by scanning electron microscopy at week 19. NMS injection decreased progressive erosion of articular cartilage overall compared with injection of normal saline (P < 0.01), and nms joints exhibited no differences relative to normal cartilage that had not undergone transection of the anterior cruciate ligament, as assessed using the mankin grading method. Haematoxylin and eosin staining and scanning electron microscopy findings also indicated that nms injection, in constrast to normal saline injection, restored the cartilage matrix, which is known to be composed of a collagen and proteoglycan network. thus, nms injection is a potent treatment that significantly retards oa progression, which in turn prevents progressive destruction of joints and functional loss in mature animals.

Comparison of intra-articular tenoxicam and oral tenoxicam for pain and physical functioning in osteoarthritis of the knee

This study was designed to compare efficacy of local administration of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with systemic administration in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. For this purpose, intra-articular tenoxicam and oral tenoxicam therapies were applied and the improvement in control of pain and physical functioning were evaluated. A total of 69 patients with OA of the knee were randomized into three groups. Patients in the first group (41 knees of 23 patients) were treated for 1-3 weeks with once weekly intra-articular injection of tenoxicam 20 mg. Patients in the second group (45 knees of 26 patients) received 20 mg/day tenoxicam orally for 3 weeks and only physical exercises were applied to the third group (32 knees of 20 patients). Physical examination of the knee joint, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index and the Lequesne Algofunctional Index were used as outcome measurements at baseline, and the 1st, 3rd and 6th months. More significant improvement in pain and disability parameters was observed in groups 1 and 2 than group 3 compared with baseline measures. Among the patients' responses a few of the differences were statistically significant, more in favour of tenoxicam, and tenoxicam seemed to be superior to exercise alone especially at the final evaluation. There was no significant difference between the oral and intra-articular tenoxicam treatment regimens. The results of this study showed that treatment of OA of the knee with intra-articular tenoxicam is as effective as that with oral tenoxicam. It can be thought that intra-articular administration can be preferred to oral therapy due to minimal possibility of systemic side effects.

Intra-articular therapy in osteoarthritis

The medical literature was reviewed from 1968-2002 using Medline and the key words "intra-articular" and "osteoarthritis" to determine the various intra-articular therapies used in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid are the most frequently used intra-articular therapies in osteoarthritis. Other intra-articular substances such as orgotein, radiation synovectomy, dextrose prolotherapy, silicone, saline lavage, saline injection without lavage, analgesic agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucosamine, somatostatin, sodium pentosan polysulfate, chloroquine, mucopolysaccharide polysulfuric acid ester, lactic acid solution, and thiotepa cytostatica have been investigated as potentially therapeutic in the treatment of arthritic joints. Despite the lack of strong, convincing, and reproducible evidence that any of the intra-articular therapies significantly alters the progression of osteoarthritis, corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid are widely used in patients who have failed other therapeutic modalities for lack of efficacy or toxicity. As a practical approach for a knee with effusion, steroid injections should be considered while the presence of symptomatic "dry" knees may favour the hyaluronic acid approach. The virtual absence of serious side effects, coupled with the perceived benefits, make these approaches attractive.

Intra-articular tenoxicam improves postoperative analgesia in knee arthroscopy

PURPOSE

Non Steroidal Anti-inflammatory drugs have a well documented benefit in the relief of postoperative pain. This study was designed to compare the analgesic effect of intra-articular tenoxicam 20 mg with intravenous tenoxicam on postoperative pain in 88 patients undergoing day case knee arthroscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, double blind, randomized trial was performed. All patients received a standard general anesthetic. Patients in group A received 20 mg tenoxicam made up to 40 ml with normal saline intra-articularly (ia) and 2 ml normal saline i.v. Patients in group B received 40 ml normal saline intra-articularly and 2 ml, 20 mg of tenoxicam, i.v.

RESULTS

Both groups of patients were similar with respect to age, weight, sex and tourniquet inflation time. Patients receiving ia tenoxicam had lower pain scores (at rest and upon movement) at 30, 60, 120 and 180 min postoperatively (0.8+/-0.2 vs. 2.5+/-0.2 at rest and 1.24+/-0.2 vs. 3.4+/-0.2 at movement at 60 min; P< 0.0001). Fewer patients required additional analgesia in the first four hours postoperatively (33% vs. 84%; P<0.00001) and the time to first analgesia (23.7+/-11.2 vs. 9.4+/-0.6; P<0.02) was longer in those receiving ia tenoxicam.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular tenoxicam provides superior postoperative analgesia and reduces postoperative analgesic requirements compared with i.v. tenoxicam in patients undergoing day case knee arthroscopy.

Intra-articular therapy in osteoarthritis

Although intra-articular therapy is widely used in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), those controlled clinical trials which include placebo groups suggest that there is little to be gained over joint aspiration alone, or even over a simple needle prick. Glucocorticoids may however offer a small additional symptom benefit over one or two weeks. Viscosupplementation may offer a slightly longer benefit. Intra-articular radiotherapy probably confers no benefit. Serious adverse effects are rare but local effects may occur in up to 10% of patients treated with viscosupplements. Future research should always include a placebo group in clinical studies, should clarify the possible benefits of viscosupplementation and should include in vitro work to consider the biological basis for possible actions of intra-articular therapy.