Objective. Systematic reviews previously reported in the literature document that topical nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in relieving pain in acute and chronic painful ...musculoskeletal disorders including osteoarthritis, tendonitis, and muscle strains. Because several topical NSAIDs are available, with important differences among the formulations, there is a need to address and summarize the evidence of their effectiveness and safety.
Design. We searched Medline and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for clinical trials and systematic reviews of topical NSAIDs in musculoskeletal pain, using the following keywords: “NSAID,”“nonsteroidal,”“anti‐inflammatory,”“topical,”“cream,”“gel,”“solution,”“lotion,”“patch,” plaster,”“musculoskeletal,”“tendonitis,”“strain,”“sprain,”“trauma,” and word roots “pain” and “arthritis.”
Conclusions. Topical NSAIDs may vary significantly in their absorption kinetics and pharmacodynamic effects, based on NSAID molecule and the formulation chosen. Some topical NSAID formulations have been shown to be more effective than placebo in multiple studies, or to have comparable efficacy and a better safety profile than oral NSAIDs for single joint osteoarthritis and acute muscle injuries. In acute and chronic low back pain, widespread musculoskeletal pain, and in peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes, the current evidence does not support the use of topical NSAIDs.
Enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) pain trials select, before randomisation, patients who respond by demonstrating a predetermined degree of pain relief and acceptance of adverse ...events. There is uncertainty over the value of this design. We report a systematic review of EERW trials in chronic noncancer pain together with a critical appraisal of methods and potential biases in the methods used and recommendations for the design and reporting of future EERW trials. Electronic and other searches found 25 EERW trials published between 1995 and June 2014, involving 5669 patients in a randomised withdrawal phase comparing drug with placebo; 13 (median, 107 patients) had a randomised withdrawal phase of 6 weeks or less, and 12 (median, 334) lasted 12 to 26 weeks. Risks of bias included short duration, inadequate outcome definition, incomplete outcome data reporting, small size, and inadequate dose tapering on randomisation to placebo. Active treatment was usually better than placebo (22/25 trials). This review reduces the uncertainty around the value of EERW trials in pain. If properly designed, conducted, and reported, they are feasible and useful for making decisions about pain therapies. Shorter, small studies can be explanatory; longer, larger studies can inform practice. Current evidence is inadequate for valid comparisons in outcome between EERW and classical trials, although no gross differences were found. This systematic review provides a framework for assessing potential biases and the value of the EERW trials, and for the design of future studies by making recommendations for the conduct and reporting of EERW trials.
Drug Costs: The Controversy Continues Lipman, Arthur G.
Journal of pain & palliative care pharmacotherapy,
01/2017, Letnik:
31, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in ...chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.
To assess the analgesic effectiveness and safety of methadone in the treatment of CNCP.
We identified both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of methadone use in chronic pain by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 11, MEDLINE (1950 to November 2011), and EMBASE (1980 to November 2011), together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
We included RCTs with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. Quasi-randomized studies, cohorts and case-control trials were also considered for inclusion because we suspected that the beneficial and harmful effects of methadone in CNCP may not be adequately addressed in RCTs.
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data and assessed risk of bias.
We included two RCTs and one non-randomized study, involving a total of 181 participants. Both RCTs were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other involving 76 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases were 20 days and approximately eight weeks, respectively. The non-randomized study retrospectively evaluated 86 outpatients over an average of 8.8 ± 6.3 months.One RCT reported average pain intensity and pain relief, and found statistically significant improvements versus placebo for both outcomes, with 10 mg and 20 mg daily doses of methadone. The second RCT reported differences in pain reduction between methadone and morphine and found morphine to be statistically superior. The non-randomized study found that in patients initially prescribed methadone it was effective in fewer participants than in those initially prescribed other long-acting opioids (28% versus 42%, 33% and 50% for morphine, oxycodone and transdermal fentanyl, respectively).One RCT compared incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a difference between methadone and placebo for only one event, dizziness (P = 0.041).
The three studies provide very limited evidence of the efficacy of methadone for CNCP, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.
PDF
