scholarly journals AB0877 CLINICAL EFFICACY AND SAFETY PROFILE OF TOPICAL ETOFENAMATE IN THE TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS: RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1744.2-1744
Author(s):  
A. Pereira ◽  
D. Marinho

Background:Musculoskeletal disorders affect millions of people of all ages around the world [1]. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are, in general, the cornerstone of musculoskeletal pain management; however, systemic adverse events with oral formulations of NSAIDs are common. To address this, topical formulations of some NSAIDs have been developed. [2] Although there are many nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, only a few are used as local therapeutics. This is because the physicochemical properties of these substances, which were originally developed for oral administration, frequently do not guarantee a satisfactory pharmaceutical formulation with satisfactory topical absorption. [3]Objectives:The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of the topical formulations of the NSAID etofenamate in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.Methods:A systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted, using the key words (topical etofenamate efficacy) OR (topical etofenamate safety) OR (topical etofenamate effectiveness) to identify studies of etofenamate published from inception to November 2018. Some published manuscripts of interest known by the authors but not identified in the PubMed search were also added to ensure the review article was as comprehensive as possible.Results:Overall, 12 studies were identified. [3-14] These studies demonstrated the ability of topical etofenamate (administered either in gel [5% or 10%], cream [10%] or lotion [10%] formulations]) to improve pain and reduce inflammation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders, including blunt injuries and rheumatic diseases. Etofenamate was shown to have an overall efficacy that was superior to other topical NSAIDs, such as 1% indomethacin and 1% diclofenac, and to be as effective as topical formulations of 2.5% ketoprofen gel and 2% ketorolac gel (although ketorolac suggested a better elimination of pain at some time points). Overall, when compared to placebo, etofenamate gel 5% demonstrated significant better results in the reduction of pain symptoms (with or without combination with ultraphonophoresis). Furthermore, clinical evidence indicates that etofenamate is generally well tolerated in these indications.Conclusion:The available clinical evidence suggests that etofenamate could be an effective therapeutic option for the management of musculoskeletal disorders, such as blunt traumas, lumbago or osteoarthritis. However, larger and well-controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of etofenamate with other newer topical NSAIDs are warranted.References:[1]Atchison JW, et al. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013; 19: S3-19.[2]Haroutiunian S, et al. Pain Med. 2010; 11: 535-49.[3]Pelster B, et al. ZFA. 1992; 68: 364-7.[4]Schneider H. Therapiewoche. 1983;33:5809-18.[5]Miehlke RK, et al. Med Welt. 1985;36:103-6.[6]Rechziegler H, et al. Therapiewoche. 1986;36:5347-51.[7]Hallmeier B. Rheuma. 1988;8:183-6.[8]Rechziegler H. Therapiewoche. 1983;33:703-7.[9]Matsuno S, et al. J Med Pharm Sci. 1983;9:349-67.[10]Nagaya I, et al. Med Pharmacy. 1982;8:1549-82.[11]Ascher R, et al. Fortschr Med. 1982;37:1729-34.[12]Billigmann P, et al. Praktische Traumatologie Sportmedizin. 1992;2:72-7.[13]Diebschlag W, et al. J Clin Pharmacol. 1990;30:82-9.[14]Matucci-Cerinic M, et al. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1988;8:157-60Disclosure of Interests:Anabela Pereira Consultant of: Recently, I was a paid consultant of Bial., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Bial., Daniela Marinho Employee of: I’m currently an employee of BIAL pharmaceutical company. I belong to the medical affairs department of Bial.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 588-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil Sundstrup ◽  
Karina Glies Vincents Seeberg ◽  
Elizabeth Bengtsen ◽  
Lars Louis Andersen

AbstractPurpose This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of workplace interventions to rehabilitate musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among employees with physically demanding work. Methods A systematic search was conducted in bibliographic databases including PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection for English articles published from 1998 to 2018. The PICO strategy guided the assessment of study relevance and the bibliographical search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs in which (1) participants were adult workers with physically demanding work and MSD (including specific and non-specific MSD and musculoskeletal pain, symptoms, and discomfort), (2) interventions were initiated and/or carried out at the workplace, (3) a comparison group was included, and (4) a measure of MSD was reported (including musculoskeletal pain, symptoms, prevalence or discomfort). The quality assessment and evidence synthesis adhered to the guidelines developed by the Institute for Work & Health (Toronto, Canada) focusing on developing practical recommendations for stakeholders. Relevant stakeholders were engaged in the review process. Results Level of evidence from 54 high and medium quality studies showed moderate evidence of a positive effect of physical exercise. Within this domain, there was strong evidence of a positive effect of workplace strength training. There was limited evidence for ergonomics and strong evidence for no benefit of participatory ergonomics, multifaceted interventions, and stress management. No intervention domains were associated with “negative effects”. Conclusions The evidence synthesis recommends that implementing strength training at the workplace can reduce MSD among workers with physically demanding work. In regard to workplace ergonomics, there was not enough evidence from the scientific literature to guide current practices. Based on the scientific literature, participatory ergonomics and multifaceted workplace interventions seem to have no beneficial effect on reducing MSD among this group of workers. As these interventional domains were very heterogeneous, it should also be recognized that general conclusions about their effectiveness should be done with care.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018116752 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=116752).


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Li ◽  
Wei He

AbstractThe rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has greatly disrupted the livelihood of many people around the world. To date, more than 35.16 million COVID-19 cases with 1.037million total deaths have been reported worldwide. Compared with China, where the disease was first reported, cases of COVID-19, the number of confirmed cases for the disease in the rest of the world have been incredibly high. Even though several dugs have been suggested to be used against the disease, the said interventions should be backed by empirical clinical evidence. Therefore, this paper provides a systematic review and a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of different COVID-19 drugs.Research in contextEvidence before this studyCurrently, Covid-19 is one of the most urgent and significant health challenge, globally. However, so far there is no specific and effective treatment strategy against the disease. Nonetheless, there are numerous debates over the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of different COVID-19 antivirals. In general, there is invaluable need to continually report on new advances and successes against COVID-19, apparently to aid in managing the pandemic.Added value of this studyThis study provides a comprehensive, evidence-based guide on the management of multiple COVID-19 symptoms. In particular, we provide a review of 14 drugs, placebos and standard treatments against COVID 19. Meanwhile, we also performed a meta-analysis based on four clinical outcome indicators, to measure and compare the efficacy and safety of current interventions.Implications of all the available evidenceFindings of this research will guide clinical decision in COVID-19 patients. It will also provide a basis for predicting clinical outcomes such as efficacy, mortality and safety of interventions against the disease.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 62-66
Author(s):  
Nasser Mikhail ◽  

Objective: To review efficacy and safety of the first orally available glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide. Methods: PubMed search published in English, French and Spanish from January 2000 until September 04, 2019. Search terms included “oral semaglutide”, “semaglutide”, “GLP-1 receptors”, “clinical trials”, “absorption”, “metabolism”, “efficacy”, “safety”, “cardiovascular”, “kidney disease”. Randomized trials, review articles, expert opinions and editorials are included in the review. Results: Oral semaglutide is effectively absorbed in the stomach by absorption enhancer, but has to be taken in the fasting state with water, and no food allowed for 30 min after intake. It is generally comparable in efficacy to the subcutaneous form of semaglutide. When compared to liraglutide, oral semaglutide is slightly superior in decreasing hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (-0.3% vs. liraglutide) and weight (-1.3 kg vs. liraglutide), but is associated with more frequent adverse effects (reported by 80% vs. 74% of patients). Oral semaglutide was more effective than sitagliptin. Limited data suggest that oral semaglutide is safe and effective in patients with moderate degree of renal impairment. A large randomized trial of median follow-up of 15.9 months, showed that oral semaglutide was non-inferior to placebo in terms of cardiovascular events and mortality, and might have beneficial effects on reducing some of these events. Conclusion: Oral semaglutide has an efficacy and safety profile consistent with the class of GLP-1 receptor agonists. It represents a useful therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes who are reluctant to take injections. Further studies are needed to establish its long-term efficacy and safety in a large population of type 2 diabetes, including those with chronic kidney disease.


2016 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Oliveira ◽  
J. Evêncio-Neto ◽  
L. Baratella-Evêncio

Abstract The treatment of sialorrhea is necessary for the constant risks posed by hypersalivation. A new therapeutic option comes up with the application of botulinum toxin in salivary glands. However, little is known about its mechanism of action in glandular tissue. Based on the above, this work had the objective to systematically review the literature about the action of botulinum toxin on submandibular and parotid salivary glands tissues. Electronic search was performed in databases of great relevance for this study (PubMed, SciELO, HighWire, Crossref, Scopus, Science Direct, MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, Serials Database, NLM Catalog, LILACS and IBECS). Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles were established, and a total number of 14 articles were selected and used. There are few publications that clarify how the salivary gland acini behave with application of botulinum toxin. Although, the immunohistochemical findings were consistent among authors, showing weak immunoreactivity in glands treated with botulinum toxin. Histometric data are divergent, requiring more detailed studies to answer the questions about the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin in salivary glands.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huixin Yan ◽  
◽  
Yun An ◽  
Tao Zhao ◽  
Jiangna Zhao ◽  
...  

Review question / Objective: This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of Tuina in the treatment of Sciatica to clarify its efficacy and safety. Condition being studied: Sciatica is one of the common pain symptoms in the human body, also known as radiating leg pain. Sciatica is increasingly occurring due to poor posture and lack of physical exercise all over the world. At present, many studies have indicated that Tuina can improve the clinical symptoms and functional status of sciatica. However, there is currently no relevant systematic review to evaluate and report this clinical scientific issue. Consequently, this study will conduct a meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of Tuina therapy for sciatica.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mônia Rieth Corrêa ◽  
Caio de Almeida Lellis ◽  
Maria Antônia da Costa Siqueira ◽  
Marcondes Bosso de Barros Filho ◽  
Ricelly Pires Vieira ◽  
...  

Background: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a non-inflammatory disease with unknown etiology expressed by diffuse musculoskeletal pain, whose definition and management are subjects of controversies. Thus we aimed to review the literature on efficacy and main cortical targets of TMS for FM. Methods: A systematic review was carried out in PubMed databases, along with the terms DeCS/MeSH: “Fibromyalgia AND (Transcranial Magnetic Stimu-lation OR TMS)”. Randomized studies and clinical trials published in the last 10 years were selected. After exclusion, 11 articles remained. Results: The references found for TMS in the treatment of FM indicate average reduction in pain symptoms (29%). TMS showed significant improvement in pain measured by visual analog scale and was more advantageous in clinical and functional improvement, but less efficient in psychiatric conditions. In female patients, active use of repetitive high-frequency TMS was significantly better on pain, quality of life (QoL) and depression. Another study showed that 20 sessions produced significantly lasting pain inhibition and improved QoL when operated at 10 Hz. Moreover, the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or the left motor cortex can have antidepressant and pain-modulating effects. Evidence also points to an important improvement in physical and general fatigue, as well as greater chance of clinical improvement in pain intensity. Conclusions: Evidence on TMS for FM available so far is promising, with potential to represent a valuable and safe therapeutic option. However, more and larger studies are needed to elucidate mechanisms and effectiveness better


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 705-705
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Antonuzzo ◽  
Giuseppe Aprile ◽  
Sandro Barni ◽  
Evaristo Maiello ◽  
Gianluca Masi ◽  
...  

705 Background: Bevacizumab (BEV) improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts) when added to doublets in first-line setting. Yet, its use in unfit and older mCRC pts remains controversial. This systematic review and pooled-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety data of BEV combined with first-line fluoropyrimidine monochemotherapy in unfit or elderly mCRC pts. Methods: A literature search to identify studies using first-line fluoropyrimidine monochemotherapy plus BEV in unfit pts was performed in PubMed and EMBASE databases up to May 2015. Unfit pts were selected based on age, comorbities and health status, along with monochemotherapy as the only therapeutic option. The random-effects model was used to combine the effect estimates and the I2 index to quantify the between-study heterogeneity unexplained by sampling error. Results: We screened 1,304 papers and, after a double check, 56 were considered for full text evaluation: 38 were excluded and 10 were deemed not evaluable for lack of data on unfit pts, whereas 8 (3 RCTs, 4 single arm phase II trials and 1 prospective cohort study), including 782 pts, were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Administered monochemotherapy was capecitabine in 531 (67.9%) pts and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in 251 (32.1%); 500 (63.9%) pts also received BEV. Median age was 75 years, 441 (56.4%) pts were male, ECOG performance status was 0-1 in 684 (87.7%) pts. The combination with BEV produced advantages in terms of both OS (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.98, P = 0.03; I2= 0%) and PFS (HR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43-0.64, P < 0.00001; I2= 0%; pooled effect estimates of RCTs have been previously reported). As expected, higher rates of all grade hypertension (27% vs 4.9%), bleeding (24% vs 6.4%), thromboembolic events (10% vs 5%) and proteinuria (25.6% vs 8.2%) were observed in the BEV combination. Conclusions: Adding BEV to first-line fluoropyrimidine monochemotherapy, either capecitabine or 5-FU, significantly improved PFS and OS in unfit and elderly pts with mCRC, with a manageable safety profile and no unexpected side effects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document