Dataset Information

Traumeel vs. diclofenac for reducing pain and improving ankle mobility after acute ankle sprain: a multicentre, randomised, blinded, controlled and non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT: Acute ankle sprains are common and activity limiting injuries, and topical diclofenac gel has proven efficacy in alleviating pain and restoring function. This trial aimed to compare a topical natural agent, Traumeel with topical diclofenac gel (1%) in the management of acute ankle sprain.This prospective, multicentre, randomised, blinded, active-control and non-inferiority study involved 449 physically active adults sustaining unilateral grade 1 or 2 ankle sprain within the past 24 h. Participants were randomised to receive 2 g of Traumeel ointment (T-O) (n = 152) or Traumeel gel (T-G) (n = 150) or diclofenac gel (D-G) (n = 147), administered topically to the ankle three times a day for 14 days, with 6-weeks follow up.Day 7 median percentage reductions in Visual Analogue Scale pain score were 60.6%, 71.1% and 68.9% for the T-O, T-G and D-G groups, respectively. Total pain relief was reported by 12 (8.5%), 7 (5.0%) and 8 (5.9%) participants in each group, respectively. Median improvements in Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living subscale score were 26.2, 26.2 and 25.0 points for T-O, T-G and D-G groups, respectively. Mann-Whitney effect sizes and lower bound confidence intervals demonstrated non-inferiority of Traumeel vs. diclofenac for reducing pain and functional improvement. At 6 weeks, participants reported total pain relief and normal functioning. Adverse events (n = 43) were reported by 31/447 participants (6.9%). Treatments were equally well tolerated.T-O and T-G decreased pain and improved joint function to the same extent as D-G in acute ankle sprain, and were well tolerated.

SUBMITTER: Gonzalez de Vega C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4231442 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Traumeel vs. diclofenac for reducing pain and improving ankle mobility after acute ankle sprain: a multicentre, randomised, blinded, controlled and non-inferiority trial.

González de Vega C C Speed C C Wolfarth B B González J J

International journal of clinical practice 20130725 10

<h4>Background</h4>Acute ankle sprains are common and activity limiting injuries, and topical diclofenac gel has proven efficacy in alleviating pain and restoring function. This trial aimed to compare a topical natural agent, Traumeel with topical diclofenac gel (1%) in the management of acute ankle sprain.<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective, multicentre, randomised, blinded, active-control and non-inferiority study involved 449 physically active adults sustaining unilateral grade 1 or 2 ankle spra ...[more]

PMID: 23889885

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiclofenac diethylamine (DDEA) gel has demonstrated efficacy for treatment of ankle sprains in both the 1.16% four-times-daily (QID) and 2.32% twice-daily (BID) formulations. The objective of this study was to compare, for the first time, the efficacy of DDEA 2.32% gel BID and DDEA 1.16% gel QID.MethodsThis was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active-controlled, parallel-group study conducted in China from October 2019 to November 2020, designed to determine the noninferiority of DDEA 2.32% gel BID relative to DDEA 1.16% gel QID for treatment of grade I-II ankle sprain. At study entry, patients must have had pain on movement (POM) ≥50 mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS), and not received any pain medication. The primary efficacy endpoint was the noninferiority of DDEA 2.32% gel BID vs DDEA 1.16% gel QID for POM as assessed by the patient using the 100-mm VAS, conducted on day 5. Secondary endpoints included measures of ankle tenderness, joint function, swelling, and patient-reported pain intensity and pain relief.ResultsA total of 302 patients were randomized and 95.4% completed the study. The mean (SD) change in POM from baseline to day 5 using the 100-mm VAS was - 42.8 mm (19.7 mm) with DDEA 2.32% gel BID and - 43.1 mm (18.1 mm) with DDEA 1.16% gel QID for the per-protocol population. The least squares mean difference (DDEA gel 2.32% - DDEA gel 1.16%) at this timepoint was 1.11 mm (95% CI - 3.00, 5.22; P = 0.595), and the upper limit (5.22 mm) of the 95% CI was less than the noninferiority margin of 13 mm, demonstrating that DDEA 2.32% gel BID was noninferior to DDEA 1.16% gel QID. Similar trends were seen for the secondary efficacy endpoints. There was no significant difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or adverse events adjudicated as being treatment related. All treatment-related adverse events were dermatological; one patient discontinued from the DDEA 2.32% gel BID arm due to application-site inflammation.ConclusionsDDEA 2.32% gel BID offers a convenient alternative to DDEA 1.16% gel QID, with similar pain reduction and relief, anti-inflammatory effects, and tolerability.Trial registrationNCT04052620.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Ankle sprain is one of the most frequently encountered musculoskeletal injuries; however, the efficacy of acupuncture in treating ankle sprains remains uncertain. We therefore performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence regarding acupuncture for ankle sprains. METHODS: We searched 15 data sources and two trial registries up to February 2012. Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture were included if they involved patients with ankle sprains and reported outcomes of symptom improvement, including pain. A Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed based on acupuncture type, grade of sprain, and control type. Sensitivity analyses were also performed with respect to risk of bias, sample size, and outcomes reported. RESULTS: Seventeen trials involving 1820 participants were included. Trial quality was generally poor, with just three reporting adequate methods of randomization and only one a method of allocation concealment. Significantly more participants in acupuncture groups reported global symptom improvement compared with no acupuncture groups (RR of symptoms persisting with acupuncture?=?0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.77). However, this is probably an overestimate due to the heterogeneity (I2?=?51%) and high risk of bias of the included studies. Acupuncture as an add-on treatment also improved global symptoms compared with other treatments only, without significant variability (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.73, I2?=?1%). The benefit of acupuncture remained significant when the analysis was limited to two studies with a low risk of bias. Acupuncture was more effective than various controls in relieving pain, facilitating return to normal activity, and promoting quality of life, but these analyses were based on only a small number of studies. Acupuncture did not appear to be associated with adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Given methodological shortcomings and the small number of high-quality primary studies, the available evidence is insufficient to recommend acupuncture as an evidence-based treatment option. This calls for further rigorous investigations.

Dataset Information

Traumeel vs. diclofenac for reducing pain and improving ankle mobility after acute ankle sprain: a multicentre, randomised, blinded, controlled and non-inferiority trial.

Publications

Traumeel vs. diclofenac for reducing pain and improving ankle mobility after acute ankle sprain: a multicentre, randomised, blinded, controlled and non-inferiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets