Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac/menthol gel for ankle sprain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Purpose This study was performed to evaluate topical 1% diclofenac/3% menthol gel in treating ankle sprain. Design In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adolescents and adults with acute ankle sprain (N?=?385) applied 4?g of gel containing 1% diclofenac/3% menthol (n?=?117), 1% diclofenac (n?=?112), 3% menthol (n?=?77), or placebo (n?=?75) four times daily. The primary outcome was the area under the curve of pain intensity (PI) on movement [0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain)] from 24 to 72 hours post-application (AUC1-3 days). Secondary outcomes included pain relief (PR); PI; time to onset of PR, meaningful PR, cooling, and complete recovery; PI difference; sum of PI difference; total PR; reduction in ankle swelling; and the patient's global assessment of response to treatment. Results There were no statistically significant differences in AUC1-3 between 1% diclofenac/3% menthol and placebo, diclofenac, or menthol gels and no meaningful advantages of 1% diclofenac/3% menthol for any secondary outcome. There was a higher incidence of skin and application-site events with 1% diclofenac/3% menthol than with placebo or 1% diclofenac. Conclusion No significant improvement was observed with topical 1% diclofenac/3% menthol gel compared with placebo, 1% diclofenac, or 3% menthol gel in treating pain from ankle sprain. ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT02100670.

SUBMITTER: Lai PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5536669 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac/menthol gel for ankle sprain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial.

Lai Pamela M PM Collaku Agron A Reed Kenneth K

The Journal of international medical research 20170327 2

Purpose This study was performed to evaluate topical 1% diclofenac/3% menthol gel in treating ankle sprain. Design In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adolescents and adults with acute ankle sprain (N = 385) applied 4 g of gel containing 1% diclofenac/3% menthol (n = 117), 1% diclofenac (n = 112), 3% menthol (n = 77), or placebo (n = 75) four times daily. The primary outcome was the area under the curve of pain intensity (PI) on movement [0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain)] ...[more]

PMID: 28345425

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:BackgroundThe efficacy of external ankle braces to protect against sudden inversion sprain has yet to be determined while taking into account the possible placebo effect of brace application.PurposeTo assess the protective effect of an external ankle brace on ankle kinematics during simulated inversion sprain and single-legged drop landings among individuals with a history of unilateral lateral ankle sprain.HypothesisThe primary hypothesis was that active and placebo external braces would reduce inversion angle during simulated inversion sprain.Study designControlled laboratory study.MethodsSixteen participants with ankle instability and previous sprain performed single-legged drop landings and sudden inversion tilt perturbations. Kinematics of the affected limb were assessed in 3 conditions (active bracing, passive placebo bracing, and unbraced) across 2 measurement days. Participators and investigators were blinded to the brace type tested. The effect of bracing on kinematics was assessed with repeated measures analysis of variance with statistical parametric mapping, with post hoc tests performed for significant interactions.ResultsOnly active bracing reduced inversion angles during a sudden ankle inversion when compared with the unbraced condition. This reduction was apparent between 65 and 140 milliseconds after the initial fall. No significant differences in inversion angle were found between the passive placebo brace and unbraced conditions during sudden ankle inversion. Furthermore, no significant differences were found among all tested conditions in the sagittal plane kinematics at the knee and ankle.ConclusionDuring an inversion sprain, only the actively protecting ankle brace limited inversion angles among participants. These results do not indicate a placebo effect of external bracing for patients with ankle instability and a history of unilateral ankle sprain. Furthermore, sagittal plane knee kinematics appear to remain unaffected by bracing during single-legged landing, owing to the limited effects of bracing on sagittal ankle kinematics. These results highlight the role of brace design on biomechanical function during sports-related and injury-prone movements.Clinical relevanceAthletes prone to reinjury after lateral ankle sprain may benefit from brace designs that allow for full sagittal range of motion but restrict only frontal plane motion.

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain (NP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder in primary care that frequently causes discomfort. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be used to reduce neck pain and associated inflammation and facilitate earlier recovery. Topical diclofenac diethylamine (DDEA) 1.16% gel is clinically proven to be effective and well tolerated in acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions, but until now no clinical data existed for its use in acute NP. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of DDEA 1.16% gel compared with placebo gel in acute NP.MethodsIn a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with acute NP (n = 72) were treated with DDEA 1.16% gel (2 g, 4x/day, for 5 days) or placebo. Efficacy assessments included pain-on-movement (POM), pain-at-rest (PAR), functional neck disability index (NDI) and response to treatment (decrease in POM by 50% after 48 h). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study.ResultsThe primary outcome, POM at 48 h, was statistically significantly lower with DDEA gel (19.5 mm) vs. placebo (56.9 mm) (p < 0.0001), representing a clinically relevant decrease from baseline (75% vs. 23%, respectively). All POM scores were significantly lower with DDEA gel vs. placebo from 1 h, as were PAR and NDI scores from first assessment (24 h) onwards (all p < 0.0001). Response to treatment was significantly higher with DDEA gel (94.4%) vs. placebo (8.3%) (p < 0.0001). There were no AEs with DDEA gel.ConclusionsDDEA 1.16% gel, which is available over-the-counter, was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of acute neck pain. The tools used to assess efficacy suggest that it quickly reduced neck pain and improved neck function. However, questions remain regarding the comparability and validity of such tools. Further studies will help ascertain whether DDEA 1.16% gel offers an alternative treatment option in this common, often debilitating condition.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01335724.

Project description:IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis is a common form of arthritis in elderly patients that is characterised by pain and functional limitation. Moxibustion has been employed to relieve chronic pain as an alternative therapy for knee osteoarthritis. However, the evidence of its efficacy is equivocal due to the low methodological quality in most clinical studies. Therefore, we are performing a double-blinded, double-placebo, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of moxibustion in participants with knee osteoarthritis.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, double-blinded, double-placebo, randomised controlled clinical trial. 144 eligible participants with knee osteoarthritis will be randomly assigned to two different groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the moxibustion group will undergo active moxibustion plus placebo gel, whereas participants in the control group will receive diclofenac sodium gel plus placebo moxibustion. Each participant will receive 12 sessions of active/placebo moxibustion at three acupoints (ST35, ST36 and EX-LE4) as well as 2 months of follow-up. Diclofenac sodium gel or placebo gel at a dose of 4 g per knee will be applied three times per day for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score change at the end of the intervention period from baseline. The secondary outcome measures include changes of other subscales (pain, stiffness and function) of WOMAC, visual analogue scale and patient globalassessment. The safety of moxibustion and diclofenac sodium gel will be assessed at every visit.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the Sichuan Regional Ethics Review Committee (permission number: 2015KL-014). The results of this study are expected to provide clinical evidence on the efficacy of moxibustion for pain relief and physical function improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at relevant academic conferences.Trial registration numberNCT02769572.

Project description:Objective:SLE is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease characterised by the excessive production of autoantibodies, immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogues and other pituitary peptides. RCI is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use during an exacerbation or as maintenance therapy in select cases of SLE. This paper discusses the design and baseline characteristics of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, 24-week clinical trial evaluating the effect of RCI in reducing disease activity for patients with persistently active SLE despite moderate-dose corticosteroid use. Methods:Efficacy will be evaluated using the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4), SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 (SLEDAI-2K), British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-2004 (BILAG-2004) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA). The primary efficacy endpoint will be the proportion of SRI-4 responders at week 16. Secondary and exploratory endpoints will include changes in disease activity scores over time, prednisone dose and biomarkers of inflammation and bone turnover. The safety and tolerability profile of RCI will also be evaluated through adverse event profiles, physical examination, clinical laboratory tests and serum cortisol levels. Results:Target enrolment for this global study is 270 patients, and as of 15 November 2019, the modified intent-to-treat population included 169 patients. The study cohort had 91.7% women, had a mean age of 39.7 years, mean SLEDAI-2K total score of 9.9, mean BILAG-2004 total score of 18.1, mean PGA of 59.7 and mean prednisone or equivalent daily dose of 11.1?mg. A total of 79.3% and 64.5% of patients were receiving concomitant antimalarial or immunosuppressive therapy, respectively. Conclusions:Data from this study will provide valuable insights into the therapeutic role of RCI in refractory SLE, as well as important information regarding its safety profile.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac/menthol gel for ankle sprain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac/menthol gel for ankle sprain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets