BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients' global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal.
MAIN RESULTS: This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel-armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis pain.
DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 15, 2021. Web of Science was used for citation tracking.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing exercise therapy, NSAIDs, and opioids in any combination for knee osteoarthritis pain.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Network meta-analysis comparing exercise therapy, NSAIDs, opioids, and placebo/control for knee osteoarthritis pain. Additional trials from previous reviews were included to create the external placebo/control anchor.
RESULTS: We included 13 trials (1398 patients) with direct comparisons, supplemented with data from 101 additional trials. The treatment effect of NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis pain was similar to that of opioids (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.14 to 0.18; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations [GRADE]: low certainty). Exercise therapy had a larger effect than NSAIDs (SMD, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; GRADE: very low certainty). No estimate could be made for exercise vs opioids due to the lack of studies. Exercise therapy ranked as the "best" intervention in the network meta-analysis, followed by NSAIDs, opioids, and placebo/control intervention (GRADE: low certainty).
CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy ranked as the best treatment for knee osteoarthritis pain, followed by NSAIDs and opioids. The difference between treatments was small and likely not clinically relevant, and the overall confidence in the ranking was low. The results highlight the limited evidence for comparative effectiveness between exercise therapy, NSAIDs, and opioids for knee osteoarthritis pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):207-216. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10490.
BACKGROUND: Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.
RESULTS: 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.
CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020158521.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized clinical trials evaluating ultramicronised diclofenac, diclofenac, celecoxib, etodolac and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis were identified. A search was conducted in May 2021 through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A network meta-analysis was developed for efficacy outcome related to analgesia measured by the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities tool. In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking was performed to rank the drugs in relation to this outcome.
RESULTS: Twelve randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (UD105) was better than all the others, including ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (UD70). In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking resulted in the following order: 1) ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (100%), 2) ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (80%), 3) celecoxib 200 mg/day (49%), 4) diclofenac 100 mg/day (48%), 5) placebo (19%) and 6) diclofenac 150 mg/day (6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Ultramicronised diclofenac demonstrated superior efficacy compared to other conventional anti-inflammatory drugs and placebo in relieving osteoarthritis pain.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted the updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the best available quantitative and qualitative evidence to evaluate the effects and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of knee Osteoarthritis (OA) pain.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search used three English and four Chinese biomedical databases from inception through July 10, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials of duloxetine with intervention duration of two weeks or longer for knee OA. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by Brief Pain Inventory and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcome measurements included 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S), and adverse events. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria. The review was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD 42020194072).
RESULTS: Six studies totaling 2,059 subjects met the eligibility criteria. Duloxetine had significant reductions in Brief Pain Inventory 24-h average pain (Mean Difference [MD]=-0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.92 to -0.57; P<0.00001; I2=13%; 5 trials; 1695 patients), patient general activity (MD=-0.76; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.56; P<0.00001; I2=0%; 5 trials; 1694 patients), WOMAC physical function subscale (MD=-4.22; 95% CI, -5.14 to -3.30; P<0.00001; I2=26%; 5 trials; 1986 patients), PGI-I (MD=-0.48; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.37; P<0.00001; I2=29%; 5 trials; 1741 patients), and CGI-S (MD=-0.34; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.24; P<0.00001; I2=0%; 4 trials; 1178 patients) compared with placebo control. However, no difference on WOMAC pain subscale (SMD=-1.68; 95% CI, -3.45 to 0.08; P=0.06; I2=100%; 3 trials; 1104 patients) and in serious adverse events (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.40 to 2.11; P=0.84; I2=0%; 5 trials; 1762 patients) between duloxetine and placebo. Furthermore, duloxetine failed to show superior effects for improving the life quality and demonstrated more treatment-emergent adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for knee OA patients but further rigorously designed and well-controlled randomized trials are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib compared to non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo.
METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials of oral celecoxib compared with a non-selective NSAID or placebo in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients. We conducted searches in EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk-of-bias Tool for Randomized Trials. The effect size was presented as a risk ratio with their 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: Until July 22nd, 2021, our search identified 6279 records from which, after exclusions, 21 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled risk ratio for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration cardiovascular events for celecoxib compared with any non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.00). The pooled risk ratio for all-cause mortality for celecoxib compared with non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.98). The cardiovascular mortality rate of celecoxib was lower than non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (risk ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.99). There was no significant difference between celecoxib and non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo in the risk of other cardiovascular events.
CONCLUSION: Celecoxib is relatively safe in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients, independent of dose or duration. But it remains uncertain whether this would remain the same in patients treated with aspirin and patients with established cardiovascular diseases.
OBJECTIVE: Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed.
DESIGN: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database.
RESULTS: 122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD=0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (relative risk [RR]=0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR=0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR=0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n=22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n=14,218 participants/group).
CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.
