Introduction: Chickpea oil (Cicer arietinum L.) is considered to have anti-inflammatory properties and is of therapeutic importance. It has been used topically in Persian medicine and compared other treatments and it is easily available and low cost. In clinical practice patients applying chickpea oil have expressed their satisfaction. Given the lack of valid scientific studies, this randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of topical chickpea oil on knees affected by osteoarthritis. Methods: Patients (n = 75) referred to the rheumatology clinic with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee were randomly assigned into three groups; chickpea oil, piroxicam gel or paraffin and were treated for three months. Patients self-medicated massaging the oil into the affected knee twice a day for three months. Physical activity, stiffness and pain were measured at baseline and at the end of 3th month. The groups were compared at the end of treatment. Results: WOMAC scores showed significant reduction in pain, stiffness, and difficulty in activity in the chickpea oil group compared with the piroxicam or paraffin group (p < 0.05). VAS mean pain scores were 5.42 for the placebo group, compared wih 3.92 for the piroxicam group and 3.88 the chickpea oil group, which was significantly different (P < 0.001). No adverse effects were reported by patients. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated that chickpea oil could be effective in relieving pain, reducing motion stiffness, and increasing activity in osteoarthritis patients.
Background: Effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals is the prime concern of every osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. Chronic administration of NSAIDs, especially in case of geriatrics, through oral route tend to compromise the patient's safety, whereas topical treatments are not found to be effective owing their poor ability to deliver drug molecules. Thus, the present study deals with a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial conducted on patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) for comparing the performance of a novel topical gel (liposomal gel) of diclofenac with a placebo and a marketed gel. Methods: The patients were treated and evaluated for 6 weeks as per the Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Index for OA. Patients were also observed for any adverse events. All the results were analyzed statistically using Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Student's t-test at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Patients treated with liposomal gel showed statistically significantly improvements in treatment in comparison to the other tested formulations. All the treatments were found to be well tolerated with no report of adverse event. The results unequivocally demonstrated the superiority of the diclofenac liposomal gel, in the relieving the symptoms of OA of the knee, in comparison to placebo and marketed gel. Conclusion: From above results it was revealed that the drug in liposome have higher therapeutic potential. Thus, this can be a safe and effective option for the management of chronic OA especially for geriatric patients.
<b>Importance: </b>Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed for knee osteoarthritis. However, they are associated with uncertain long-term clinical benefit and significant toxic effects.<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To evaluate whether discontinuing NSAIDs and engaging in a telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program is noninferior to continuing NSAIDs for patients with knee osteoarthritis.<b>Design, Setting, and Participants: </b>The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain multicenter randomized withdrawal trial was conducted for 364 patients taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis pain on most days of the week for at least 3 months between September 1, 2013, and September 30, 2018. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis.<b>INTERVENTIONS: </b>Participants discontinued their current NSAID and took 15 mg per day of meloxicam daily during a 2-week run-in period. Those who remained eligible were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive meloxicam or placebo for 4 weeks (blinded phase 1). Participants receiving meloxicam then continued this medication for 10 weeks, while those receiving placebo participated in a 10-week CBT program (unblinded phase 2).<b>Main Outcomes and Measures: </b>The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score at 4 weeks with the noninferiority margin set at 1. Secondary outcomes included the area under the curve of the pain score after 4 weeks as well as the WOMAC pain score, area under the curve of the pain score, WOMAC disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 180 participants (161 men; mean [SD] age, 58. 2 [11.8] years) were randomized to receive placebo followed by CBT, and a total of 184 participants (154 men; mean [SD] age, 58.5 [10.0] years) were randomized to receive meloxicam. After adjustment for baseline pain and study site, the estimated mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo and meloxicam groups after 4 weeks was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.8-2.0; noninferiority test P = .92). At week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.2-1.4; noninferiority P = .28). There was no statistically significant difference in the global impression of change (mean difference in scores, -0.2; 95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1; P = .15) or lower extremity disability (mean difference in scores, 0.9; 95% CI, -1.4 to 3.2; P = .45) between the 2 groups after 14 weeks.<b>Conclusions and Relevance: </b>Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam. However, the WOMAC pain score differences between the 2 groups were small, and there were no statistically significant differences in participants' global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.<b>Trial Registration: </b>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01799213.
Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Expert Consensus Guidelines recommend topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line medications for osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain, but several voluminous daily applications are required to achieve efficacy. There is a need to develop new and improved topical analgesics with a faster onset, longer duration of action, and the requirement to apply less gel. This trial investigated the safety and efficacy of a new 3.06% diclofenac gel (AMZ001) in subjects with knee OA. In total, 444 subjects (AMZ001 twice daily (BID) [ n = 121], AMZ001 once daily (QD) + placebo QD [ n = 121], placebo BID [ n = 121], or Voltaren 1% 4-times daily [ n = 81]) were enrolled. All except Voltaren 1% (single-blinded) were applied topically in a double-blind manner for a total of 4-weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 4 in the WOMAC pain sub-score in the target knee. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included additional efficacy measures (WOMAC total score, WOMAC function and stiffness sub-scores, WOMAC pain weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing sub-scores, ICOAP, chair-stand test, OMERACT-OARSI responder rate, PGA, WPAI, EQ-5D, rescue medication use, satisfaction questionnaire) and safety. Treatment with AMZ001 QD was effective at reducing WOMAC pain sub-scores vs placebo (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: −4.61 [95% confidence interval (CI): −9.09, −0.12]; p = 0.0440); however, BID application was not (ETD: −3.76 [95% CI: −8.21, 0.68]; p = 0.0969). For several secondary endpoints, changes from baseline to week 4 conferred nominally statistically significant improvements in favor of AMZ001 vs placebo, including PGA score (AMZ001 BID vs placebo, ETD: −0.61 [95% CI: −1.11, −0.11]; p = 0.0162; AMZ001 QD vs placebo, ETD: −0.63 [95% CI: −1.13, −0.13]; p = 0.0134), WPAI overall work impairment score (AMZ001 QD vs placebo, ETD: −10.44 [95% CI: −20.84, −0.04]; p = 0.0492), and EQ-5D VAS score (AMZ001 BID vs placebo, ETD: 4.70 [95% CI: 0.55, 8.85]; p = 0.0264). Post-hoc analysis excluding 11–14 subjects per group with pain scores that decreased between screening and baseline suggests a consistent effect of both AMZ001 QD (ETD: −5.84 [95% CI: −10.71, −0.97]; p = 0.0189) and BID (ETD: −5.35 [95% CI: −10.16, −0.54]; p = 0.0292) in reducing WOMAC pain sub-scores vs placebo. In general, treatment satisfaction was high, as measured by the satisfaction questionnaire. The frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs) was greatest in the placebo group. Most AEs (>99%) were of mild or moderate severity. There were no serious AEs. There were no notable effects of any treatment on vital signs, ECGs, physical examination findings, or other laboratory assessments. Treatment with AMZ001 BID for 4 weeks improved WOMAC pain sub-scores; however, only QD application conferred nominally statistically significant improvements vs placebo. AMZ001 was generally well tolerated.
Celecoxib is the most recent non steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic, and has been gradually used in the treatment of acute pain, rheumatism and osteoarthritis. This paper analyzes the analgesic effect of celecoxib in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis and put forward a new mechanism of knee joint extensor reconstruction assisted by bone anchor. The experimental group was given celecoxib 200 mg/ time and 1 time /d. The results showed that VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) decreased gradually in both groups on the 1st, 3rd and 7th day of treatment and VAS in experimental group was lower than that in control group at the same time point (P<0.05). At the 1 year follow-up, experience group had a significant improvement on the Lysholm (69.33 ± 8.38 preoperatively and 88.65 ± 12.93 postoperatively) and Kujula (69.33 ± 8.38 preoperatively and 88.65 ±12.93 postoperatively) knee scores (P<0.05). The results showed that celecoxib had a good analgesic effect in patients with knee osteoarthritis and reducing the release of inflammatory factors may be its mechanism..
<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To investigate the TrkA inhibitor, ASP7962, for treatment of painful knee osteoarthritis.<b>DESIGN: </b>Phase 2a, double-blind, placebo- and naproxen-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study. Adults with knee osteoarthritis were randomized (2:2:1) to ASP7962 (100 mg), placebo, or naproxen (500 mg) twice daily (BID) for 4 weeks. Primary endpoint: change from baseline to Week 4 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale score. Secondary endpoints: change from baseline to Weeks 1, 2, and End of Treatment (EoT) in WOMAC pain subscale score; change from baseline to Weeks 1, 2, 4, and EoT in WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscales, walking pain and WOMAC total scores; and change from baseline in daily average pain score.<b>RESULTS: </b>215 participants were randomized (ASP7962 100 mg BID, n = 85; placebo, n = 87; naproxen 500 mg BID, n = 43). No significant difference was observed between ASP7962 and placebo in change from baseline to Week 4 in WOMAC pain subscale score (-0.14; 90% 2-sided CI: -0.62, 0.34; P = 0.316); a significant difference was observed between naproxen and placebo (-0.67; 80% 2-sided CI: -1.12, -0.23; P = 0.027). No differences were observed between ASP7962 and placebo in change from baseline in any WOMAC subscale score; statistically significant changes were observed between naproxen and placebo (P ≤ 0.01, all time points for all WOMAC endpoints). ASP7962 was safe and well-tolerated.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Four-week treatment with ASP7962 (100 mg BID) did not improve pain or physical function in individuals with painful knee osteoarthritis. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02611466; EudraCT Number, 2014-004996-22.
OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody with efficacy against migraine, was superior to placebo for the treatment of mild or moderate osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain.
METHOD: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and celecoxib-controlled trial, patients with moderate to severe OA pain were randomized to placebo; celecoxib 200 mg daily for 16 weeks; or galcanezumab 5, 50, 120, and 300 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks, twice. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 8 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore measured by 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The trial was considered positive if ≥1 dose of galcanezumab demonstrated ≥95% Bayesian posterior probability of superiority to placebo and ≥50% posterior probability of superiority to placebo by ≥9 mm. A planned interim analysis allowed termination of the study if posterior probability of superiority to placebo by ≥9 mm was ≤5%. Secondary endpoints included WOMAC function subscore and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of OA. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.
RESULTS: The study was terminated after interim analysis suggested inadequate efficacy. Celecoxib significantly reduced WOMAC pain subscore compared with placebo [-12.0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -23 to -2 mm]. None of the galcanezumab arms demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement (range: 1.5 to -5.0 mm) or met the prespecified success criteria. No improvement in any secondary objective was observed. Galcanezumab was well tolerated by OA patients.
CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate sufficient statistical evidence that galcanezumab was efficacious for treating OA knee pain.
STUDY IDENTIFICATION: NCT02192190.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intraarticular injection of Cingal (Anika Therapeutics, Inc., Bedford, MA) compared with Monovisc (Anika Therapeutics, Inc., Bedford, MA) or saline for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
DESIGN: This multicenter, double-blind, saline-controlled clinical trial randomized subjects with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grades I-III) to a single injection of Cingal (4 mL, 88 mg hyaluronic acid [HA] plus 18 mg triamcinolone hexacetonide [TH]), Monovisc (4 mL, 88 mg HA), or saline (4 mL, 0.9%). The primary efficacy outcome was change in WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index) Pain Score through 12 weeks with Cingal versus saline. Secondary outcomes included Patient and Evaluator Global Assessments, OMERACT-OARSI Responder index, and WOMAC Total, Stiffness, and Physical Function scores through 26 weeks.
RESULTS: A total of 368 patients were treated (Cingal, n = 149; Monovisc, n = 150; saline, n = 69). Cingal improvement from baseline was significantly greater than saline through 12 weeks ( P = 0.0099) and 26 weeks ( P = 0.0072). WOMAC Pain was reduced by 70% at 12 weeks and by 72% at 26 weeks with Cingal. Significant improvements were found in most secondary endpoints for pain and function at most time points through 26 weeks. At 1 and 3 weeks, Cingal was significantly better than Monovisc for most endpoints; Cingal and Monovisc were similar from 6 weeks through 26 weeks. A low incidence of related adverse events was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Cingal provides immediate and long-term relief of osteoarthritis-related pain, stiffness, and function, significant through 26 weeks compared to saline. Cingal had similar immediate advantages compared with HA alone, while showing benefit comparable to HA at 6 weeks and beyond.
<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>Evaluate efficacy and safety of an investigational, twice daily sustained-release (SR) paracetamol formulation in subjects with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).<b>METHODS: </b>In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel study (NCT02311881), subjects with hip or knee OA were randomly assigned to SR paracetamol 2 × 1000 mg BID, extended-release (ER) paracetamol 2 × 665 mg TID or placebo for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline through 12 weeks in WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index pain. Secondary efficacy endpoints included other WOMAC categories, Global Patient Assessment of Osteoarthritis (GPAOA), Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and responder rate.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 676 subjects were included in the analysis population (mITT). Mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale was not significantly greater with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo (LS mean [SE]: -28.25 [1.697] vs. -25.74 [1.713]; p = .163). Reduction in WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscales with SR paracetamol BID was not significantly greater than with placebo (p = .089 and .054, respectively). Significant improvement over placebo was observed for GPAOA (p = .043), PGART (p = .012), and proportion of high-improvement responders (p = .015). Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of paracetamol.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Improvement in WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscales from treatment with SR paracetamol BID versus placebo in subjects with knee or hip OA was not significant. SR paracetamol BID demonstrated significant improvements in GPAOA, PGART, and high-responder rate. High placebo response may have contributed to lack of statistical separation on some outcomes. All interventions were generally well tolerated.
