Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) occur frequently within the general population and are the most common non-dental cause of orofacial pain. Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) is a degenerative joint disease (DJD). There have been several different methods of treatment of TMJ OA listed, including pharmacotherapy among others. Due to its anti-aging, antioxidative, bacteriostatic, anti-inflammatory, immuno-stimulating, pro-anabolic and anti-catabolic properties, oral glucosamine seems to be a potentially very effective agent in the treatment of TMJ OA. The aim of this review was to critically assess the efficacy of oral glucosamine in the treatment of TMJ OA on the basis of the literature. PubMed and Scopus databases were analyzed with the keywords: (temporomandibular joints) AND ((disorders) OR (osteoarthritis)) AND (treatment) AND (glucosamine). After the screening of 50 results, eight studies have been included in this review. Oral glucosamine is one of the symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis. There is not enough scientific evidence to unambiguously confirm the clinical effectiveness of glucosamine supplements in the treatment of TMJ OA on the basis of the literature. The most important aspect affecting the clinical efficacy of oral glucosamine in the treatment of TMJ OA was the total administration time. Administration of oral glucosamine for a longer period of time, i.e., 3 months, led to a significant reduction in TMJ pain and a significant increase in maximum mouth opening. It also resulted in long-term anti-inflammatory effects within the TMJs. Further long-term, randomized, double-blind studies, with a unified methodology, ought to be performed to draw the general recommendations for the use of oral glucosamine in the treatment of TMJ OA.
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.
OBJECTIVE: Despite an extensive body of research on NSAIDs in osteoarthritis, the duration of their efficacy and timeline of adverse event (AE) onset have been understudied. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses from 2 to 26 weeks to characterize the efficacy and AE trajectories of oral NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to May 2018. RCTs assessing the efficacy and/or safety of FDA-approved NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and extracted data. We calculated standardized mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: We included 72 RCTs (26,424 participants). NSAIDs demonstrated moderate, statistically significant effects on pain that peaked at 2 weeks (SMD -0.43 [-0.48, -0.38]), but the magnitude of the effects decreased over time. The results for function were similar. The incidence of GI AEs was significantly higher in NSAID users than placebo users as early as 4 weeks (RR 1.38 [1.21, 1.57]). The incidence of CV AEs in NSAID users was not significantly different from placebo. Most GI and CV AEs were transient and of minor severity.
CONCLUSION: NSAIDs produced significant pain and function improvements that peaked at 2 weeks but decreased over time. The incidence of minor GI and CV AEs consistently rose, reaching significance as early as 4 weeks. Clinicians should weigh the durability of efficacy with the early onset of minor AEs along with patient tolerability and preferences when formulating an NSAID regimen. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Despite an extensive body of research on nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in osteoarthritis, the duration of their efficacy and timeline of adverse event (AE) onset have been understudied. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses from 2 to 26 weeks to characterize the efficacy and AE trajectories of oral NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis.METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and/or safety of Federal Drug Administration-approved NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and extracted data. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).RESULTS: We included 72 randomized controlled trials (26,424 participants). NSAIDs demonstrated moderate, statistically significant effects on pain that peaked at 2 weeks (SMD -0.43 [95% CI -0.48, -0.38]), but the magnitude of the effects decreased over time. The results for function were similar. The incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) AEs was significantly higher in NSAID users than placebo users as early as 4 weeks (RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.21, 1.57]). The incidence of cardiovascular (CV) AEs in NSAID users was not significantly different from placebo. Most GI and CV AEs were transient and of minor severity.CONCLUSION: NSAIDs produced significant pain and function improvements that peaked at 2 weeks but decreased over time. The incidence of minor GI and CV AEs consistently rose, reaching significance as early as 4 weeks. Clinicians should weigh the durability of efficacy with the early onset of minor AEs along with patient tolerability and preferences when formulating an NSAID regimen.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to answer the following question: "In adult patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) related-pain, what is the placebo or nocebo effect of different therapies?"
METHODS: A SR was performed with randomized clinical placebo-controlled trials on diagnosed painful TMD studies from five main databases and from three grey literature. Studies included must to have sample older than 18 years, with painful TMD, which diagnosis was done by Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC/TMD) or Diagnostic Criteria (DC/TMD).
RESULTS: Out of 770 articles obtained, 42 met the inclusion criteria for qualitative and 26 for quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis indicated mean variation on pain intensity for placebo therapy was higher on laser acupuncture with 45.5mm points reduction, followed by avocado soybean extract with 36mm, and amitriptyline 25mg with 25.2mm. Laser showed a 29% of placebo effect, as well medicine with 19% and other therapies with 26%. Possible nocebo effect of 8% pain increase was found for intra-articular injection of ultracain.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available data, the placebo response could play a major effect on TMD pain management and may be responsible from 10 to 75% of pain relief. Laser acupuncture, avocado soybean and amitriptyline promoted the higher placebo effect. Possible nocebo effect was found only for Ultracain Injection with 8%.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians could apply such evidence to optimize pain management and judgment about treatment efficacy and researches may find it useful when designing their investigations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is vastly recommended as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. However, there has been controversy about this recommendation given recent studies have revealed small effects of paracetamol when compared with placebo. Nonetheless, past studies have not systematically reviewed and appraised the literature to investigate the effects of this drug on specific osteoarthritis sites, that is, hip or knee, or on the dose used.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of paracetamol compared with placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to 3 October 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal on 20 October 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with placebo in adults with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and abnormal liver function tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors used standard Cochrane methods to collect data, and assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence. For pooling purposes, we converted pain and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function) scores to a common 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability) scale.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias.At 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants).High-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life.Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests.Current clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize all good quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions in patients with rheumatic diseases.
METHODS: A systematic literature review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was performed. We excluded non-English language articles and abstract-only publications. Due to the large number of RCTs identified, we only include "good quality" RCTs with Jadad score of five.
RESULTS: We identified 60 good quality RCTs using CAM as intervention for patients with rheumatic diseases: acupuncture (9), Ayurvedic treatment (3), homeopathic treatment (3), electricity (2), natural products (31), megavitamin therapies (8), chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation (3), and energy healing therapy (1). The studies do not seem to suggest a particular type of CAM is effective for all types for rheumatic diseases. However, some CAM interventions appear to be more effective for certain types of rheumatic diseases. Acupuncture appears to be beneficial for osteoarthritis but not rheumatoid arthritis. For the other therapeutic modalities, the evidence base either contains too few trials or contains trials with contradictory findings which preclude any definitive summary. There were only minor adverse reactions observed for CAM interventions presented.
CONCLUSION: We identified 60 good quality RCTs which were heterogenous in terms of interventions, disease, measures used to assess outcomes, and efficacy of CAM interventions. Evidence indicates that some CAM therapies may be useful for rheumatic diseases, such as acupuncture for osteoarthritis. Further research with larger sample size is required for more conclusive evidence regarding efficacy of CAM interventions.
