Objective We aimed to assess the safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with topical NSAIDs in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, vascular, cardiac, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue, musculoskeletal and connective tissue. Results The search strategy identified 1209 records, from which 25 papers were included in the qualitative synthesis and 19 were included in the meta-analysis, after exclusions. Overall, more total AEs (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.29; I 2 = 0.0%) and more withdrawals due to AEs (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15–1.92; I 2 = 0.0%) were observed with topical NSAIDs compared with placebo. The same results were achieved with topical diclofenac, largely driven by an increase in skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.96–3.10), although the difference was not statistically significant compared with placebo. No significant difference in the odds for gastrointestinal disorders was observed between topical NSAIDs and placebo (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73–1.27). Conclusions Topical NSAIDs may be considered safe in the management of OA, especially with regard to low gastrointestinal toxicity. The use of topical NSAIDs in OA should be considered, taking into account their risk: benefit profile in comparison with other anti-OA treatments. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-019-00661-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Introduction Several pharmacological treatments aiming at a better symptomatic control of osteoarthritis (OA) are used in daily practice but their efficacy is often disputed. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to assess the efficacy on pain and function of the drugs that are most widely prescribed against knee OA. Methods Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews were searched for randomized controlled trials published up to August 2019 and assessing the efficacy of knee OA treatments using a 6-month time horizon. Pain and function changes from baseline were the primary outcomes. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was run and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrIs) were calculated. Results 9697 references were identified and 80 RCTs were concordant with our inclusion criteria (79 studies involving 15,609 individuals reported pain outcomes and 55 studies involving 13,655 individuals reported function outcomes). A significant decrease in pain was observed for the intra-articular (IA) combination of hyaluronic acid (HA) and triamcinolone (SMD − 0.49, 95% CrI − 0.78; − 0.19), vitamin D (SMD − 0.31, 95% CrI − 0.56; − 0.06), IA HA (SMD − 0.29, 95% CrI − 0.40; − 0.17), prescription-grade crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) (SMD − 0.29, 95% CrI − 0.58; − 0.004), and prescription-grade chondroitin sulfate (pCS) (SMD − 0.26, 95% CrI − 0.44; − 0.08). Significant improvements in physical function were found with pCGS (SMD − 0.44, 95% CrI − 0.66; − 0.21), vitamin D (SMD − 0.30, 95% CrIs − 0.49; − 0.11) and IA HA (SMD − 0.21, 95% CrIs − 0.31; − 0.11). Conclusion Six months of treatment with IA HA, pCGS, pCS, vitamin D and the combination of IA HA and triamcinolone improve pain and/or physical function in patients suffering from knee OA.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionSelf-administration of medicines or dietary supplements without any physician’s advice is a widespread behavior and appears to be more frequently practiced by women. Moreover, reasons to self-administer products are often pains and injuries especially among athletes who might also use remedies to improve physical performance. The objective of this study was thus to assess the prevalence of self-administration of medicines and dietary supplements as well as its determinants among female amateur runners.MethodsOur sample was comprised of women who took part in amateur running events. Data regarding self-administration of substances, exclusively aiming at being physically prepared for the running event (i.e., intake the week before), were collected through an anonymous self-administered questionnaire including four specific themes (i.e., general information, self-administered medicines and dietary supplements, context of self-administration of substances and knowledge of the anti-doping regulations).ResultsA total of 136 women, with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range: 27–47), volunteered. Among them, 34.6% reported self-administration of medicines during the period immediately preceding the running event, with the aim to be physically prepared. More than one third (33.8%) also declared self-administration of dietary supplements. Furthermore, we observed that about 8.1% of the sample had consumed a potentially doping substance. After adjustments for confounding variables, the probability of self-administration of products (medicines or supplements) increased significantly with the intensity of the activity and the membership in a sports club.ConclusionsOur study showed that self-administration of products among female runners seems to be a widespread behavior, where the intensity of the sports practice and the network of runners seem to influence the decision to resort to this behavior.

ObjectivesMeta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO.DesignA meta-epidemiological study.ParticipantsWe evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016.Primary and secondary outcomesTwo authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs.ResultsAccording to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs.ConclusionThe methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability.

No abstract