Should nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) be prescribed to the older adult?

The prevalence of chronic pain increases with age, exceeding 50% in individuals aged ≥65 years. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a mainstay of chronic pain management but carry significant dose-related risks of cardiovascular, renal, haematological and other systemic adverse events (AEs). Older patients have an increased risk of these AEs and are more likely to take multiple medications that can potentially interact with NSAIDs. In particular, older patients are more likely to have cardiovascular disease and a natural age-related decline in renal function, increasing the risks of cardiovascular, haematological and renal AEs. Given these risks, recent guidelines for the management of chronic pain in the elderly recommend using NSAIDs rarely and only in carefully selected patients. NSAIDs currently available in the US fall into three categories: nonselective NSAIDs that act via inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2; celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2; and topical NSAIDs that inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 but result in much less systemic NSAID exposure than oral formulations. Topical NSAIDs have demonstrated efficacy similar to oral NSAIDs, with an incidence of AEs similar to placebo; however, these agents are an option only in patients with localized pain in superficial joints. Safe pain management in older patients therefore requires cautious choice of selective and nonselective oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs or non-NSAID analgesics. This article discusses the risks and benefits of NSAID therapy, reviews its mechanism of action as the source of adverse effects and provides recommendations for maximizing NSAID safety, particularly in older patients. Articles cited in this review were identified via a search of PubMed (January 2005 to November 2009) and a manual search of reference lists from the articles identified in that search. Priority was given to articles discussing NSAID use in older populations, clinical trials of high quality, reports on NSAID safety and AEs, and treatment guidelines.     

Rofecoxib: a review of its use in the management of osteoarthritis, acute pain and rheumatoid arthritis

Rofecoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor which has little or no effect on the COX-1 isoenzyme at doses up to 1000 mg/day. Rofecoxib has greater selectivity for COX-2 than celecoxib, meloxicam, diclofenac and indomethacin. In well-controlled clinical trials, rofecoxib 12.5 to 500 mg/day has been evaluated for its efficacy in the treatment of osteoarthritis, acute pain and rheumatoid arthritis [lower dosages (5 to 125 mg/day) were generally used in the chronic pain indications]. In the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis, rofecoxib was more effective in providing symptomatic relief than placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and celecoxib and was similar in efficacy to ibuprofen, diclofenac, naproxen and nabumetone. Overall, both the physician's assessment of disease status and the patient's assessment of response to therapy tended to favour rofecoxib. In patients with postsurgical dental pain, pain after spinal fusion or orthopaedic surgery, or primary dysmenorrhoea, rofecoxib provided more rapid and more sustained pain relief and reduced requirements for supplemental morphine use after surgery than placebo. Rofecoxib was more efficacious than celecoxib in patients with acute dental pain and pain after spinal fusion surgery, although celecoxib may have been used at a subtherapeutic dose. In comparison with traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) ibuprofen, diclofenac and naproxen sodium, rofecoxib was similar in efficacy in the treatment of acute pain. Although naproxen sodium provided more rapid pain relief than rofecoxib in patients with primary dysmenorrhoea, the reverse was true after orthopaedic surgery: rofecoxib provided more rapid pain relief and less supplemental morphine was needed. Rofecoxib was as effective as naproxen in providing symptomatic relief for over 8700 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Compared with traditional NSAID therapy, rofecoxib had a significantly lower incidence of endoscopically confirmed gastroduodenal ulceration and, in approximately 13,000 patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, a lower incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Rofecoxib was generally well tolerated in all indications with an overall tolerability profile similar to traditional NSAIDs. The most common adverse events in rofecoxib recipients were nausea, dizziness and headache. In conclusion, rofecoxib is at least as effective as traditional NSAID therapy in providing pain relief for both chronic and acute pain conditions. Rofecoxib provides an alternative treatment option to traditional NSAID therapy in the management of symptomatic pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis. Initial data from patients with primary dysmenorrhoea and postoperative pain are promising and further trials may confirm its place in the treatment of these indications. Rofecoxib has also shown promising results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and is likely to become a valuable addition to current drug therapy for this patient population. Importantly, rofecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of GI adverse events than traditional NSAIDs making it a primary treatment option in patients at risk of developing GI complications or patients with chronic conditions requiring long term treatment.     

Herbal medicines for osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is one of the leading causes of pain and disability. In the UK, up to 8.5 million people are affected by joint pain that may be attributed to the condition. Non-surgical treatment options include lifestyle measures (e.g. exercise); local therapy involving heat or cold; manual therapy; transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS); topical capsaicin; simple analgesics; NSAIDs; opioids; and intra-articular corticosteroid injections. Studies have reported widespread use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines by patients with arthritis. Here we review the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for symptoms of osteoarthritis.     

Pharmacoeconomics of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for the relief of the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sprains and strains, sports injuries and menstrual disorders, and have a small role in the management of patent ductus arteriosus in the neonate. In patients with RA, symptom relief through use of NSAIDs is firmly established, although it remains unclear whether they influence the course and outcome of the disease. For the average patient with RA taking NSAIDs, the attributable risk of hospitalisation with gastrointestinal problems related to NSAIDs is 1.3 to 1.6% annually and risk of death is 0.15%. Associations of therapy with risk are greatest with age, corticosteroid use and previous NSAID-related gastrointestinal adverse effects, and less marked with disability and high NSAID dose. These are important data in attempting to balance risk of therapy with clinical efficacy in an individual patient, and assessing the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis. Although half of all NSAID consumption is for control of pain associated with degenerative conditions, their superiority over simple analgesics in osteoarthritis is poorly documented. This finding supports the use of the simple analgesic paracetamol (acetaminophen) as the preferred therapy of osteoarthritis, especially when its lower cost and low incidence of adverse effects are taken into consideration. Consistent differences in clinical effectiveness of individual NSAIDs have not been demonstrated, although unpredictable interpatient variation in response to individual agents is of considerable clinical importance, and a more expensive NSAID may prove cost effective for some patients. Cost effectiveness can be improved by a self-adjusted dosage regime which also leads to lower overall drug consumption. The adverse gastrointestinal effects of these drugs account for about 30% of the overall cost of arthritis treatment, and although studies to date have been too limited to assess the relative risk of gastrointestinal toxicity of the different NSAIDs reliably, ibuprofen appears to be one of the least hazardous, and azapropazone one of the most hazardous. Although the effectiveness of prophylaxis with H 2-antagonists and with prostaglandin E 1 analogues (prostaglandin-E 1 analogues) has been established, estimates of cost-benefit ratios are widely divergent. To establish the most cost-effective therapy with NSAIDs, more data are required to establish multivariable risk profiles for identification of patients at particular risk, the optimal drug, and its optimal dosage and duration of treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Etodolac. A reappraisal of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in rheumatic diseases and pain states.

Etodolac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, and in the alleviation of postoperative pain. Etodolac also provides relief of other types of pain, including that arising from gouty conditions and traumatic injury. In all indications, etodolac appears to be at least as effective as other NSAIDs. The incidence of clinical adverse effects other than abdominal pain and dyspepsia is similar to that observed with placebo, and etodolac has been associated with a low rate of gastrointestinal ulceration and other serious events. Data from preliminary animal studies have suggested that etodolac may provide more selective inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis at sites of inflammation than some other currently available NSAIDs. Thus, available evidence indicates that etodolac, with its low incidence of gastrointestinal events, is an effective and well tolerated alternative to other NSAIDs in the treatment of arthritic diseases and pain of various aetiologies and should be considered a first-line therapy.     

The treatment of osteoarthritis.

1. The treatment of osteoarthritis is currently purely symptomatic. To enable rational therapy, careful clinical assessment is necessary to identify the origin of symptoms. Often, effective therapy can result from a biomechanical approach such as surgery, orthotics, physiotherapy and dieting. If drugs are required, there is little evidence that the current over-reliance on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is justified. Full dose regular paracetamol should be the first line of analgesic therapy. In the majority of patients, simple analgesics are probably as effective as NSAIDs. If NSAIDs are used it is necessary to review regularly their use and to be aware of potential toxicity. 2. Many alternative strategies of pain management such as topical preparations, intra-articular steroid injections, acupuncture, radiosynovectomy, transcutaneous nerve stimulation and anti-depressants, may be effective but their precise place in the armamentarium is not yet fully established. 3. The realisation that osteoarthritis is not a passive 'wear and tear' phenomenon but an active process that may be potentially modified, has led to interest in 'chondroprotective' agents, which may beneficially affect the osteoarthritic process. To date there are no convincing data available that such agents are, in fact, chondroprotective in humans.     

Misoprostol: pharmacoeconomics of its use as prophylaxis against gastroduodenal damage induced by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Misoprostol effectively prevents nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID)-induced gastric ulcer and is the only agent currently indicated for this purpose. In addition, misoprostol is effective as prophylaxis against NSAID-induced duodenal ulcer. Because of the widespread use of NSAIDs, the cost of routine misoprostol prophylaxis would be high, and thus its pharmacoeconomic evaluation is an important factor in assessing the most appropriate role of misoprostol in this group of patients. Current cost-benefit analyses undertaken in major European centres and the US have generally indicated that, depending on initial assumptions, misoprostol prophylaxis over a 3-month period is cost-saving in patients with osteoarthritis taking NSAIDs. The net savings (costs) realised were dependent on several variables, including the acquisition cost of misoprostol, silent ulcer rate and patients' compliance. Importantly, misoprostol prophylaxis was consistently more cost-beneficial in elderly patients aged greater than 60 to 65 years than in their younger counterparts. In contrast, in one study misoprostol was found to reduce patients' quality of life and, although misoprostol therapy is potentially cost-saving to society, patients generally preferred no therapy. A single study assessing the cost-effectiveness of misoprostol prophylaxis in preventing ulcerative complications concluded that primary treatment was not an economically viable option for all NSAID users. Misoprostol was most cost-effective in the prevention of recurrent or secondary gastric ulcer complications in 'high-risk' patients, for example patients aged over 60 years and patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, although there are areas of interest awaiting further pharmacoeconomic investigation, misoprostol prophylaxis appears to be cost-effective in elderly and high risk patients receiving NSAIDs. Additionally, misoprostol prophylaxis is cost-saving in elderly patients with osteoarthritis requiring NSAID therapy.     

Disease-modifying therapies for osteoarthritis : current status

Osteoarthritis, the most common form of arthritis, is a debilitating progressive disease principally affecting the elderly. Osteoarthritis therapy has evolved in the past few decades from symptomatic treatment to possible disease-modifying solutions. In this paper, the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis is first reviewed, including an examination of the mechanisms underlying osteoarthritis and discussions of the roles of cartilage, synovial fluid and subchondral bone. The remainder of the paper discusses therapeutic approaches in current use and those in development, with special attention given to pharmacological treatments. Current approaches to treating osteoarthritis--i.e. medications; nonpharmacological modalities, such as physical therapy, exercise, weight management and orthotics; and (as a last resort) surgery--focus on reducing pain and improving (or at least maintaining) mobility. Drugs currently used to treat osteoarthritis fall into several categories: analgesics, NSAIDs, cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, corticosteroids, viscosupplementation, and symptomatic slow-acting drugs ('nutraceuticals'). The analgesics (paracetamol [acetaminophen] and opiates) have demonstrated less symptomatic efficacy than NSAIDs, while the latter have displayed mixed results in terms of joint space narrowing. COX-2 inhibitors have been demonstrated to be equal to or superior to NSAIDs in effectiveness. However, once considered a safer alternative, COX-2 inhibitors have become the subject of intense scrutiny since recent clinical evidence has cast suspicion on their cardiovascular safety profile. Injectable therapies, such as corticosteroids and viscosupplementation have elicited favorable short-term response but no long-term structural modification. On the other hand, the slow-acting drugs, especially chondroitin and glucosamine sulfate, have shown promising results. Also reviewed are other established and experimental therapies that seek to modify and/or even reverse the course of osteoarthritis. These include such medications as colchicine, bisphosphonates and hormones; dietary therapeutics, such as ginger extract and green tea; and such truly experimental treatments as matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors, cytokines, nitric oxide, growth factors and gene therapy. Osteoarthritis continues to be a difficult disorder to treat, as there is no cure as such and current treatments focus mainly on relieving pain and maintaining joint function. The search nevertheless continues for management regimens that can slow, alter or reverse the degenerative processes of osteoarthritis.     

Celecoxib: a review of its use in the management of arthritis and acute pain

Celecoxib (Celebrex), the first cyclo-oxygenase (COX) 2-selective inhibitor (coxib) to be introduced into clinical practice, has been available for almost a decade. It is approved in one or more countries worldwide for the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (in patients aged > or =2 years) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), the management of acute pain in adults, the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea and the reduction in the number of adenomatous colorectal polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis.Celecoxib remains an effective and useful altenative to nonselective NSAIDs in the treatment of acute or chronic musculoskeletal pain. In the latter setting, it offers the prospect of improved gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability and, in patients not taking aspirin for cardioprophylaxis, a GI safety advantage. Currently available evidence of an increase in cardiovascular (CV) risk with celecoxib is inconsistent; any increase in risk is likely to be small and similar to that with nonselective NSAIDs. As with all NSAIDs, the potential GI, CV and renal risks of celecoxib must be weighed against the potential benefits in each individual; it is a rational choice for patients at low CV risk who require NSAID therapy, especially those at increased risk of NSAID-induced GI toxicity, but also those unresponsive to, or intolerant of, other NSAIDs. If selected, celecoxib, like all NSAIDs, should be used at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible duration.     

Coming to terms with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy

Despite well known complications, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain the most commonly prescribed medications in the US for musculoskeletal disorders such as osteoarthritis. Although there has been a recent focus on the cardiovascular and renal complications associated with these agents, NSAID gastropathy continues to be a particular concern in many patients, especially those at increased risk for serious adverse events, including the elderly. Complicating the diagnosis of NSAID gastropathy is its silent course, which, up to half of the time, is asymptomatic. Several strategies are currently employed by physicians to mitigate the risk of serious gastrointestinal events. These include either addition of a proton pump inhibitor to current nonselective NSAID therapy or the use of a cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective NSAID. Although these agents are effective at mitigating the overall risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, they fail to address NSAID-related cardiovascular and renal risks. Due to their reduced systemic absorption, topical NSAIDs may present a viable option for patients at increased risk for serious NSAID-related adverse events, including gastropathy.     

Celecoxib: a review of its use in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain

Celecoxib is a cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitor that exhibits relative in vitro and ex vivo selectivity for COX-2 over COX-1. Results of randomised double-blind multicentre studies indicate that celecoxib is superior to placebo and has similar efficacy as conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in improving the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Analgesic efficacy and improvements in functional status are apparent within 2 weeks of starting therapy and are maintained throughout treatment. Available data suggest that celecoxib has analgesic efficacy in patients with postsurgical dental pain, although this is yet to be confirmed. In patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, celecoxib 100 and 200 mg and naproxen 500 mg twice daily were similarly efficacious and superior to placebo. Once and twice daily celecoxib dosage regimens provided comparable efficacy. Improvements in physical function paralleled those in pain relief. Celecoxib also has efficacy in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis of the hip. The effects of celecoxib were not diminished in elderly patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. All dosages of celecoxib (100 to 400 mg twice daily) and naproxen 500 mg twice daily produced significant anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis, celecoxib 200 mg twice daily showed sustained symptomatic improvements similar to those of twice daily slow-release diclofenac 75 mg over a 24-week period. Celecoxib was well tolerated in clinical trials. Upper gastrointestinal complications occurred in significantly fewer patients treated with twice daily celecoxib 25 to 400 mg than in those receiving comparator NSAIDs. There was no evidence of a dose relationship in endoscopic ulcer development and incidences in celecoxib and placebo recipients were lower than in those receiving twice daily naproxen 500 mg or ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times daily. Conclusions: Celecoxib is the first COX-2 specific inhibitor approved for use in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib produces significant improvements in pain and inflammation and these effects are maintained during treatment for up 24 weeks in clinical trials. Studies indicate that celecoxib has similar efficacy to conventional NSAIDs in relieving pain and improving functional status, but is associated with a lower incidence of upper gastrointestinal ulceration and complications. This promising gastrointestinal safety profile, together with sustained symptomatic relief, places celecoxib as a useful alternative for the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, particularly in patients at high risk of developing gastrointestinal events. Although data are encouraging, its place in acute pain states remains to be established.     

Ketoprofen 2.5% gel: a clinical overview

Ketoprofen (KP), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), possesses analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory properties. Oral KP is widely used in musculoskeletal pain and inflammation in muscles and joints, including arthritis pain, osteoarthritis, stiffness of the joints, soft tissue rheumatism, and sports injuries. In common with all NSAIDs, oral KP has been associated with systemic adverse events and in particular gastrointestinal disorders. Topical application of the active ingredient is locally effective and at the same time minimises the risk of systemic adverse events. Pharmacokinetic studies show that serum levels of the active ingredient following topical KP 2.5% gel are less than 1% of those reported after oral dosing, thereby providing good levels of pain relief without the systemic adverse events normally associated with oral NSAIDs. In comparative studies, topical KP 2.5% gel twice daily showed clinical benefits in patients with a range of musculoskeletal conditions. KP 2.5% gel is generally well tolerated but the treated skin area should not be exposed to direct sunlight, including solarium (sunbeds), during the treatment and for 2 weeks afterwards as topical photosensitization has been reported. To our knowledge, this is the first overview on the use of topical KP (tKP) 2.5% gel which includes data from both clinical trials and from 'real-life' clinical practice.     

Diclofenac/misoprostol. Pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy.

The combined formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol provides effective relief of pain and inflammation, with a 2- to 3-fold lower incidence of NSAID-associated gastroduodenal ulcers than diclofenac monotherapy. Both components of the combined formulation have been widely used and have well documented efficacy and tolerability profiles. Compared with other agents used as prophylaxis for NSAID-induced gastropathies, misoprostol is generally considered to have the most extensive outcomes data establishing its efficacy in preventing both gastric and duodenal ulcers associated with long term NSAID use. Economic analyses conducted to date have shown that diclofenac/misoprostol is associated with similar or lower total direct medical treatment costs compared with other NSAIDs (with or without coprescribed misoprostol or an alternate prophylactic agent). As with pharmacoeconomic studies of coprescribed misoprostol with NSAIDs, the most favourable results with the combined formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol appear to be in patients at high risk of developing NSAID-associated gastroduodenal ulcers (e.g. the elderly). Although economic analyses with diclofenac/misoprostol were conducted in several different countries using a variety of methodologies and employing a wide range of clinical and economic assumptions, results have been generally favourable for the combined formulation. However, as is the case with pharmacoeconomic analyses in general, results of individual studies with diclofenac/misoprostol may not be generalisable between countries and are subject to change over time. Overall, clinical and economic data suggest that the optimal and most cost-effective use of the combined formulation of diclofenac/misoprostol is in patients requiring long term NSAID therapy who are at increased risk of developing NSAID-induced gastropathy, such as elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis.     

Proquazone. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in rheumatic diseases and pain states

Proquazone is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent (NSAID) which, unlike most other NSAIDs, does not have a free acid group in its structure. It is advocated for use in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, osteoarthritis, musculoskeletal disorders, acute inflammatory conditions and acute pain states such as dysmenorrhoea, postoperative pain and headache. Published data in small groups of patients indicate that proquazone 300 to 900 mg/day in 3 divided doses is a possible alternative to aspirin, ibuprofen, indomethacin, and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis, and to indomethacin and ibuprofen in ankylosing spondylitis. Similarly, proquazone 300 to 900 mg/day is as effective as aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin and naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis. Preliminary studies have confirmed the efficacy of proquazone in acute inflammatory disorders, and shown that it provides useful analgesic relief in acute pain states such as dysmenorrhoea, headache and after minor surgery. Evidence from small groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated for a year or more suggests that proquazone may inhibit or arrest progression of bone erosions. However, these encouraging findings clearly need confirmation in a larger number of patients studied under well-controlled conditions. The overall impression from clinical trials to date is that proquazone at dosages of greater than or equal to 900 mg/day produces a high incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea (in approximately 30% of patients). However, these effects were usually of mild to moderate severity and transient in nature and in most comparative studies the overall tolerability of proquazone was assessed as being comparable to that of other NSAIDs tested. Similarly, withdrawal from therapy due to side effects was no greater with proquazone than with other NSAIDs evaluated. Initial experience with lower dosages of proquazone (300 to 450 mg/day) suggest that efficacy is maintained and tolerability markedly improved. Thus, at present, proquazone would seem to be as effective as other NSAIDs used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. However, further studies are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of this agent, especially at the lower daily dosages currently recommended, and to clarify whether it does have significant 'disease modifying' potential.     

COX-2 selective inhibitors in the treatment of arthritis: a rheumatologist perspective

COX-2 selective inhibitors were developed in order to provide similar efficacy to traditional nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) but with improved upper gastrointestinal safety. This paper presents an overview of randomized clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of COX-2 selective inhibitors for the treatment of patients with arthritis, particularly osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. In osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, COX-2 selective inhibitors have been shown to be more effective than placebo and similarly effective as standard doses of nonselective NSAIDs. There are currently few randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy of the 2 first-generation COX-2 selective inhibitors, celecoxib and rofecoxib, in osteoarthritis. Of 4 head-to-head studies comparing the 2 agents, 3 indicated similar efficacy, while the other demonstrated superiority of rofecoxib at a dose of 25 mg qd compared with celecoxib at a dose of 200 mg qd. There are no clinical trials comparing the efficacy of different agents for treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Some studies have also demonstrated efficacy for COX-2 selective inhibitors in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and gout. In aggregate, these data show that COX-2 selective inhibitors provide effective relief of pain in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, with efficacy that is similar to traditional NSAIDs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies suggest, however, that their use should be limited to patients at high risk of serious upper gastrointestinal side effects, including complicated ulcers.     

Time to significant pain reduction following DETP application vs placebo for acute soft tissue injuries

Abstract

Objective:

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provide fast and effective acute pain relief, but systemic administration has increased risk for some adverse reactions. The diclofenac epolamine 1.3% topical patch (DETP) is a topical NSAID with demonstrated safety and efficacy in treatment of acute pain from minor soft tissue injuries. Significant pain reduction has been observed in clinical trials within several hours following DETP application, suggesting rapid pain relief; however, this has not been extensively studied for topical NSAIDs in general. This retrospective post-hoc analysis examined time to onset of significant pain reduction after DETP application compared to a placebo patch for patients with mild-to-moderate acute ankle sprain, evaluating the primary efficacy endpoint from two nearly identical studies.     

The role of opioid analgesics in rheumatoid disease in the elderly population

Adequate pain therapy is an important aspect in the treatment of the elderly patient with rheumatoid disease. Problems with traditional NSAIDs include potentially serious gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and renal adverse effects, especially in the elderly. In addition, the selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors have been associated with renal and cardiovascular adverse effects which may limit their use in the elderly with renal or cardiovascular disease. Opioids provide a treatment option for the management of pain in elderly patients with rheumatoid disease in whom pain control under standard management is poor; however, various therapeutic difficulties are encountered in the heterogeneous elderly population (increased risk of adverse effects, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy). Lower initial opioid dosage, prolonged dosage intervals and slower dosage titrations are advisable because of altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Kidney function should be tightly monitored and a timely use of laxatives is to be encouraged. Randomised clinical studies of opioids in musculoskeletal pain (e.g. osteoarthritis) have increasingly extended the scientific basis for their use. However, no randomised controlled clinical trials have examined the efficacy and the benefit/risk ratio of opioids in rheumatoid arthritis. Opioids also demonstrate an analgesic effect following local peripheral application. This opens the way to new therapeutic options in the future through the development of systemic peripherally selective opioids without CNS adverse effects.     

Emerging guidelines for use of NSAID therapy to optimize cataract surgery patient care

This analysis provides guidelines for the proper use of topical ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), discusses their effect on inflammation, and their role in the prevention of cystoid macular edema (CME). A novel treatment strategy is presented for recommended topical ophthalmic NSAID dosing in patient populations based on risk factors for CME. The article reviews current topical ophthalmic NSAIDs, as well as a newest generation of pro-drug NSAIDs. In addition, combination therapy of NSAIDs and corticosteroids are discussed, along with a general review of therapeutic guidelines for dosing regimens, and benefits and risks of therapy. The goal of this analysis is to provide a suggested therapeutic regimen with topical NSAIDs to assist in achieving optimal clinical and functional outcomes.     

Patient satisfaction with arthritis medication

Patient derived information to support the long term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is lacking. In contrast, data detailing the adverse effects of individual NSAIDs is accumulating. We determined the importance of NSAIDs as therapy to 153 patients with osteoarthritis (age range 36 to 92), comparing results in elderly and younger patients. Around half of the patients reported moderate relief of symptoms, with a further quarter reporting good, or even excellent, relief. One half of patients aged 75 years or less, but only one fifth of patients aged over 75 years, recalled having been informed of the adverse effects of NSAIDs. A total of 59 per cent of patients reported having used simple analgesics, such as paracetamol, as first line therapy. As some patients are helped by them, we suggest that efforts should be directed towards increasing the first line use of simple analgesics in patients with osteoarthritis and towards increasing patient awareness of potential NSAID-related adverse effects.     

Demographics,assessment and management of pain in the elderly

The prevalence of pain increases with each decade of life. Pain in the elderly is distinctly different from pain experienced by younger individuals. Cancer is a leading cause of pain; however, other conditions that cause pain such as facet joint arthritis (causing low back pain), polymyalgia rheumatica, Paget's disease, neuropathies, peripheral vascular disease and coronary disease most commonly occur in patients over the age of 50 years. Poorly controlled pain in the elderly leads to cognitive failure, depression and mood disturbance and reduces activities of daily living. Barriers to pain management include a sense of fatalism, denial, the desire to be 'the good patient', geographical barriers and financial limitations. Aging causes physiological changes that alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of analgesics, narrowing their therapeutic index and increasing the risk of toxicity and drug-drug interactions. CNS changes lead to an increased risk of delirium. Assessment among the verbal but cognitively impaired elderly is satisfactorily accomplished with the help of unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales. A comprehensive physical examination and pain history is essential, as well as a review of cognitive function and activities of daily living. The goal of pain management among the elderly is improvement in pain and optimisation of activities of daily living, not complete eradication of pain nor the lowest possible drug dosages. Most successful management strategies combine pharmacological and nonpharmacological (home remedies, massage, topical agents, heat and cold packs and informal cognitive strategies) therapies. A basic principle of the pharmacological approach in the elderly is to start analgesics at low dosages and titrate slowly. The WHO's three-step guideline to pain management should guide prescribing. Opioid choices necessitate an understanding of pharmacology to ensure safe administration in end-organ failure and avoidance of drug interactions. Adjuvant analgesics are used to reduce opioid adverse effects or improve poorly controlled pain. Adjuvant analgesics (NSAIDs, tricyclic antidepressants and antiepileptic drugs) are initiated prior to opioids for nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Preferred adjuvants for nociceptive pain are short-acting paracetamol (acetaminophen), NSAIDs, cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and corticosteroids (short-term). Preferred drugs for neuropathic pain include desipramine, nortriptyline, gabapentin and valproic acid. Drugs to avoid are pentazocine, pethidine (meperidine), dextropropoxyphene and opioids that are both an agonist and antagonist, ketorolac, indomethacin, piroxicam, mefenamic acid, amitriptyline and doxepin. The type of pain, and renal and hepatic function, alter the preferred adjuvant and opioid choices. Selection of the appropriate analgesics is also influenced by versatility, polypharmacy, severity and type of pain, drug availability, associated symptoms and cost.