Suppr超能文献

双氯芬酸凝胶、布洛芬凝胶以及含左旋薄荷醇的布洛芬凝胶用于局部治疗肌肉骨骼损伤相关疼痛的比较。

Comparison of diclofenac gel, ibuprofen gel, and ibuprofen gel with levomenthol for the topical treatment of pain associated with musculoskeletal injuries.

作者信息

Wade Alan G, Crawford Gordon M, Young David, Corson Stephen, Brown Colin

机构信息

CPS Research, West of Scotland Science Park, Glasgow, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

出版信息

J Int Med Res. 2019 Sep;47(9):4454-4468. doi: 10.1177/0300060519859146. Epub 2019 Jul 29.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether 3% w/w levomenthol added to ibuprofen gel (5% w/w) improves its efficacy compared with ibuprofen gel alone or diclofenac gel (1.16%) for the treatment of soft-tissue injuries.

METHODS

A total of 182 patients with acute soft-tissue injuries participated in a randomised, single-blind, single-dose study to assess the efficacy and safety of three topical analgesic gels. Efficacy was assessed as the score change in a numeric rating scale for pain.

RESULTS

The median time to significant pain relief was 20 minutes for the ibuprofen/levomenthol and diclofenac gels but 25 minutes for ibuprofen gel. At 2 hours, significantly more patients treated with ibuprofen/levomenthol gel reported a cooling sensation (45.8%) compared with diclofenac (16.4%) or ibuprofen (14.7%) gels, and both ibuprofen/levomenthol and diclofenac gels provided significantly more effective global pain relief compared with ibuprofen gel. Few adverse events and no serious adverse events related to study medication were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all gels effectively relieved pain, both ibuprofen/levomenthol and diclofenac gels provided superior global pain relief compared with ibuprofen gel, with a shorter median time to significant pain relief. Only ibuprofen/levomenthol gel provided cooling for up to 2 hours. None of the gels were associated with serious safety concerns. EudraCT No 2015-005240-33 EU Clinical Trials Register URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search

摘要

目的

确定在布洛芬凝胶(5% w/w)中添加3% w/w的左薄荷醇与单独使用布洛芬凝胶或双氯芬酸凝胶(1.16%)相比,是否能提高其治疗软组织损伤的疗效。

方法

共有182例急性软组织损伤患者参与了一项随机、单盲、单剂量研究,以评估三种外用镇痛凝胶的疗效和安全性。疗效通过疼痛数字评分量表的分数变化来评估。

结果

布洛芬/左薄荷醇凝胶和双氯芬酸凝胶显著缓解疼痛的中位时间为20分钟,而布洛芬凝胶为25分钟。在2小时时,与双氯芬酸凝胶(16.4%)或布洛芬凝胶(14.7%)相比,使用布洛芬/左薄荷醇凝胶治疗的患者报告有清凉感的比例显著更高(45.8%),并且布洛芬/左薄荷醇凝胶和双氯芬酸凝胶在总体疼痛缓解方面均比布洛芬凝胶更有效。记录到的与研究药物相关的不良事件很少,且无严重不良事件。

结论

尽管所有凝胶均能有效缓解疼痛,但与布洛芬凝胶相比,布洛芬/左薄荷醇凝胶和双氯芬酸凝胶在总体疼痛缓解方面更优,显著缓解疼痛的中位时间更短。只有布洛芬/左薄荷醇凝胶能提供长达2小时的清凉感。所有凝胶均未出现严重的安全问题。欧洲药品临床试验数据库编号:2015 - 005240 - 33 欧盟临床试验注册网址:https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c68b/6753541/dbe016cd680f/10.1177_0300060519859146-fig1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验