Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- meta-analysis (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2) (remove)
OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an oral enzyme combination (OEC) containing proteolytic enzymes and bioflavonoid vs diclofenac (DIC), a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an individual patient-level pooled reanalysis of patient-reported data from prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies in adult patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the knee treated for at least 3 weeks with OEC or DIC. Appropriate trials were identified with a systemic literature and database search. Data were extracted from the original case-report forms and reanalyzed by a blinded evaluation committee. The primary end point was the improvement of the Lequesne algofunctional index (LAFI) score at study end vs baseline. Secondary end points addressed LAFI response rates, treatment-related pain-intensity changes, adverse events, and laboratory parameters.
RESULTS: Six trials were identified that enrolled in total 774 patients, of whom 759 had post-baseline data for safety analysis, 697 (n=348/349 with OEC/DIC) for intent to treat, 524 for per protocol efficacy analysis, and 500 for laboratory evaluation. LAFI scores - the primary efficacy end point - decreased comparably with both treatments and improved with both treatments significantly vs baseline (OEC 12.6±2.4 to 9.1±3.9, DIC 12.7±2.4 to 9.1±4.2, effect size 0.9/0.88; P<0.001 for each). In parallel, movement-related 11-point numeric rating-scale pain intensity improved significantly (P<0.001) and comparably with both treatments from baseline (6.4±1.9/6.6±1.8) to study end (3.8±2.7/3.9±2.5). Overall, 55/81 OEC/DIC patients of the safety-analysis population (14.7%/21.1%, P=0.022) reported 90/133 treatment-emergent adverse events, followed by premature treatment discontinuations in 22/39 patients (5.9%/10.2%, P=0.030). Changes in laboratory parameters were significantly less with OEC vs DIC: on average 18.8% vs 86.3% of patients presented a decrease with respect to hemoglobin, hematocrit, or erythrocyte count (P<0.001), and 28.2% vs 72.6% showed an increase in AST, ALT, or GGT (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: When compared with DIC, OEC showed comparable efficacy and a superior tolerability/safety profile associated with a significantly lower risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, related study discontinuations, and changes in laboratory parameters.
Cannabinoid drugs are registered for postoperative nausea and emesis, Tourette syndrome and tumor-related anorexia, but are also used for spasticity and pain relief, among other conditions. Clinical studies for spasmolysis have been equivocal and even conclusions from meta-analyses were not consistent. This may be due to uncertainty in diagnostic criteria as well as a lack of direct spasmolytic activity (direct causality). In this review we used the Hill criteria to investigate whether a temporal association is causal or spurious. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify all clinical trials of cannabinoids for spasticity. Studies were evaluated for dose dependency and time association; all studies together were analyzed for reproducibility, coherence, analogy and mechanistic consistency. A Funnel plot was done for all studies to identify selection or publication bias. Results: Twenty-seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The spasmolytic activity (effect strength) was weak, with a nonsignificant small effect in most studies and a large effect only in a few studies (“enriched” studies, low patient numbers). No dose dependency was seen and plotting effect size vs. daily dose resulted in a slope of 0.004. Most studies titrated the cannabinoid to the optimum dose, e.g., 20 mg/d THC. The effect decreased with longer treatment duration (3–4 months). The spasmolytic effect is consistent for different European countries but not always within a country, nor is the effect specific for an etiology (multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, others). For other criteria like plausibility, coherence or analogous effects, no data exist to support or refute them. In most studies, adverse effects were frequently reported indicating a therapeutic effect only at high doses with relevant side effects. Conclusions: Current data do not support a specific spasmolytic effect; a general decrease in CNS activity analogous to benzodiazepines appears more likely. Whether individual patients or specific subgroups benefit from cannabinoids is unclear. Further studies should compare cannabinoids with other, nonspecific spasmolytic drugs like benzodiazepines.