+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A 12-week randomized study of topical therapy with three dosages of ketoprofen in Transfersome® gel (IDEA-033) compared with the ketoprofen-free vehicle (TDT 064), in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , On behalf of the European IDEA-033 study group

      Journal of Pain Research

      Dove Medical Press

      Sequessome™, pain, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, drug-free, medical device

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ketoprofen in Transfersome® gel (IDEA-033) in comparison with a ketoprofen-free vehicle (TDT 064) for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.


          Patients with knee OA (N = 866) were randomly assigned to receive topical IDEA-033 containing 100, 50, or 25 mg ketoprofen, or TDT 064 twice daily for 12 weeks, in a double-blind trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC®) Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale score. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were the WOMAC function subscale score and the patient global assessment of response to therapy. The secondary endpoints included the numeric pain rating for the first 14 days of treatment and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder rates.


          The WOMAC pain scores were reduced by approximately 50% or more in all four groups. The 100 and 50 mg ketoprofen groups, but not the 25 mg group, showed a superior reduction in the WOMAC pain score versus the TDT 064 group (100 mg: −57.4% [ P = 0.0383]; 50 mg: −57.1% [ P = 0.0204]; and 25 mg: −53.4% [ P = 0.3616] versus TDT 064: −49.5%). The superiority of the ketoprofen-containing formulations was not demonstrated for the WOMAC function subscale score, whereas the patient global assessment of 50 mg ketoprofen group, but not the 100 or 25 mg group, was superior to that of the TDT 064 group ( P = 0.0283). Responder rates were significantly higher for all the IDEA-033 groups versus the TDT 064 group, but were high in all groups (100 mg: 88.6%; 50 mg: 86.8%; 25 mg: 88.6%; and TDT 064: 77.5%). Dermal reactions were the only relevant drug-related adverse events in all four groups.


          The 50 and 100 mg ketoprofen doses of IDEA-033 were only marginally superior to TDT 064 for reducing pain associated with knee OA. The study indicates a high treatment response to the topical ketoprofen-free vehicle TDT 064.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence.

          As a prelude to developing updated, evidence-based, international consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Treatment Guidelines Committee undertook a critical appraisal of published guidelines and a systematic review (SR) of more recent evidence for relevant therapies. Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care two, rheumatology 11, orthopaedics one and evidence-based medicine two), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. Three additional experts were invited to take part in the critical appraisal of existing guidelines in languages other than English. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library, seven Guidelines Websites and Google were searched systematically to identify guidelines for the management of hip and/or knee OA. Guidelines which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assigned to four groups of four appraisers. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument and standardised percent scores (0-100%) for scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour, clarity, applicability and editorial independence, as well as overall quality, were calculated. Treatment modalities addressed and recommended by the guidelines were summarised. Agreement (%) was estimated and the best level of evidence to support each recommendation was extracted. Evidence for each treatment modality was updated from the date of the last SR in January 2002 to January 2006. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Oxman and Guyatt, and Jadad scales for SRs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk (RR) or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) were estimated. Twenty-three of 1462 guidelines or consensus statements retrieved from the literature search met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six were predominantly based on expert opinion, five were primarily evidence based and 12 were based on both. Overall quality scores were 28%, 41% and 51% for opinion-based, evidence-based and hybrid guidelines, respectively (P=0.001). Scores for aspects of quality varied from 18% for applicability to 67% for scope. Thirteen guidelines had been developed for specific care settings including five for primary care (e.g., Prodigy Guidance), three for rheumatology (e.g., European League against Rheumatism recommendations), three for physiotherapy (e.g., Dutch clinical practice guidelines for physical therapy) and two for orthopaedics (e.g., National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines), whereas 10 did not specify the target users (e.g., Ontario guidelines for optimal therapy). Whilst 14 guidelines did not separate hip and knee, eight were specific for knee but only one for hip. Fifty-one different treatment modalities were addressed by these guidelines, but only 20 were universally recommended. Evidence to support these modalities ranged from Ia (meta-analysis/SR of RCTs) to IV (expert opinion). The efficacy of some modalities of therapy was confirmed by the results of RCTs published between January 2002 and 2006. These included exercise (strengthening ES 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23, 0.42, aerobic ES 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.70 and water-based ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.02, 0.47) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24, 0.39). Examples of other treatment modalities where recent trials failed to confirm efficacy included ultrasound (ES 0.06, 95% CI -0.39, 0.52), massage (ES 0.10, 95% CI -0.23, 0.43) and heat/ice therapy (ES 0.69, 95% CI -0.07, 1.45). The updated evidence on adverse effects also varied from treatment to treatment. For example, while the evidence for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs (RR=5.36, 95% CI 1.79, 16.10) and for increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib (RR=2.24, 95% CI 1.24, 4.02) were reinforced, evidence for other potential drug related adverse events such as GI toxicity with acetaminophen or myocardial infarction with celecoxib remained inconclusive. Twenty-three guidelines have been developed for the treatment of hip and/or knee OA, based on opinion alone, research evidence or both. Twenty of 51 modalities of therapy are universally recommended by these guidelines. Although this suggests that a core set of recommendations for treatment exists, critical appraisal shows that the overall quality of existing guidelines is sub-optimal, and consensus recommendations are not always supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines of optimal quality are most likely to be achieved by combining research evidence with expert consensus and by paying due attention to issues such as editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and applicability. This review of existing guidelines provides support for the development of new guidelines cognisant of the limitations in existing guidelines. Recommendations should be revised regularly following SR of new research evidence as this becomes available.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framingham Study.

            The purpose of this study was to identify associations between specific medical conditions in the elderly and limitations in functional tasks; to compare risks of disability across medical conditions, controlling for age, sex, and comorbidity; and to determine the proportion of disability attributable to each condition. The subjects were 709 noninstitutionalized men and 1060 women of the Framingham Study cohort (mean age 73.7 +/- 6.3 years). Ten medical conditions were identified for study: knee osteoarthritis, hip fracture, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, intermittent claudication, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depressive symptomatology, and cognitive impairment. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated for dependence on human assistance in seven functional activities. Stroke was significantly associated with functional limitations in all seven tasks; depressive symptomatology and hip fracture were associated with limitations in five tasks; and knee osteoarthritis, heart disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were associated with limitations in four tasks each. In general, stroke, depressive symptomatology, hip fracture, knee osteoarthritis, and heart disease account for more physical disability in noninstitutionalized elderly men and women than other diseases.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A turbulent decade for NSAIDs: update on current concepts of classification, epidemiology, comparative efficacy, and toxicity

              Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) represent a diverse class of drugs and are among the most commonly used analgesics for arthritic pain worldwide, though long-term use is associated with a spectrum of adverse effects. The introduction of cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs early in the last decade offered an alternative to traditional NSAIDs with similar efficacy and improved gastrointestinal tolerability; however, emerging concerns about cardiovascular safety resulted in the withdrawal of two agents (rofecoxib and valdecoxib) in the mid-2000s and, subsequently, in an overall reduction in NSAID use. It is now understood that all NSAIDs are associated with some varying degree of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk. Guidelines still recommend their use, but little is known of how patients use these agents. While strategies and guidelines aimed at reducing NSAID-associated complications exist, there is a need for evidence-based algorithms combining cardiovascular and gastrointestinal factors that can be used to aid treatment decisions at an individual patient level.

                Author and article information

                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                25 October 2013
                : 6
                : 743-753
                [1 ]Orthopaedic Outpatient Centre, Stockach, Germany
                [2 ]IMR Partner GmbH, Graefelfing, Germany
                [3 ]Cardiorentis Ltd, Zug, Switzerland
                [4 ]Sophien- und Hufeland-Clinic, Weimar, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Werner Kneer, Facharzt Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Kinderorthopädie, Chirotherapie/Sportmedizin, Osteologe DVO, Tuttlinger Straße 1, D-78333 Stockach, Germany, Tel +49 7771 5545, Fax +49 7771 6836, Email wernerkneer@ 123456googlemail.com
                © 2013 Kneer et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Ltd, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Ltd, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Original Research


                Comment on this article

                Similar content 334

                Cited by 5

                Most referenced authors 611