Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for trigger finger.

Mabel Qi He Leow, Qishi Zheng, Luming Shi, Shian Chao Tay, Edwin Sy Chan
{"title":"Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for trigger finger.","authors":"Mabel Qi He Leow, Qishi Zheng, Luming Shi, Shian Chao Tay, Edwin Sy Chan","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD012789.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD012789"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8094914/pdf/CD012789.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012789.pub2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.

Objectives: To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.

Selection criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.

Data collection and analysis: Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Main results: Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.

非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)用于扳机指。
背景:扳机指是一种常见的手部疾病,当手指屈肌腱通过第一环状滑轮(A1)的运动因退变、炎症和肿胀而受损时发生。这会导致疼痛和受影响的手指活动受限。非手术治疗选择包括活性改变,口服和局部非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs),夹板和局部注射抗炎药。目的:回顾非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)与安慰剂、糖皮质激素或不同非甾体抗炎药在相同途径下治疗扳机指的利弊。检索方法:截至2020年9月30日,我们检索了CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、CNKI(中国国家知识基础设施)、ProQuest博士论文和论文、www.ClinicalTrials.gov和WHO试验门户网站。我们没有使用语言或出版状态的限制。选择标准:我们检索了随机对照试验(rct)和准随机试验,这些随机对照试验比较了局部、口服或注射非甾体抗炎药与安慰剂、糖皮质激素或相同途径给药的不同非甾体抗炎药。数据收集和分析:两个或两个以上的综述作者独立筛选报告,提取数据,评估偏倚风险和证据的GRADE确定性。七个主要结局是触发指症状的缓解、持续的中度或重度症状、症状的复发、手指活动的总范围、残余疼痛、患者满意度和不良事件。以95%可信区间(ci)的风险比(rr)和平均差异(MDs)报告治疗效果。主要结果:纳入在门诊医院进行的两项随机对照试验(231名成人参与者,平均年龄58.6岁,60%为女性,95%至100%为中度至重度疾病)。两项研究都比较了单次注射低于正常剂量的非选择性非甾体抗炎药(双氯芬酸12.5 mg或酮洛酸15.0 mg)和单次注射糖皮质激素(曲安奈德酮20 mg或5 mg),最长随访时间为12周或24周。在这两项研究中,我们都发现了人员流失和绩效偏差的风险。一项研究也存在选择偏差的风险。治疗效果对缺失结果的假设很敏感。一项研究报告了所有7项结果,另一项研究报告了5项结果。根据两项试验的低至极低确定性证据,注射非甾体抗炎药可能比注射糖皮质激素几乎没有益处。证据因偏见和不精确而被降级。在12至24周症状缓解方面,两组之间可能几乎没有差异(非甾体抗炎药组34%,糖皮质激素组41%;绝对效果低7%,95%置信区间(CI)低16%至高5%;2项研究,231名参与者;RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 ~ 1.11;确定性的证据)。与糖皮质激素组(14%)相比,非甾体抗炎药组(28%)在12至24周持续出现中度至重度症状的比率可能更高(绝对效果高14%,95% CI高2%至33%;2项研究,231名受试者;RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19至3.46;低确定性证据)。我们不确定非甾体抗炎药在12 - 24周的复发率是否比糖皮质激素(21%)更低(1%)(绝对效果低20%,95% CI低21% - 13%;2项研究,231名受试者;RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 - 0.38;非常低确定性证据)。在24周时,两组之间的平均总活跃活动量可能几乎没有差异(非甾体抗炎药组235度,糖皮质激素组240度)(绝对效应降低5%,95% CI 34.54%低至24.54%高;1项研究,99名参与者;MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54至24.54;低确定性证据)。12至24周时,两组间的残余疼痛可能几乎没有差异(20%使用非甾体抗炎药,24%使用糖皮质激素)(绝对效果降低4%,95% CI降低11%至7%;2项研究,231名受试者;RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54至1.31;低确定性证据)。受试者报告的24周治疗成功率在两组之间可能几乎没有差异(64%使用非甾体抗炎药,68%使用糖皮质激素)(绝对效果低4%,95% CI 18%低至15%高;1项研究,121名受试者;RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74至1.23;低确定性证据)。我们不确定注射非甾体抗炎药是否对12至24周的不良事件有影响(非甾体抗炎药组1%,糖皮质激素组1%)(绝对效应0%差异,95% CI低2%至高3%;2项研究,231名受试者;RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19至21.42;非常低确定性证据)。作者的结论是:在24周的随访中,两项试验的结果表明,与糖皮质激素注射相比,注射非甾体抗炎药在治疗扳机指方面几乎没有任何益处。 具体来说,在缓解、症状、复发、总主动运动、残余疼痛、参与者报告的治疗成功或不良事件方面没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信