Topical capsaicin versus topical ibuprofen in acute musculoskeletal injuries: A randomized, double-blind trial

Background: Acute musculoskeletal pain is one of the common causes of emergency admissions. Topical analgesics are an easily tolerated option in the treatment of these pains. Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of topical capsaicin and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Hong Kong journal of emergency medicine 2023-07, Vol.30 (4), p.210-216
Hauptverfasser: Akgol Gur, Sultan Tuna, Dogruyol, Sinem, Kocak, Abdullah Osman, Sanalp Menekse, Tugba, Akbas, Ilker, Betos Kocak, Meryem, Cakir, Zeynep
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Acute musculoskeletal pain is one of the common causes of emergency admissions. Topical analgesics are an easily tolerated option in the treatment of these pains. Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of topical capsaicin and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute musculoskeletal injuries. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study, patients were allocated to two groups—the topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (n = 60) and topical capsaicin (n = 59). For both groups, the first dose treatment was applied as a thin layer in the emergency department to a maximum area of 5 × 5 cm. The remaining doses were administered at home by the patients for 72 h. The initial visual analog scale scores were compared with the 60th and 120th minute as well as the 24th and 72nd hour values. Differences between the visual analog scale scores, clinical response to the treatment, and side effects were evaluated. Results: The proportional reduction in visual analog scale scores for topical capsaicin was significantly higher, especially at 36 and 72 h. These rates were 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.77–1.42; p = 0.029) and 9.08 (95% confidence interval: 1.02–17.14; p = 0.028) at 36 h, respectively. At 72 h, they were 1.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.48–2.05; p = 0.002) and 17.07 (95% confidence interval: 8.39–25.76; p 
ISSN:1024-9079
2309-5407
DOI:10.1177/1024907920975368