Intradermal mesotherapy versus intravenous dexketoprofen for the treatment of migraine headache without aura: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a prevalent disabling primary headache disorder that is classified into two major types: migraine without aura and migraine with aura. New therapeutic methods to reduce migraine headaches in the emergency department (ED) include intradermal mesotherapy. OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy of intradermal mesotherapy versus a systemic therapy in pain control in patients with headache related to migraine without aura. DESIGN: Prospective parallel-group randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University hospital in Turkey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 18 years of age and older who were admitted to the ED over a 15-month period with headache related to migraine without aura were eligible for inclusion if they had a VAS score of 4 or above. Patients were randomly allocated to one session of mesotherapy or intravenous dexketoprofen. Changes in pain intensity were measured by the score on a visual analog scale (VAS) at 30, 60, and 120 minutes and 24 hours after treatment. Efficacy was also assessed by the need for use of an analgesic drug within 24 hours, by readmission with the same complaint to the ED within 72 hours, and by adverse effect rates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pain intensity on the VAS scale. SAMPLE SIZE: 148 patients (154 enrolled and treated; 1 patient in the mesotherapy and 5 patients in the systemic therapy group lost to follow up). RESULTS: Pain intensity on the VAS scale decreased from a median score of 8 to 4 in the mesotherapy group and from 8 to 5 in the systemic therapy group. These differences were statistically significant from baseline for all time intervals (P=.001 to 30 minutes, P=.004 to 60 minutes, P=.005 to 120 minutes, and P=.002 to 24 hours). The need to use analgesics and the rate of readmission to the ED were higher in the systemic therapy group (P=.013 and P=.030, respectively). Adverse effect rates were minimal and similar in the study groups during the one-week follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Mesotherapy is more efficacious than intravenous dexketoprofen in the management of acute attack of migraine without aura in the ED. LIMITATIONS: Unblinded. Valid for assessing short-term pain relief, but not sufficient to predict long-term efficacy. Not generalizable because single center and small sample size. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04519346).

Comparison of topical capsaicin and topical piroxicam in the treatment of acute trauma-induced pain: A randomized double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of topical capsaicin and topical piroxicam in acute musculoskeletal injuries. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. The data for the 67 patients in the piroxicam group and the 69 in the capsaicin group were examined. The initial visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared with the 60th and 120th minute as well as the 24th and 72nd hour values. Differences between the VAS scores, clinical effectiveness of the treatment and side effects were evaluated. RESULTS: In the capsaicin group, the mean difference in the delta VAS scores was significantly higher at each measurement time. The mean of the percentage of reduction in the VAS scores of the topical capsaicin group was significantly higher than that in the topical piroxicam group. The highest difference in terms of both outcomes was determined at the 72nd hour VAS change. Mean differences were 1.53 (95% CI: 0.85-2.221) and 19.7 (95% CI: 12.4-27.2) respectively (p < 0.001). In the capsaicin group, the clinical effect of the treatment was found significantly higher (p < 0.01). The difference between the clinical effectiveness of the groups regarding the treatment outcomes was also statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the patient groups regarding the presence of side effects. CONCLUSION: Topical capsaicin can be used as an alternative to topical piroxicam initially and at follow-up in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute pain as there were no observable differences in side-effects between the two groups.

Comparison of intradermal mesotherapy with systemic therapy in the treatment of low back pain: A prospective randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Musculoskeletal pain such as low back pain (LBP) are routinely encountered in the ED and contribute to ED overcrowding. The aim of our study was to compare the efficiency of mesotherapy with systemic therapy in pain control in patients with lumbar disk herniation. METHODS: We conducted this prospective parallel randomized controlled trial with the patients admitted to the emergency department with low back pain related to herniated lumbar disk. Mesotherapy was performed to one group, while intravenous dexketoprofen was administered to the control group. Changes in pain intensity at 15th minute, 30th minute, 60th minute and 24th hours after treatment using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), need to use analgesic drug within 24 h after treatment, and adverse effect of the treatment methods were compared between groups. RESULTS: The decreases in pain intensity were statistically significantly higher in mesotherapy group for all time intervals. The need to use analgesics was statistically significantly three fold higher in the systemic therapy group. There was no statistically significant difference in having any adverse effect between study groups during one-week follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in medical practices, from the systemic administration of NSAIDs to the minimally invasive techniques such as mesotherapy with potent efficacy and minimal side effects, may enhance the ability of EDs to meet the waiting time targets and improve patient's satisfaction.

Comparison of intravenous NSAIDs and trigger point injection for low back pain in ED: A prospective randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is a common complaint originating from muscles Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is mainly associated with trigger points (TrP) in the muscle tissue. We compared the intravenously administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and trigger point injection (TPI) in the treatment of LBP patients admitted to the emergency department due to pain caused by TrPs. MATERIAL AND METHOD: After randomization, NSAID was administered intravenously in group 1 and TPIs were performed as specified by Travell and Simons in group 2. The TrPs were identified with the anamnesis and physical examination Demographic characteristics and vital signs of the patients were recorded. Pain scores were measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at admission; and in minutes 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60. RESULTS: There were 32 patients in group 1 and 22 patients in group 2. The demographics, vital signs, and pain scores at admission were not statistically significantly different between the groups. The pain scores decreased significantly in the TPI group. During the 60 min' follow-up period, the mean VAS pain score decreased by 0.41 ±â€¯1.30 in the TPI group and by 2.59 ±â€¯2.37 in the NSAID group (p < 0.001). Respond the treatment was significantly higher group TPI than Group NSAID (21/22 vs 20/32 respectively, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In this small randomized study with several methodological limitations, TPI was superior to the intravenous NSAIDs in the treatment of acute LBP due to TrPs. TPI can be used in the emergency departments for the acute treatment of LBP in selected patients.