A Randomized Controlled Trial of Thai Medicinal Plant-4 Cream versus Diclofenac Gel in the Management of Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Koonrungsesomboon, Nut; Churyen, Achariya; Teekachunhatean, Supanimit; Sangdee, Chaichan; Hanprasertpong, Nutthiya

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8657000

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Ethical Approval Consent Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 8657000 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8657000

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Thai Medicinal Plant-4 Cream versus Diclofenac Gel in the Management of Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Nut Koonrungsesomboon,^1,2,3Achariya Churyen,⁴Supanimit Teekachunhatean,^1,2,5Chaichan Sangdee,¹and Nutthiya Hanprasertpong^1,2

Academic Editor: Antonella Fioravanti

Received06 Mar 2022

Accepted24 May 2022

Published13 Jun 2022

Abstract

Background. Osteoarthritis of the knee is a common degenerative musculoskeletal condition. Thai Medicinal Plant-4 (TMP-4) cream is made up of Garcinia mangostana peel, Sesamum indicum seeds, Glycine max (L.) Merr. seeds, and Centella asiatica leaves, all of which have anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. The present study aimed at determining the efficacy and safety of TMP-4 cream versus diclofenac gel in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Methods. A randomized-controlled trial was conducted to assess knee pain on a scale of 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and other key metrics, including VAS knee stiffness, a modified 10-step stair climb test, a timed up and go test, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and safety outcomes, following administration of either TMP-4 cream or diclofenac gel for 4 weeks. Results. A total of 199 patients with moderate knee pain intensity were randomly assigned to either TMP-4 cream or diclofenac gel (allocation ratio 1 : 1). The mean changes of VAS knee pain in the TMP-4 cream and diclofenac gel groups were −31.68 ± 14.18 mm and −31.09 ± 12.41 mm, respectively, (mean difference = −0.58, 95% confidence interval = −4.37–3.20, ). The upper limit of 95% confidence interval for the comparison between TMP-4 cream and diclofenac gel was within the predefined margin of 7 mm for noninferiority. The safety was comparable between the two interventions. Conclusions. TMP-4 cream was noninferior to diclofenac gel in relieving osteoarthritic knee pain and may be considered as an alternative therapeutic option in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.

1. Introduction

Osteoarthritis of the knee is one of the most common degenerative musculoskeletal disorders, with nearly 650 million people suffering from this condition worldwide [1]. It represents a major public health problem worldwide, with an increasing trend in disease prevalence and burden in proportion to the growing number of elderly people [2]. Osteoarthritis of the knee is characterized by pain and diminished joint mobility and function, which place a significant economic burden on individual patients, health care providers, and society [3]. Nearly half of adults acquire symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee by the age of 85 years, necessitating pharmacological treatment for appropriate pain control [4].

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain the cornerstone of currently recommended pharmacologic therapy for the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee [5]. Several clinical practice guidelines agree on the benefits of topical NSAID therapy for patients with localized symptoms of knee osteoarthritis [6–9]. With repeated administration, topical NSAIDs can penetrate the osteoarthritic knee, accumulate in the tissues of the knee joint, and help to minimize inflammation [10, 11]. Evidence suggests that topical NSAIDs are effective in knee pain relief [12–14] and provide the same degree of pain alleviation and function improvement as oral NSAIDs in individuals with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis of the knee [15–17]. Besides, topical NSAIDs have a better safety profile than oral NSAIDs due to their lower systemic exposure, with far fewer reports of systemic adverse drug reactions [18, 19]. Nowadays, topical NSAIDs are increasingly often preferred over oral NSAIDs for local pain management, especially in the elderly [20–22], and are now considered as first-line pharmacologic therapy for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee [6–9].

In response to the growing health and economic burden of osteoarthritis of the knee, alternative pain-relieving and mobility-improving therapies for osteoarthritic knees are presently receiving a lot of attention. In the current era, complementary and alternative medicine is commonly used for the management of chronic diseases, including osteoarthritis of the knee [23–27], and herbal extract-based formulations are likely to be a viable option for establishing such medicinal remedies in this case [28–30]. The Thai Medicinal Plant-4 (TMP-4) cream is made up of four plants: Garcinia mangostana peel, Sesamum indicum seeds, Glycine max (L.) Merr. seeds, and Centella asiatica leaves and is developed by the Thai Mangosteen Research & Development Center. All of the plant ingredients in TMP-4 cream have been found to have strong antiinflammatory and analgesic properties [31–37], so TMP-4 cream is supposed to offer pain-relieving qualities when given to patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. However, scientific evidence is required to provide a therapeutic claim.

The present study aimed at determining the efficacy and safety of TMP-4 cream and diclofenac gel in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee by means of a randomized controlled trial.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Setting

This prospective, randomized, single-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, noninferiority trial was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, between November 2017 and November 2018. The trial followed the OARSI Clinical Trials recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials for osteoarthritis of the knee [38, 39], as well as the CONSORT 2010 guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials [40] and two other relevant extensions to the CONSORT statement, i.e., the recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions [41] and the recommendations for reporting of noninferiority randomized trials [42]. The clinical trial protocol and supporting documentation were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (No. 190/2017). This study was prospectively registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20171123002) prior to enrollment.

2.2. Study Participants

Patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee, as defined by the American College of Rheumatology [43], with Kellgren and Lawrence radiographic criteria of Grade 2 or higher, were eligible for this study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age greater than 45 years, osteoarthritic knee pain for at least 3 months prior to enrollment, and of moderate pain intensity (as defined by a pain score of 35–75 mm on a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) [44]), and ability to walk and climb stairs. All patients signed a written informed consent form.

Those who had any of the following criteria were excluded: (1) other underlying inflammatory arthropathies (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis and gouty arthritis), (2) signs or symptoms of acute flares in knee osteoarthritis (i.e., marked swelling, redness, warmth, and tenderness around the knee joint), (3) clinically significant knee joint effusion, (4) a schedule of knee surgery to be taken place in the next few months, (5) a recent knee injury, (6) skin disease around the afflicted knee, (7) a malignant tumor, (8) a history of hypersensitivity to NSAIDs or any ingredients in TMP-4 cream or diclofenac gel, or (9) clinically significant abnormalities in any of the following laboratory findings, i.e., hemoglobin <9 g/dL, white blood cells <4,000 cells/mm³, platelets <100,000 cells/mm³, alanine transaminase or aspartate transaminase >2 times the upper limits of normal, estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m², and uric acid >9 mg/dL). The trial also excluded individuals who had received an intraarticular corticosteroid injection within the previous three months or who had used symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSDOA) (e.g., glucosamine sulfate, chondroitin sulfate, diacerein, and hyaluronan) for less than four months or who had stopped using these drugs within the previous six months, as well as those who were pregnant or breastfeeding.

2.3. Study Intervention and Comparator

TMP-4 cream was manufactured by Asian Phytoceuticals Public Company Limited (APCO). It consisted of four herbs: G. mangostana peel, S. indicum seeds, G. max seeds, and C. asiatica leaves. The components of TMP-4 cream are summarized in Table S1. Diclofenac gel was chosen to be a comparator in this trial because it had previously been shown in a network meta-analysis to be superior to a placebo for pain relief over four weeks of therapy [19]. Diclofenac gel (Voltaren® Emulgel®, 1% diclofenac gel, Reg. No. 1A 752/41) was purchased from OLIC (Thailand) Limited.

2.4. Randomization, Blinding, and Allocation Concealment

Computer-generated random numbers were obtained before trial initiation, with a 1 : 1 allocation using a block size of 10. Research personnel who had no clinical involvement in this study dispensed either TMP-4 cream or diclofenac gel according to the computer-generated randomization list. The allocation sequence was concealed from the investigator in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Only after each participant had satisfied the eligibility requirements and completed all of the baseline tests at Week 0 were the corresponding envelopes unsealed. TMP-4 cream and diclofenac gel were in identical opaque plastic tubes.

Outcome assessors were kept blinded to the intervention group assignment of each patient. Even though the two interventions did not appear to be similar, the patients were not told of the formulation features of the intervention during the informed consent process. In this case, incomplete disclosure was intended to minimize the patient’s performance bias, and such information was debriefed at the end of the study.

2.5. Study Procedures

In this study, there was a one-week run-in phase followed by a four-week treatment phase (Figure 1). Following the screening, all patients who met the eligibility criteria were required to stop using any arthralgia/arthritis treatment modalities, including NSAIDs and other analgesics, as well as any other topical drugs/products in the area surrounding the afflicted knee, throughout the study period. The literature suggests that a one-week washout period is necessary to establish a true baseline [45].

At the beginning of the treatment phase (Week 0), eligible patients with moderate knee pain were randomly assigned to receive either TMP-4 cream or diclofenac gel, which was administered four times daily for four weeks. This trial protocol required the patients to avoid using any concurrent or rescue pain medication during study participation. Some patients might be prematurely withdrawn from the experiment if they had any of the following symptoms/conditions: (1) severe osteoarthritic knee pain requiring other medications or treatment modalities, (2) acute inflammation of the afflicted knee, (3) a knee injury, (4) use of other NSAIDs or analgesic drugs, (5) moderate-to-severe allergic or adverse drug reactions (or mild but not improving after appropriate treatment), and (6) lost to follow-up.

2.6. Outcome Assessment

Outcome assessment was performed at baseline (at the end of the one-week run-in phase) and at the end of Week 2 and Week 4 of the treatment phase (Figure 1). Efficacy outcome measures included(1)A horizontal 100 mm VAS knee pain score on a scale of 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating more severe knee pain [46](2)A horizontal 100 mm VAS knee stiffness score on a scale of 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating more severe knee stiffness;(3)A modified 10-step stair climb test (mSCT), which involved ascending a flight of 10 stairs in a certain amount of time [47](4)A timed up and go test (TUG), which consisted of standing up from a chair, walking 3 meters, turning, and returning to a sitting position [48](5)The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which consisted of five dimensions (i.e., pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sports and recreation, and knee-related quality of life), each of which was rated on a 5-point Likert scale and transformed to a scale of 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating fewer knee problems [49, 50]

The patient’s perception of overall improvement and the physician’s assessment of overall improvement were also assessed using a horizontal 100 mm VAS, with a higher value indicating better improvement. Following nondirective inquiries, adverse events seen by the outcome assessor or self-reported by the patients were recorded. At each follow-up visit, the weight of the cream/gel that remained in the tubes was measured to determine medication compliance. Patients who used the intervention at less than 60% of the prescribed dosage were considered poorly compliant.

2.7. Study Endpoints

The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in knee pain as measured by a horizontal 100 mm VAS during the four weeks of therapy. In patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, the knee with more prominent symptoms at baseline was used as an index knee for the efficacy assessment. Responders were defined as individuals whose VAS knee pain decreased by at least 50% from their baseline value and by at least 20 mm in absolute terms [51]. This cut-off value is commonly used to represent the clinical importance of pain relief from the patient’s perspective. Secondary endpoints included other efficacy outcome metrics and safety outcome measures.

2.8. Sample Size Determination

A total of 200 patients (100 in each group) were expected to be enrolled in this study. The sample size of 100 per group was estimated using a noninferiority margin of 7 [52, 53], assuming a mean difference (MD) of 0 and a standard deviation (SD) of 18 [54], with a precision and confidence level of 95%, 80% power, and a dropout rate of 15% [55].

2.9. Statistical Analysis

The per-protocol (PP) and modified intention-to-treat (MITT) approaches were used to assess the efficacy outcomes in this study. The PP analysis included only patients who completed the treatment regimen with adequate compliance during the course of four-week treatment. In the MITT analysis, the data of patients who had prematurely left the trial were estimated using the last observation carried forward technique. All patients who had received at least one dosage of the assigned intervention were assessed for the safety evaluation.

The Student’s t-test and the Fisher’s exact test were used for comparing mean differences and the distribution of dichotomous variables, respectively, between the two groups. A repeated-measures ANOVA with the least significant difference (LSD) test was applied to evaluate if there were any variations in the mean values of each variable between the baseline and the two successive follow-up visits. A comparison of the TMP-4 and diclofenac groups on VAS knee pain was undertaken to determine noninferiority, using a noninferiority margin of 7 mm [52, 53]. If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the MD of VAS knee pain did not surpass a margin of 7 mm, noninferiority was declared. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0. Statistical significance was defined as a value of less than 0.05.

3. Results

A total of 249 patients were initially assessed for eligibility, with 49 being excluded and one withdrawing her permission before the baseline evaluation at Week 0 owing to intolerable knee pain. One hundred and ninety-nine patients were randomly allocated to either the TMP-4 cream or diclofenac gel groups, with 100 receiving TMP-4 cream and 99 receiving diclofenac gel (Figure 2). The mean age of the participants was 61.4 ± 6.7 years (range: 46–83 years). The majority of the participants were females (n = 184, 92.5%) and had osteoarthritis in both knees (n = 159, 79.9%). The participants’ baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the duration of knee osteoarthritis which was longer in the TMP-4 group (5.1 ± 4.8 years) than in the diclofenac group (3.8 ± 2.8 years) (Table 1). During the first two weeks of the treatment phase, three participants in the TMP-4 group were withdrawn from the trial due to a flare-up of knee pain, a fever, and personal reasons, while one participant in the diclofenac group was withdrawn due to a drug allergy. During the last two weeks of the treatment phase, one participant who received diclofenac gel was withdrawn from the trial due to a flare-up of knee pain. One hundred and ninety-five participants (98.0%) were available for the MITT analysis, and 193 participants (97.0%) remained for the PP analysis (Figure 2).

3.1. Efficacy Assessment

Concerning the primary endpoint, the mean change in VAS knee pain was not statistically significantly different between the two groups, and TMP-4 cream was shown to be noninferior to diclofenac gel in both MITT and PP analyses. The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the comparison between the TMP-4 cream and diclofenac gel groups was within the prespecified margin of 7 mm for noninferiority (Figure 3).

At the end of the treatment phase, the participants in both groups showed a substantial improvement in all of the efficacy outcome measures (Figure S1 and Figure S2). The mean change in VAS knee stiffness, mSCT, TUG, and all the KOOS subscales from the baseline did not statistically significantly differ between the two groups (Table 2). There were 66 responders with TMP-4 cream compared to 62 with diclofenac gel (MITT analysis: RR = 1.075, 95% CI = 0.878–1.318, ; PP analysis: RR = 1.059, 95% CI = 0.864–1.298, ). Upon completion of the trial, the physician’s assessment of overall improvement did not statistically significantly differ between the two groups (38.1 ± 14.9 vs. 41.3 ± 10.7, ); however, the patient’s perception of overall improvement tended to favor diclofenac gel (65.1 ± 24.4 vs. 71.6 ± 19. 7, ).

3.2. Safety Assessment

During the four-week treatment phase, nine individuals experienced some adverse effects, all of which were nonserious. Six participants in the TMP-4 group reported nine adverse events: itching (n = 4), skin rash (n = 2), dyspepsia (n = 2), and skin redness (n = 1). Three participants in the diclofenac group experienced seven adverse events: itching (n = 2), skin rash (n = 1), burning sensation of skin (n = 1), dyspepsia (n = 1), palpitation (n = 1), and cystitis (n = 1). There were no statistically significant differences in any adverse outcomes between the two groups. In the TMP-4 group, there was no dropout owing to adverse drug reactions, but in the diclofenac group, there was one due to a drug allergy ().

4. Discussion

In this four-week randomized controlled trial, topical treatment with either TMP-4 cream or diclofenac gel using a q.i.d. dosing schedule achieved analgesic efficacy with acceptable safety profiles in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. In both the MITT and PP analyses, the upper limit of 95% CI of MD in VAS knee pain was within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 7 mm, indicating that TMP-4 cream is noninferior to diclofenac gel in terms of knee pain relief. The absolute decrease in VAS knee pain after four weeks of treatment was approximately 31 mm on a horizontal 100 VAS in both groups; this finding can be considered a clinically significant improvement because it falls below the 19.9 mm cut-off value regarded as the minimum clinically meaningful improvement [56]. A changed value similar to this has been seen in previous studies with topical NSAIDs [45, 54]. The therapeutic effects of TMP-4 cream and diclofenac gel were further confirmed by categorical analysis of VAS knee pain, which revealed that about two-thirds of the participants in both groups experienced more than a 50% reduction in osteoarthritic knee pain after therapy. The proportion of those who responded to topical diclofenac was similar to a prior study [57]. Even though no other analgesic medicines were permitted during study participation, there was only one participant who prematurely dropped out from the trial, indicating that the therapies were effective. The overall data show that the majority of participants in both groups regarded their osteoarthritic knee pain to be clinically better. These findings support the efficacy of TMP-4 cream and diclofenac gel in osteoarthritic knee pain relief. Based on the results of this study, TMP-4 cream appears to be a viable alternative to topical diclofenac for the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.

The present clinical trial examined symptoms of knee osteoarthritis using many distinct measures, allowing for a thorough assessment of the study intervention’s efficacy [58, 59]. This study followed the OMERACT-OARSI core domain set of efficacy outcome measures, which included both patient-reported and objective outcome measures that are both valid, reliable, and responsive to change [60–62]. In all of the assessed efficacy outcome variables, topical application of TMP-4 was as effective as diclofenac gel, and mean changes from the baseline across all the efficacy outcome parameters did not significantly differ between the two groups over the four-week study period. All KOOS subscales were considerably higher in both groups, indicating that the physical function of the afflicted knee had improved [63]. Furthermore, the mSCT and TUG test results were much lower in both groups after four weeks of therapy, supporting that physical performance had improved [64]. These positive results are likely attributable to pain and stiffness reduction as a result of the intervention.

The mechanism of action of TMP-4 cream is broader than that of diclofenac gel or other NSAIDs and analgesics in current use for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Although the exact mechanisms of action have not yet been elucidated, the herbal components in the formulation have been demonstrated to exhibit a wide range of pharmacological actions. Based on the previous literature, G. mangostana extracts and their bioactive constituents (e.g., xanthones) exhibit a wide range of pharmacological activities, including antiinflammatory and antioxidant properties [65, 66]. A recent mouse experiment found that α-Mangostin, a xanthone derivative molecule derived from G. mangostana L. peel extract, might reduce inflammatory and oxidative responses, therefore alleviating the early clinical and histological signs of arthritis [67]. In numerous experimental models, S. indicum seed extracts have been found to exhibit antiinflammatory, antinociceptive, antioxidant, and chondroprotective effects [68–71]. Sesame oil is utilized in several topical pain therapies that have been clinically validated [30, 72–76]. Sesame seed supplementation given orally has been shown to reduce pain intensity and improve clinical signs and symptoms in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee [77]. G. max (L.) Merr. seed extracts and their bioactive constituents (e.g., genistein) have been shown to exhibit antinociceptive and antiinflammatory properties [78, 79]. C. asiatica leaf extracts and their bioactive components (e.g., madecassic acid) have been shown to produce analgesic, antiinflammatory, and cartilage-protective effects in both in vitro and in vivo models [80–82]. Based on the above-mentioned evidence, the positive results of TMP-4 therapy are of no surprise from a pathophysiologic point of view, given low-grade chronic inflammation is the primary cause of osteoarthritis development [83]. TMP-4’s benefits in symptomatic alleviation of osteoarthritic knee pain may be due to the combination and perhaps synergistic pharmacological actions of the various herbal components in the formulation.

TMP-4 cream was well tolerated after four weeks of therapy, with a safety profile similar to diclofenac gel. There were no concerns about the drug’s safety as the majority of the adverse events reported in this study were minor and localized. Skin reactions on the application site accounted for two-thirds of the reported events, which is consistent with the literature [84]. These findings are not surprising given the low systemic absorption of topical formulations compared to oral formulations [85].

The results of the present study should be viewed in light of the study’s limitations. First and foremost, there was no placebo-controlled group in this study. In a situation where topical NSAIDs are commonly prescribed and available, delaying effective therapy may not be deemed ethical. Second, the test intervention (TMP-4 cream) did not appear to be identical to the comparator (diclofenac gel). Although neither the outcome assessors nor the participants were told of the treatment assignment, color and/or texture variations between the two interventions might have alerted the participants to the intervention they and the other participants were allocated in this study. This might put the trial’s blind assignment in jeopardy and add performance and/or detection bias to herbal medicine research whereby it is challenging to find a comparator that is exactly like the test intervention. Third, even though the VAS is accurate and reliable for pain assessment, it is subjective and heavily reliant on the patient’s perception of pain [86]. It is well documented that certain levels of pain alleviation following a therapeutic intervention might be largely attributable to contextual features, including patient attitudes and expectations, as well as the patient-physician interaction [87, 88]. However, this study included various efficacy outcome measures, some of which had fewer contextual effects than pain measurements, thereby reducing the risk of subjective result assessment bias [89].

Last but not the least limitation, the promising results of TMP-4 cream should not be extended beyond the four-week time frame being studied in this trial. The intervention’s short-term effect is consistent with numerous prior studies signifying topical diclofenac’s efficacy in the first few weeks [90–92]. Although several clinical trials have demonstrated that topical NSAIDs may be effective in osteoarthritic knee pain management over 12 weeks of treatment [93–97], there are currently insufficient data to support the use of topical medicines for long-term pain management in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee [98, 99]. More research is needed to determine the long-term effectiveness and safety of TMP-4 cream in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee, as this chronic and degenerative condition necessitates long-term therapy.

5. Conclusions

In this randomized controlled trial, TMP-4 cream applied four times daily was found to be noninferior to diclofenac gel in alleviating osteoarthritic knee pain. In addition, TMP-4 cream was as effective as diclofenac gel in terms of improving key efficacy outcomes of knee osteoarthritis. TMP-4 cream may be considered a viable alternative to topical diclofenac in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethical Approval

The clinical trial protocol and supporting documentation were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University.

All patients signed a written informed consent form before enrollment.

Disclosure

The funder had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Authors’ Contributions

NK, AC, ST, CS, and NH contributed to the study conception and design. AC and NH developed the study protocol and related documents. AC and NH conducted the study and collected data. NK analyzed the data. NK and NH interpreted the results. NK wrote the manuscript with contributions from ST, AC, CS, and NH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by Chiang Mai University. This work was supported by Asian Phytoceuticals Public Company Limited.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: The components of Thai Medicinal Plants-4 (TMP-4) cream. Figure S1: VAS pain, VAS stiffness, mSCT, and TUG at baseline, Week 2, and Week 4. Results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation: (a) MITT analysis; (b) PP analysis. Statistically significantly difference between the two groups. Figure S2: KOOS at the baseline, Week 2, and Week 4. Results are presented as the mean ± standard deviation: (a) MITT analysis; (b) PP analysis. Statistically significantly difference between the two groups. (Supplementary Materials)

References

A. Cui, H. Li, D. Wang, J. Zhong, Y. Chen, and H. Lu, “Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies,” EClinicalMedicine, vol. 29-30, Article ID 100587, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators, “Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019,” Lancet, vol. 396, no. 10258, pp. 1204–1222, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Chen, C. Gupte, K. Akhtar, P. Smith, and J. Cobb, “The global economic cost of osteoarthritis: how the UK compares,” Arthritis, vol. 2012, Article ID 698709, 6 pages, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Murphy, T. A. Schwartz, C. G. Helmick et al., “Lifetime risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 1207–1213, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kloppenburg and F. Berenbaum, “Osteoarthritis year in review 2019: epidemiology and therapy,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 242–248, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Bannuru, M. C. Osani, E. E. Vaysbrot et al., “OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 1578–1589, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Bruyère, G. Honvo, N. Veronese et al., “An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European society for clinical and economic aspects of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal diseases (ESCEO),” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 337–350, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Jevsevar, “Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence-based guideline,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 571–576, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. L. Kolasinski, T. Neogi, M. C. Hochberg et al., “2019 American college of rheumatology/arthritis foundation guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 149–162, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Bariguian Revel, M. Fayet, and M. Hagen, “Topical diclofenac, an efficacious treatment for osteoarthritis: a narrative review,” Rheumatology and Therapy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 217–236, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Seefried, M. Blyth, R. Maheshwari et al., “Penetration of topical diclofenac into synovial tissue and fluid of osteoarthritic knees: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, pharmacokinetic study,” Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease, vol. 12, Article ID 1759720X2094308, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. H. Deng, C. Zeng, Y. Yang et al., “Topical diclofenac therapy for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Clinical Rheumatology, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1253–1261, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Ling, J. J. Li, R. J. Xu, B. Wang, and W. H. Ge, “Topical diclofenac solution for osteoarthritis of the knee: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2020, Article ID 1758071, 11 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. G. Wolff, C. Christophersen, S. M. Brown, and M. K. Mulcahey, “Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Physician and Sports Medicine, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 381–391, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Hawthorn, “A narrative review: the use of the topical NSAID ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Supporting clinician decision-making in the first-line treatment of osteoarthritis,” Rehabilitation Process and Outcome, vol. 9, Article ID 117957272091494, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. S. Rafanan, B. F. Valdecañas, B. P. Lim et al., “Consensus recommendations for managing osteoarthritic pain with topical NSAIDs in Asia-Pacific,” Pain Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 115–128, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Tugwell, G. A. Wells, and J. Z. Shainhouse, “Equivalence study of a topical diclofenac solution (pennsaid) compared with oral diclofenac in symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 2002–2012, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Honvo, V. Leclercq, A. Geerinck et al., “Safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis: outcomes of a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Drugs and Aging, vol. 36, no. S1, pp. 45–64, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zeng, J. Wei, M. S. M. Persson et al., “Relative efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies,” British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 642–650, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Rannou, J. P. Pelletier, and J. Martel-Pelletier, “Efficacy and safety of topical NSAIDs in the management of osteoarthritis: evidence from real-life setting trials and surveys,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. S18–S21, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Yeap, A. Tanavalee, E. C. Perez et al., “2019 revised algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis: the Southeast Asian viewpoint,” Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1149–1156, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zhang, C. Huang, Y. Cao et al., “2021 revised algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis—the Chinese viewpoint,” Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 2141–2147, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Falci, Z. Shi, and H. Greenlee, “Multiple chronic conditions and use of complementary and alternative medicine among US adults: results from the 2012 national health interview survey,” Preventing Chronic Disease, vol. 13, Article ID 150501, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Shahjalal, S. K. Chakma, T. Ahmed, I. Yasmin, R. A. Mahumud, and A. Hossain, “Prevalence and determinants of using complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of chronic illnesses: a multicenter study in Bangladesh,” PLoS One, vol. 17, no. 1, Article ID e0262221, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. L. Lapane, M. R. Sands, S. Yang, T. E. McAlindon, and C. B. Eaton, “Use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with radiographic-confirmed knee osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 22–28, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Yang, C. E. Dubé, C. B. Eaton, T. E. McAlindon, and K. L. Lapane, “Longitudinal use of complementary and alternative medicine among older adults with radiographic knee osteoarthritis,” Clinical Therapeutics, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1690–1702, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Chiranthanut, N. Hanprasertpong, and S. Teekachunhatean, “Thai massage, and Thai herbal compress versus oral ibuprofen in symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 490512, 13 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Cameron, J. J. Gagnier, C. V. Little, T. J. Parsons, A. Blumle, and S. Chrubasik, “Evidence of effectiveness of herbal medicinal products in the treatment of arthritis. Part I: Osteoarthritis,” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1497–1515, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Koonrungsesomboon, S. Nopnithipat, S. Teekachunhatean et al., “Clinical efficacy and safety of Thai herbal formulation-6 in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized-controlled trial,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2020, Article ID 8817374, 9 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Koonrungsesomboon, S. Teekachunhatean, S. Chansakaow, and N. Hanprasertpong, “Clinical efficacy and safety of yellow oil formulations 3 and 4 versus indomethacin solution in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2020, Article ID 5782178, 10 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Afroz, S. M. N. K. Zihad, S. J. Uddin et al., “A systematic review on antioxidant and antiinflammatory activity of Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) oil and further confirmation of antiinflammatory activity by chemical profiling and molecular docking,” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2585–2608, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Chen, Y. Li, W. Wang, and L. Deng, “Bioactivity and pharmacological properties of α-mangostin from the mangosteen fruit: a review,” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 415–427, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Gohil, J. A. Patel, and A. K. Gajjar, “Pharmacological review on Centella asiatica: a potential herbal cure-all,” Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 72, no. 5, p. 546, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Ovalle-Magallanes, D. Eugenio-Pérez, and J. Pedraza-Chaverri, “Medicinal properties of mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.): a comprehensive update,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 109, pp. 102–122, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mili, S. Das, K. Nandakumar, and R. Lobo, “A comprehensive review on Sesamum indicum L.: botanical, ethnopharmacological, phytochemical, and pharmacological aspects,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 281, Article ID 114503, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Sun, L. Wu, Y. Wu et al., “Therapeutic potential of Centella asiatica and its triterpenes: a review,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 11, Article ID 568032, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Yu, X. Bi, B. Yu, and D. Chen, “Isoflavones: anti-inflammatory benefit and possible caveats,” Nutrients, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 361, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Losina, J. Ranstam, J. E. Collins, T. Schnitzer, and J. Katz, “OARSI clinical trials recommendations: key analytic considerations in design, analysis, and reporting of randomized controlled trials in osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 677–685, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. E. McAlindon, J. B. Driban, Y. Henrotin et al., “OARSI clinical trials recommendations: design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials for knee osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 747–760, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Moher, S. Hopewell, K. F. Schulz et al., “CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials,” BMJ, vol. 340, p. c869, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Gagnier, H. Boon, P. Rochon, D. Moher, J. Barnes, and C. Bombardier, “Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: explanation and elaboration,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 1134–1149, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Piaggio, D. R. Elbourne, S. J. Pocock, S. J. W. Evans, D. G. Altman, and CONSORT Group, “Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement,” JAMA, vol. 308, no. 24, p. 2594, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Altman, E. Asch, D. Bloch et al., “Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis: classification of osteoarthritis of the knee,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1039–1049, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Boonstra, H. R. Schiphorst Preuper, G. A. Balk, and R. E. Stewart, “Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the visual analogue scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain,” Pain, vol. 155, no. 12, pp. 2545–2550, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. U. Niethard, M. S. Gold, G. S. Solomon et al., “Efficacy of topical diclofenac diethylamine gel in osteoarthritis of the knee,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 2384–2392, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
G. A. Hawker, S. Mian, T. Kendzerska, and M. French, “Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-mpq), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of 539 intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP),” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 63, pp. S240–S252, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Bennell, F. Dobson, and R. Hinman, “Measures of physical performance assessments: self-paced walk test (SPWT), stair climb test (SCT), six-minute walk test (6MWT), chair stand test (CST), timed up & go (TUG), sock test, lift and carry test (LCT), and car task,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 63, pp. S350–S370, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Dobson, R. S. Hinman, M. Hall, C. Terwee, E. Roos, and K. Bennell, “Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1548–1562, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Chaipinyo, “Test-retest reliability and construct validity of Thai version of knee osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOR),” Thai Journal of Physical Therapy, vol. 31, pp. 67–76, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
N. J. Collins, D. Misra, D. T. Felson, K. M. Crossley, and E. M. Roos, “Measures of knee function: international knee documentation committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function short form (KOOS-PS), knee outcome survey activities of daily 555 living scale (KOS-ADL), lysholm knee scoring scale, Oxford knee score (OKS), 556 western Ontario and mcmaster universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), activity 557 rating scale (ARS), and tegner activity score (TAS),” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 63, pp. S208–S228, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Pham, D. Van Der Heijde, R. D. Altman et al., “OMERACT-OARSI initiative: osteoarthritis research society international set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 389–399, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Bjordal, A. Klovning, A. E. Ljunggren, and L. Slørdal, “Short-term efficacy of pharmacotherapeutic interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain: a meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials,” European Journal of Pain, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 125–138, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. H. Dworkin, S. Peirce-Sandner, D. C. Turk et al., “Outcome measures in placebo-controlled trials of osteoarthritis: responsiveness to treatment effects in the REPORT database,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 483–492, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. M. Persson, J. Stocks, G. Varadi et al., “Predicting response to topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Rheumatology, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 2207–2216, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Julious, “Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data,” Statistics in Medicine, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1921–1986, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Tubach, P. Ravaud, G. Baron et al., “Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 29–33, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Derry, P. Conaghan, J. A. P. Da Silva, P. J. Wiffen, and R. A. Moore, “Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 4, no. 4, Article ID CD007400, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Krsticevic, S. Dosenovic, D. A. M. Dimcea et al., “Outcome domains, outcome measures, and characteristics of randomized controlled trials testing nonsurgical interventions for osteoarthritis,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 126–131, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. O. Smith, M. Mansfield, G. A. Hawker et al., “Uptake of the OMERACT-OARSI hip and knee osteoarthritis core outcome set: review of randomized controlled trials from 1997 to 2017,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 976–980, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Altman, K. Brandt, M. Hochberg et al., “Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis: recommendations from a task force of the osteoarthritis research society,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 217–243, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Bellamy, J. Kirwan, M. Boers et al., “Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. consensus development at OMERACT III,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 799–802, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
T. O. Smith, G. A. Hawker, D. J. Hunter et al., “The OMERACT-OARSI core domain set for measurement in clinical trials of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 981–989, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Collins, C. A. Prinsen, R. Christensen, E. Bartels, C. Terwee, and E. Roos, “Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1317–1329, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Dobson, R. S. Hinman, M. Hall et al., “Reliability and measurement error of the osteoarthritis research society international (oarsi) recommended performance-based tests of physical function in people with hip and knee osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1792–1796, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Obolskiy, I. Pischel, N. Siriwatanametanon, and M. Heinrich, “Garcinia mangostana L.: a phytochemical and pharmacological review,” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1047–1065, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Pedraza-Chaverri, N. Cárdenas-Rodríguez, M. Orozco-Ibarra, and J. M. Pérez-Rojas, “Medicinal properties of mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana),” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 3227–3239, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. R. Herrera-Aco, O. N. Medina-Campos, J. Pedraza-Chaverri, E. Sciutto-Conde, G. Rosas-Salgado, and G. Fragoso-Gonzalez, “Alpha-mangostin: anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects on established collagen-induced arthritis in DBA/1J mice,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 124, pp. 300–315, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kong, G. Chen, A. Jiang et al., “Sesamin inhibits IL-1β-stimulated inflammatory response in human osteoarthritis chondrocytes by activating Nrf2 signaling pathway,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 50, pp. 83720–83726, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Monteiro, L. A. Chibli, C. H. Yamamoto et al., “Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activities of the sesame oil and sesamin,” Nutrients, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1931–1944, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Narasimhulu, K. Selvarajan, D. Litvinov, and S. Parthasarathy, “Anti-atherosclerotic and anti-inflammatory actions of sesame oil,” Journal of Medicinal Food, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Phitak, P. Pothacharoen, J. Settakorn, W. Poompimol, B. Caterson, and P. Kongtawelert, “Chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects of sesamin,” Phytochemistry, vol. 80, pp. 77–88, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. B. Bigdeli Shamloo, M. Nasiri, M. Maneiy et al., “Effects of topical sesame (Sesamum indicum) oil on the pain severity of chemotherapy-induced phlebitis in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial,” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, vol. 35, pp. 78–85, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gholami, S. Torabi Davan, M. Gholami et al., “Effects of topical sesame oil extracted from tahini (ardeh) on pain severity in trauma patients: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial,” Bulletin of Emergency and Trauma, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 179–185, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Yekta, N. H. Yekta, and E. Fallah, “Promising pain-relieving activity of an ancient persian remedy (mixture of white lily in sesame oil) in patients with chronic low back pain,” Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 634, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Askari, S. A. Ravansalar, M. M. Naghizadeh et al., “The efficacy of topical sesame oil in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blinded active-controlled non-inferiority clinical trial,” Complementary Therapies in Medicine, vol. 47, Article ID 102183, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Abolfazli, S. F. Jalalinia, E. Khadem, H. Haghani, and S. Varaei, “A comparative study of chamomile oil and sesame oil on chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled clinical trial,” Traditional and Integrative Medicine, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 174–183, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Eftekhar Sadat, M. Khadem Haghighian, B. Alipoor, A. Malek Mahdavi, M. Asghari Jafarabadi, and A. Moghaddam, “Effects of sesame seed supplementation on clinical signs and symptoms in patients with knee osteoarthritis,” International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 578–582, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Ji, Y. Zhang, Q. Yang et al., “Genistein suppresses LPS-induced inflammatory response through inhibiting NF-κB following AMP kinase activation in RAW 264.7 macrophages,” PLoS One, vol. 7, no. 12, Article ID e53101, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Yim, O. H. Lee, U. K. Choi, and Y. C. Kim, “Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects of ethanolic extracts of Glycine max (L.) Merr and Rhynchosia nulubilis seeds,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 4742–4753, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hartog, H. F. Smit, P. M. Van Der Kraan, M. A. Hoijer, and J. Garssen, “In vitro and in vivo modulation of cartilage degradation by a standardized Centella asiatica fraction,” Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 234, no. 6, pp. 617–623, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Saha, T. Guria, T. Singha, and T. K. Maity, “Evaluation of analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity of chloroform and methanol extracts of Centella asiatica Linn,” ISRN Pharmacology, vol. 2013, Article ID 789613, 6 pages, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Won, J. S. Shin, H. J. Park et al., “Anti-inflammatory effects of madecassic acid via the suppression of NF-κB pathway in LPS-induced RAW 264.7 macrophage cells,” Planta Medica, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 251–257, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Primorac, V. Molnar, E. Rod et al., “Knee osteoarthritis: a review of pathogenesis and state-of-the-art non-operative therapeutic considerations,” Genes, vol. 11, no. 8, p. 854, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. D. Altman and H. R. Barthel, “Topical therapies for osteoarthritis,” Drugs, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 1259–1279, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Kienzler, M. Gold, and F. Nollevaux, “Systemic bioavailability of topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% versus oral diclofenac sodium in healthy volunteers,” The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 50–61, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. H. Alghadir, S. Anwer, A. Iqbal, and Z. A. Iqbal, “Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain,” Journal of Pain Research, vol. 11, pp. 851–856, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. T. Chen, S. Shrestha, J. E. Collins, J. Sullivan, E. Losina, and J. Katz, “Estimating contextual effect in nonpharmacological therapies for pain in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic analytic review,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1154–1169, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Zou, J. Wong, N. Abdullah et al., “Examination of overall treatment effect and the proportion attributable to contextual effect in osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 1964–1970, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Huang, J. Chen, Q. S. Hu et al., “Meta-analysis of pain and function placebo responses in pharmacological osteoarthritis trials,” Arthritis Research and Therapy, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 173, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Bookman, K. S. Williams, and J. Z. Shainhouse, “Effect of a topical diclofenac solution for relieving symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 171, no. 4, pp. 333–338, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Lin, W. Zhang, A. Jones, and M. Doherty, “Efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials,” BMJ, vol. 329, no. 7461, p. 324, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. T. Wadsworth, J. D. Kent, and R. J. Holt, “Efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 4 week study,” Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 241–250, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. S. B. Baraf, M. S. Gold, M. B. Clark, and R. D. Altman, “Safety and efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial,” The Physician and Sportsmedicine, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 19–28, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. S. Baraf, F. M. Gloth, H. R. Barthel, M. S. Gold, and R. D. Altman, “Safety and efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium gel for knee osteoarthritis in elderly and younger patients: pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials,” Drugs and Aging, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 27–40, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. R. Barthel, D. Haselwood, S. Longley, M. S. Gold, and R. D. Altman, “Randomized controlled trial of diclofenac sodium gel in knee osteoarthritis,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 203–212, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Roth and J. Z. Shainhouse, “Efficacy and safety of a topical diclofenac solution (pennsaid) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 164, no. 18, p. 2017, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. S. Simon, L. M. Grierson, Z. Naseer, A. A. Bookman, and Z. J. Shainhouse, “Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) compared with those of topical placebo, DMSO vehicle and oral diclofenac for knee osteoarthritis,” Pain, vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 238–245, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Argoff and F. M. Gloth, “Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for management of osteoarthritis in long-term care patients,” Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, vol. 7, pp. 393–399, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Gregori, G. Giacovelli, C. Minto et al., “Association of pharmacological treatments with long-term pain control in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” JAMA, vol. 320, no. 24, p. 2564, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Nut Koonrungsesomboon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

657

Downloads

412

Citations