Evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of original and generic meloxicam in the treatment of acute neck pain

Introduction. In the structure of the global burden of diseases, back pain ranks first in the world in the list of causes of disability. Neck pain is one of the most common diseases of the musculoskeletal system. An integral part of the strategy for the treatment of acute neck pain is the use of original nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with high proven effectiveness.Objective. To conduct a comparative analysis of the therapeutic efficacy of the original drug meloxicam (Movalis) and its generic (Amelotex) in the treatment of patients with acute nonspecific musculoskeletal pain of cervical localization.Materials and methods. The article provides an assessment of the therapeutic effectiveness of the original drug meloxicam (Movalis) and its generic (Amelotex) in the treatment of patients with acute neck pain. Comparative analysis of the results of treatment of 108 patients hospitalized in the Branch of the MC JSC “Admiralteyskie Verfi” aged 18 to 60 years (58 men and 50 women) with a diagnosis of acute dorsalgia of cervical localization (M54.2 according to ICD-10). The average age of patients is 42.5 ± 11.1 years.Results. As a result of the clinical and neurological study and statistical processing of the data obtained, it was found that the use of Movalis in the treatment of patients with acute neck pain was more effective compared to the use of generic (Amelotex). In the Movalis group, the level of pain intensity and the index of disability after treatment was significantly lower than in the Amelotex group at an equivalent dose of 15 mg per day (p < 0.01). The analgesic effect in the group of patients receiving Movalis was longer. There was a significant decrease in sleep disorders associated with pain syndrome in the group (Movalis) compared with patients of the second group (Amelotex). Conclusions. The absence of therapeutic bioequivalence between Movalis and Amelotex revealed in our study determines the relevance of the choice of drugs for the complex therapy of patients of this profile. A multimodal approach to the strategy of treating neck pain, individually patient-oriented, including the use of effective and safe medicines, physical exercises, manual therapy, is optimal.>< 0.01). The analgesic effect in the group of patients receiving Movalis was longer. There was a significant decrease in sleep disorders associated with pain syndrome in the group (Movalis) compared with patients of the second group (Amelotex).Conclusions. The absence of therapeutic bioequivalence between Movalis and Amelotex revealed in our study determines the relevance of the choice of drugs for the complex therapy of patients of this profile. A multimodal approach to the strategy of treating neck pain, individually patient-oriented, including the use of effective and safe medicines, physical exercises, manual therapy, is optimal.

Muscle Energy Technique in the Rehabilitative Treatment for Acute and Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review

Background: Non-specific neck pain (NNP) affects 30–50% of the general population, and it often leads to severe disability. Several manual therapy techniques are available to reduce pain and disability and to improve cervical range of motion and functional activities. Muscle Energy Technique (MET) showed more evidence for treating such a disorder. The aim of this current scientific literature analysis was to compare the clinical effects of MET with the other manual or rehabilitative treatments for non-specific acute and chronic neck pain. Methods: The literature search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Medline, PEDro, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar from 2010 to January 2020. Clinical trials about MET were included. The quality of the trials was assessed according to the PEDro scale. Results: Twenty-one papers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected: 15 studies about non-specific acute neck pain and 6 studies about non-specific chronic neck pain. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that the MET approach has a good clinical effect on reducing neck pain in patients with acute neck pain and improves cervical range of motion in patients with chronic neck pain, and is better if combined with a traditional rehabilitative approach. This review’s findings should be considered with caution for physiotherapy practice because of the studies’ methodologic limitations. On the basis of the current available and limited evidence, clinicians could combine MET with traditional physiotherapy and other manual techniques when treating people with non-specific neck pain.