Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults

Assay sensitivity of pain intensity versus pain relief in acute pain clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and meta-analysis

The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity.

PERSPECTIVE

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.

Pre- and postoperative management techniques. Before and after. Part 1: medical morbidities

This article provides readers with an overview of available evidence in relation to providing care to patients in different medical circumstances within oral surgery. There is evidence available to support discussions with patients taking particular medications (such as bisphosphonates, anticoagulants and corticosteroids) and also to try to prevent certain complications (such as 'dry socket'). In order to reduce the risks of potential morbidities, either perioperatively or postoperatively, operators must use high-quality, reliable and informed protocols, management techniques, advice and interventions to provide patients with the best care. These are used both preoperatively and postoperatively and patients should be consented appropriately, in a manner tailored to their own individual circumstances, but also using available evidence to explain the benefits and harms of any given procedure. In this short series we will outline and discuss common pre- and postoperative management techniques, protocols and instructions, and the evidence available to support these.

As required versus fixed schedule analgesic administration for postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Acute postoperative pain occurs as a result of tissue damage following surgery. Administering the appropriate analgesia to children is a complex process and it is unclear whether children's postoperative pain is more successfully treated by using 'as required' (when pain occurs) (termed 'pro re nata' or PRN) or (irrespective of pain at the time of administration).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of as required versus fixed schedule analgesic administration for the management of postoperative pain in children under the age of 16 years.

SEARCH METHODS

On 2 July 2014, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. We reviewed the bibliographies of all included studies and of reviews, and searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRN versus ATC analgesic administration for postoperative pain in children under the age of 16 years who had undergone any surgical procedure requiring postoperative pain relief, in any setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (AH, PW) independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (four reports) of 246 children aged under 16 years undergoing tonsillectomy. Children were given weight-appropriate doses of the study medication, either PRN or ATC, by a parent or carer at home for up to four days following surgery. We did not identify any studies assessing the management of postoperative pain in children in any other setting (i.e. as an inpatient). All studies included in this review were based on the use of paracetamol, and an opioid was added to paracetamol in two studies. Analgesics were administered either orally (tablet or elixir) or rectally (suppository). Reporting quality was poor and there were fewer than 50 children in each arm. Mean pain intensity scores decreased over time, as did medication use. However, children were still reporting pain at the final assessment, suggesting that no administration schedule provided adequate analgesia. There were no significant differences in pain intensity scores at any time point. The studies reported adverse events that may have been related to the study medication, such as nausea and vomiting, and constipation, but no statistically significant differences were noted between the groups. There were too few data from only three small studies and meta-analysis was not possible. One study reported that a higher amount of analgesics was consumed in the ATC group compared with the PRN group: it would have been helpful to show that the higher volume in the ATC group led to better analgesia but we were not able to demonstrate this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was limited evidence available to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of PRN versus ATC analgesic administration for the management of postoperative pain in children.

Single dose oral ibuprofen plus codeine for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2013. There is good evidence that combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief in acute pain and headache than either drug alone, and that the drug-specific effects are essentially additive. This appears to be broadly true in postoperative pain and migraine headache across a range of different drug combinations and when tested in the same and different trials. Some combinations of ibuprofen and codeine are available without prescription (but usually only from a pharmacy) where the dose of codeine is lower, and with a prescription when the dose of codeine is higher.Use of combination analgesics that contain codeine has been a source of some concern because of misuse from over-the-counter preparations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of ibuprofen plus codeine for acute moderate-to-severe postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 1 December 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of single dose oral ibuprofen plus codeine for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants prescribed ibuprofen plus codeine, placebo, or the same dose of ibuprofen alone with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on the use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse effects. Analyses were planned for different doses of ibuprofen and codeine, but especially for codeine where we set criteria for low (< 10 mg), medium (10 to 20 mg), and high (> 20 mg) doses.

MAIN RESULTS

Since the last version of this review no new studies were found. Information was available from six studies with 1342 participants, using a variety of doses of ibuprofen and codeine. In four studies (443 participants) using ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 25.6 mg to 60 mg (high dose codeine) 64% of participants had at least 50% maximum pain relief with the combination compared to 18% with placebo. The NNT was 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.6) (high quality evidence). In three studies (204 participants) ibuprofen plus codeine (any dose) was better than the same dose of ibuprofen (69% versus 55%) but the result was barely significant with a relative benefit of 1.3 (1.01 to 1.6) (moderate quality evidence). In two studies (159 participants) ibuprofen plus codeine appeared to be better than the same dose of codeine alone (69% versus 33%), but no analysis was done. There was no difference between the combination and placebo in the reporting of adverse events in these acute studies (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 25.6 mg to 60 mg demonstrates good analgesic efficacy. Very limited data suggest that the combination is better than the same dose of either drug alone, and that similar numbers of people experience adverse events with the combination as with placebo.

Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January, 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method.

FINDINGS

229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment effects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater effects than did unpublished studies (r(2) 9·3%, p=0·009). Trial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2-8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5-9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9-9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4-19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, final quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These findings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only.

INTERPRETATION

Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest efficacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profiling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies.

FUNDING

NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Adverse effects of perioperative paracetamol, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, gabapentinoids and their combinations: a topical review

Post-operative pain affects millions of patients worldwide and the post-operative period has high rates of morbidity and mortality. Some of this morbidity may be related to analgesics. The aim of this review was to provide an update of current knowledge of adverse events (AE) associated with the most common perioperative non-opioid analgesics: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids (GCCs), gabapentinoids and their combinations. The review is based on data from systematic reviews with meta-analyses of analgesic efficacy and/or adverse effects of perioperative non-opioid analgesics, and randomised trials and cohort/retrospective studies. Generally, data on AE are sparse and related to the immediate post-operative period. For paracetamol, the incidence of AEs appears trivial. Data are inconclusive regarding an association of NSAIDs with mortality, cardiovascular events, surgical bleeding and renal impairment. Anastomotic leakage may be associated with NSAID usage. No firm evidence exists for an association of NSAIDs with impaired bone healing. Single-dose GCCs were not significantly related to increased infection rates or delayed wound healing. Gabapentinoid treatment was associated with increased sedation, dizziness and visual disturbances, but the clinical relevance needs clarification. Importantly, data on AEs of combinations of the above analgesics are sparse and inconclusive. Despite the potential adverse events associated with the most commonly applied non-opioid analgesics, including their combinations, reporting of such events is sparse and confined to the immediate perioperative period. Knowledge of benefit and harm related to multimodal pain treatment is deficient and needs clarification in large trials with prolonged observation.

Post-operative analgesic effects of paracetamol, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, gabapentinoids and their combinations: a topical review

In contemporary post-operative pain management, patients are most often treated with combinations of non-opioid analgesics, to enhance pain relief and to reduce opioid requirements and opioid-related adverse effects. A diversity of combinations is currently employed in clinical practice, and no well-documented 'gold standards' exist. The aim of the present topical, narrative review is to provide an update of the evidence for post-operative analgesic efficacy with the most commonly used, systemic non-opioid drugs, paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/COX-2 antagonists, glucocorticoids, gabapentinoids, and combinations of these. The review is based on data from previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses, investigating effects of non-opioid analgesics on pain, opioid-requirements, and opioid-related adverse effects. Paracetamol, NSAIDs, COX-2 antagonists, and gabapentin reduced 24 h post-operative morphine requirements with 6.3 (95% confidence interval: 3.7 to 9.0) mg, 10.2 (8.7, 11.7) mg, 10.9 (9.1, 12.8) mg, and ≥ 13 mg, respectively, when administered as monotherapy. The opioid-sparing effect of glucocorticoids was less convincing, 2.33 (0.26, 4.39) mg morphine/24 h. Trials of pregabalin > 300 mg/day indicated a morphine-sparing effect of 13.4 (4, 22.8) mg morphine/24 h. Notably, though, the available evidence for additive or synergistic effects of most combination regimens was sparse or lacking. Paracetamol, NSAIDs, selective COX-2 antagonists, and gabapentin all seem to have well-documented, clinically relevant analgesic properties. The analgesic effects of glucocorticoids and pregabalin await further clarification. Combination regimens are sparsely documented and should be further investigated in future studies.

Validating speed of onset as a key component of good analgesic response in acute pain

Background

Previous analysis of a single data set in acute pain following third molar extraction demonstrated a strong relationship between the speed of reduction of pain intensity and overall pain relief, as well as need for additional analgesia.

Methods

Individual patient data analysis of a single randomized, double-blind trial of placebo, paracetamol 1000 mg, ibuprofen sodium 400 mg and ibuprofen-poloxamer 400 mg following third molar extraction. Visual analogue scale pain intensity (VASPI) and other measurements were made at baseline, every 5–45 min, and at 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 min.

Results

Most patients produced consistent VASPI results over time. For placebo and paracetamol, few patients achieved low VASPI scores and maintained them. For both ibuprofen formulations, VASPI scores fell rapidly during the first hour and were then typically maintained until later re-medication. Analysis of all patients showed that rapid VASPI reduction in the first hour was strongly correlated with good overall pain relief (high total pain relief over 0–6 h), and with lesser need for additional analgesia within 6 h. Results for this analysis were in very good agreement with a previous analysis, validating the relationship between fast initial pain intensity reduction and overall good pain relief in this setting.

Conclusions

In acute pain following third molar extraction, faster acting analgesic formulations provide earlier onset of pain relief, better overall pain relief and a less frequent need for additional analgesia, indicating longer lasting pain relief.

Single dose oral etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 2, 2009, and updated in Issue 4, 2012.Etoricoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor licensed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain in some jurisdictions. This class of drugs is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of single dose etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain using methods that permit accurate comparison with other analgesics evaluated in the same way, using criteria of efficacy recommended by in-depth studies at the individual patient level.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 31 January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, assessed quality, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants prescribed etoricoxib or placebo with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. We calculated relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies for this updated review, which includes six studies with 1214 participants in comparisons of etoricoxib with placebo. All six studies reported on the 120 mg dose (798 participants in a comparison with placebo). Sixty-six per cent of participants with etoricoxib 120 mg and 12% with placebo reported at least 50% pain relief (NNT 1.8 (1.7 to 2.0); high-quality evidence). For dental studies only, the NNT was 1.6 (1.5 to 1.8). A single dose of 90 mg produced similar results in one large trial. Other doses (60, 180, and 240 mg) were each studied in only one treatment arm.Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication over 24 hours when taking etoricoxib 120 mg than placebo (NNT to prevent remedication 2.2 (1.9 to 2.8)), and the median time to use of rescue medication was 20 hours for etoricoxib and two hours for placebo. Adverse events were reported at a similar rate to placebo (moderate-quality evidence), with no serious events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose oral etoricoxib produces high levels of good quality pain relief after surgery, and adverse events did not differ from placebo in these studies. The 120 mg dose is as effective as, or better than, other commonly used analgesics.

Rediscovery of nefopam for the treatment of neuropathic pain

Nefopam (NFP) is a non-opioid, non-steroidal, centrally acting analgesic drug that is derivative of the non-sedative benzoxazocine, developed and known in 1960s as fenazocine. Although the mechanisms of analgesic action of NFP are not well understood, they are similar to those of triple neurotransmitter (serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine) reuptake inhibitors and anticonvulsants. It has been used mainly as an analgesic drug for nociceptive pain, as well as a treatment for the prevention of postoperative shivering and hiccups. Based on NFP's mechanisms of analgesic action, it is more suitable for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Intravenous administration of NFP should be given in single doses of 20 mg slowly over 15-20 min or with continuous infusion of 60-120 mg/d to minimize adverse effects, such as nausea, cold sweating, dizziness, tachycardia, or drowsiness. The usual dose of oral administration is three to six times per day totaling 90-180 mg. The ceiling effect of its analgesia is uncertain depending on the mechanism of pain relief. In conclusion, the recently discovered dual analgesic mechanisms of action, namely, a) descending pain modulation by triple neurotransmitter reuptake inhibition similar to antidepressants, and b) inhibition of long-term potentiation mediated by NMDA from the inhibition of calcium influx like gabapentinoid anticonvulsants or blockade of voltage-sensitive sodium channels like carbamazepine, enable NFP to be used as a therapeutic agent to treat neuropathic pain.

Low prevalence of hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Chinese patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

The exact prevalence of hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remains unclear in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) because many of these patients routinely avoid the use of NSAIDs. Since the diagnosis of aspirin hypersensitivity is based mainly on history, the aspirin challenge protocol is seldom used clinically in China. The objective of this study is to investigate the prevalence of NSAID hypersensitivity in Chinese patients diagnosed with CRS. In a unique cohort study, consecutive CRS patients received intramuscular diclofenac sodium injection or diclofenac sodium sustained-release tablets to relieve intraoperative and postoperative pain following nasal surgery. In addition, data on NSAID hypersensitivity in large-sample series of CRS patients were collected by searching relevant literature published in Chinese to determine the prevalence of NSAID hypersensitivity in Chinese patients with CRS. A total of 244 consecutive CRS patients were included in this study. Three (1.34%) patients experienced a severe asthmatic attack after intramuscular diclofenac sodium injection and were diagnosed with NSAID hypersensitivity. Despite the use of different methods to diagnose NSAID hypersensitivity, the prevalence of NSAID hypersensitivity in Chinese CRS patients was between 0.28 and 1.46%. The prevalence of NSAID hypersensitivity in Chinese patients with CRS is low, which is a distinct clinical characteristic of Chinese CRS patients. Despite the apparently low prevalence of the condition in this population, a large number of patients in China are affected by this disorder, which should not be overlooked or regarded with an indifferent attitude in medical research and clinical practices.

Behavioral pharmacology of pain

Behavioral methods are extensively used in pain research. Rodent modeling tends to rely on evoked responses but there is a growing interest in behavioral readouts that may capture elements of ongoing pain and disability, reflecting the major clinical signs and symptoms. Clinically, analgesics show greater efficacy in acute pain after standard surgery than in chronic conditions but are never completely effective on a population basis. In contrast, experimental pharmacological studies in rodents often demonstrate full efficacy, but there is variability in sensitivity between models and readouts. Full efficacy is rarely seen when more complex or multiple readouts are used to quantify behavior, especially after acute surgery or in studies of clinical pain in animals. Models with excellent sensitivity for a particular drug class exist and are suitable for screening mechanistically similar drugs. However, if used to compare drugs with different modes of action or to predict magnitude of clinical efficacy, these models will be misleading. Effective use of behavioral pharmacology in pain research is thus dependent on selection and validation of the best models for the purpose.

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Both paracetamol and ibuprofen are commonly used analgesics for the relief of pain following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth (third molars). In 2010, a novel analgesic (marketed as Nuromol) containing both paracetamol and ibuprofen in the same tablet was launched in the United Kingdom, this drug has shown promising results to date and we have chosen to also compare the combined drug with the single drugs using this model. In this review we investigated the optimal doses of both paracetamol and ibuprofen via comparison of both and via comparison with the novel combined drug. We have taken into account the side effect profile of the study drugs. This review will help oral surgeons to decide on which analgesic to prescribe following wisdom tooth removal.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the novel combination of both in a single tablet for pain relief following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, at different doses and administered postoperatively.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group'sTrials Register (to 20 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 20 May 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 May 2013) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 20 May 2013). We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for further studies. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and searched personal references in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied to the searches of the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials were included. Cross-over studies were included provided there was a wash out period of at least 14 days. There had to be a direct comparison in the trial of two or more of the trial drugs at any dosage. All trials used the third molar pain model.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All trials identified were scanned independently and in duplicate by two review authors, any disagreements were resolved by discussion, or if necessary a third review author was consulted. The proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief (based on total pain relief (TOTPAR) and summed pain intensity difference (SPID) data) was calculated for all three drugs at both two and six hours postdosing and meta-analysed for comparison. The proportion of participants using rescue medication over both six and eight hours was also collated and compared. The number of patients experiencing adverse events or the total number of adverse events reported or both were analysed for comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies were included, they were all parallel-group studies, two studies were assessed as at low risk of bias and three at high risk of bias; two were considered to have unclear bias in their methodology. A total of 2241 participants were enrolled in these trials.Ibuprofen was found to be a superior analgesic to paracetamol at several doses with high quality evidence suggesting that ibuprofen 400 mg is superior to 1000 mg paracetamol based on pain relief (estimated from TOTPAR data) and the use of rescue medication meta-analyses. The risk ratio for at least 50% pain relief (based on TOTPAR) at six hours was 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 1.69; five trials) favouring 400 mg ibuprofen over 1000 mg paracetamol, and the risk ratio for not using rescue medication (also favouring ibuprofen) was 1.50 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.79; four trials).The combined drug showed promising results, with a risk ratio for at least 50% of the maximum pain relief over six hours of 1.77 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.39) (paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg) (one trial; moderate quality evidence), and risk ratio not using rescue medication 1.60 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.88) (two trials; moderate quality evidence).The information available regarding adverse events from the studies (including nausea, vomiting, headaches and dizziness) indicated that they were comparable between the treatment groups. However, we could not formally analyse the data as it was not possible to work out how many adverse events there were in total.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol at doses of 200 mg to 512 mg and 600 mg to 1000 mg respectively based on pain relief and use of rescue medication data collected at six hours postoperatively. The majority of this evidence (five out of six trials) compared ibuprofen 400 mg with paracetamol 1000 mg, these are the most frequently prescribed doses in clinical practice. The novel combination drug is showing encouraging results based on the outcomes from two trials when compared to the single drugs.

Single dose oral dexibuprofen [S(+)-ibuprofen] for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2009 on single dose oral dexibuprofen (S(+)-ibuprofen) for acute postoperative pain in adults.Dexibuprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and widely available in other countries worldwide. It is an active isomer of ibuprofen. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral dexibuprofen in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies in patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over four to six hours, using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of single dose oral dexibuprofen for acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised studies using almost identical methods and outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were run for the original review in 2009 and subsequent searches have been run in August 2013. We did not find any new published studies as a result of the updated search.We searched for randomised studies of dexibuprofen in acute postoperative pain in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane LIbrary), and for clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies of oral dexibuprofen for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We extracted pain relief or pain intensity data and converted it into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, from which relative risk and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. We collected information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

New data were identified for this update in one unpublished trial synopsis (BR1160 1995) in addition to the single study (Dionne 1998) that was included in the original review. In both studies dexibuprofen gave high levels of response, with 51/96 (53%) participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief with dexibuprofen 200 mg and 35/50 (70%) with dexibuprofen 400 mg, compared with 75/147 (51%) with racemic ibuprofen 400 mg, and 12/62 (13%) with placebo. The numbers of participants was too small to calculate NNTs with any meaning. The median time to additional analgesic use was greater than four hours for all active therapies, but about two hours for placebo.Adverse events were generally of mild or moderate intensity and consistent with events normally associated with anaesthesia and surgery. There were no serious adverse events or deaths.Additional data did not alter the conclusions from the earlier review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The information from these two studies in acute postoperative pain suggested that dexibuprofen may be a useful analgesic, but at doses not very different from racemic ibuprofen, for which considerably more evidence exists.

Single dose oral celecoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2008, and updated in Issue 3, 2012. Celecoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor usually prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Its effectiveness in acute pain was demonstrated in the earlier reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of celecoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent search was to 31 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of oral celecoxib or placebo for acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies for quality and extracted data. We converted summed pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) into dichotomous information, yielding the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours. We used this to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), for one patient to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief with celecoxib who would not have done so with placebo. We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (1785 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The two new studies in this update had been identified in the earlier update, but data were not available. There remain three potentially relevant unpublished studies for which data are not available at this time.The NNT for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg compared with placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over four to six hours was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 to 5.6) and 2.6 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.0) respectively. The median time to use of rescue medication was 6.6 hours with celecoxib 200 mg, 8.4 hours with celecoxib 400 mg, and 2.3 hours with placebo. The proportion of participants requiring rescue medication over 24 hours was 74% with celecoxib 200 mg, 63% for celecoxib 400 mg, and 91% for placebo. The NNT to prevent one patient using rescue medication was 4.8 (95% CI 3.5 to 7.7) and 3.5 (95% CI 2.9 to 4.6) for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg respectively. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity, and were experienced by a similar proportion of participants in the celecoxib and placebo groups. One serious adverse event that was probably related to celecoxib was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose oral celecoxib is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain relief. Indirect comparison suggests that the 400 mg dose has similar efficacy to ibuprofen 400 mg.

Diclofenac causes more leakage than naproxen in anastomoses in the small intestine of the rat

BACKGROUND

Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs such as the cyclooxygenase isoenzyme inhibitors diclofenac and naproxen are increasingly used for perioperative pain relief, while their potential effects on wound healing are scarcely investigated.

METHODS

In 104 male Wistar rats, an anastomosis was constructed in both colon and ileum. The rats were divided into groups who received diclofenac (4 mg kg(-1) day(-1)) or naproxen (10 mg kg(-1) day(-1)) daily from the day of surgery or from day 3 after surgery. Animals were killed on day 3 or 7 and analysed for signs of anastomotic dehiscence and wound strength of anastomoses and abdominal fascia.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage in the ileum (p < 0.0001) and mortality rates (p = 0.001) were significantly increased in the diclofenac group. On day 7, the anastomotic bursting pressure in the ileum remained below that of the controls in the diclofenac- and naproxen-treated rats. When administration of diclofenac was postponed to day 3 after surgery, anastomotic dehiscence was almost absent. The colonic anastomosis and abdominal wall always remained unaffected.

CONCLUSIONS

This study implies that immediate postoperative administration of diclofenac and, to a far lesser extent, naproxen can affect healing in the ileal anastomosis in the rat. This negative effect can be prevented by a short postoperative delay in administration. On steroid anti-inflammatory drugs such as the cyclooxygenase isoenzyme inhibitors diclofenac and naproxen are increasingly used for perioperative pain relief, while their potential effects on wound healing are scarcely investigated.

Single dose oral ibuprofen plus oxycodone for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief than either drug alone in acute pain. This appears to be broadly true across a range of different drug combinations, in postoperative pain and migraine headache. Fixed-dose combinations of ibuprofen and oxycodone are available, and the drugs may be separately used in combination in some acute pain situations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of ibuprofen plus oxycodone for moderate to severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (CENTRAL), on The Cochrane Library, (Issue 4 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 21st May 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 21st May 2013), the Oxford Pain Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind clinical trials of single dose, oral ibuprofen plus oxycodone compared with placebo or the same dose of ibuprofen alone for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed quality, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants prescribed ibuprofen plus oxycodone, ibuprofen alone, oxycodone alone, or placebo with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. We calculated relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified three studies involving 1202 participants. All examined the same dose combination. Included studies provided data from 603 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with placebo, 717 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg alone, and 471 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with oxycodone 5 mg alone.The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours was 60% with ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg and 17% with placebo, giving an NNT of 2.3 (2.0 to 2.8). For ibuprofen 400 mg alone the proportion was 50%, producing no significant difference between ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg alone. For oxycodone 5 mg alone the proportion was 23%, giving an NNT for ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg compared with oxycodone alone of 2.9 (2.3 to 4.0).Ibuprofen + oxycodone resulted in longer times to remedication than with placebo. The median time to use of rescue medication was more than 5 hours for ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg, and 2.3 hours or less with placebo. Fewer participants needed rescue medication with ibuprofen + oxycodone combination than with placebo or ibuprofen alone. The proportion was 40% with ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg, 83% with placebo, 53% with ibuprofen alone, and 83% with oxycodone alone, giving NNT to prevent one patient needing rescue medication of 2.4 (2.0 to 2.9), 11 (6.1 to 56), and 2.6 (2.1 to 3.4) for comparisons of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with placebo, ibuprofen alone, and oxycodone alone, respectively.The proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events was 25% with ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg, 25% with placebo, 26% with ibuprofen alone, and 35% with oxycodone alone; they were not significantly different. Serious adverse events were reported only after abdominal surgery 6/169 with the combination, 1/175 with ibuprofen alone, 3/52 with oxycodone alone, and 1/60 with placebo. Withdrawals for reasons other than lack of efficacy were fewer than 5% and balanced across treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ibuprofen 400mg + oxycodone 5mg provided analgesia for longer than oxycodone alone, but not ibuprofen alone (at the same dose). There was also a smaller chance of needing additional analgesia over about eight hours, and with no greater chance of experiencing an adverse event.

Single dose oral ibuprofen plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) for acute postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief than either drug alone in acute pain. This appears to be broadly true across a range of different drug combinations, in postoperative pain and migraine headache. Some combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol are available for use without prescription in some acute pain situations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of single dose oral ibuprofen plus paracetamol for acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to May 21st 2013), EMBASE (1974 to May 21st 2013), the Oxford Pain Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind clinical trials of single dose, oral ibuprofen plus paracetamol compared with placebo or the same dose of ibuprofen alone for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed quality, and extracted data. We used validated equations to calculate the area under the pain relief versus time curve and derive the proportion of participants with at least 50% of maximum pain relief over six hours. We calculated relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for ibuprofen plus paracetamol, ibuprofen alone, or placebo. We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified three studies involving 1647 participants. Each of them examined several dose combinations. Included studies provided data from 508 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg with placebo, 543 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg with placebo, and 359 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg alone.The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief over 6 hours was 69% with ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 73% with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 7% with placebo, giving NNTs of 1.6 (1.5 to 1.8) and 1.5 (1.4 to 1.7) for the lower and higher doses respectively compared with placebo. For ibuprofen 400 mg alone the proportion was 52%, giving an NNT for ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg compared with ibuprofen alone of 5.4 (3.5 to 12).Ibuprofen + paracetamol at the 200/500 mg and 400/1000 mg doses resulted in longer times to remedication than placebo. The median time to use of rescue medication was 7.6 hours for ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 8.3 hours with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 1.7 hours with placebo. Fewer participants needed rescue medication with ibuprofen + paracetamol combination than with placebo or ibuprofen alone. The proportion was 34% with ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 25% with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 79% with placebo, giving NNTs to prevent use of rescue medication of 2.2 (1.8 to 2.9) and 1.8 (1.6 to 2.2) respectively compared with placebo. The proportion of participants using rescue medication with ibuprofen 400 mg was 48%, giving an NNT to prevent use for ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg compared with ibuprofen alone of 4.3 (3.0 to 7.7).The proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events was 30% with ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 29% with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 48% with placebo, giving NNT values in favour of the combination treatment of 5.4 (3.6 to 10.5) and 5.1 (3.5 to 9.5) for the lower and higher doses respectively. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. Withdrawals for reasons other than lack of efficacy were fewer than 5% and balanced across treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations provided better analgesia than either drug alone (at the same dose), with a smaller chance of needing additional analgesia over about eight hours, and with a smaller chance of experiencing an adverse event.

Single dose oral ibuprofen plus codeine for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

There is good evidence that combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief in acute pain and headache than either drug alone, and that the drug-specific effects are essentially additive. This appears to be broadly true in postoperative pain and migraine headache across a range of different drug combinations and when tested in the same and different trials. Some combinations of ibuprofen and codeine are available without prescription (but usually only from a pharmacy) where the dose of codeine is lower, and with a prescription when the dose of codeine is higher.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of ibuprofen plus codeine for moderate to severe postoperative pain. We compared ibuprofen plus codeine with placebo and with the same dose of ibuprofen alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 September 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of single dose oral ibuprofen plus codeine for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed quality, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants prescribed ibuprofen plus codeine, placebo, or the same dose of ibuprofen alone with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on the use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse effects. Analyses were planned for different doses of ibuprofen and codeine, but especially for codeine where we set criteria for low (< 10 mg), medium (10 to 20 mg), and high (> 20 mg) doses.

MAIN RESULTS

Information was available from six studies with 1342 participants, with a variety of doses of ibuprofen and codeine. In four studies (443 participants) using ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 25.6 to 60 mg (high dose codeine) 64% of participants had at least 50% maximum pain relief with the combination compared to 18% with placebo. The NNT was 2.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.6). In three studies (204 participants) ibuprofen plus codeine (any dose) was better than the same dose of ibuprofen (69% versus 55%) but the result was barely significant with a relative benefit of 1.3 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.6). In two studies (159 participants) ibuprofen plus codeine appeared to be better than the same dose of codeine alone (69% versus 33%), but no analysis was done. There was no difference between the combination and placebo in the reporting of adverse events in these acute studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 25.6 to 60 mg demonstrates good analgesic efficacy. Very limited data suggest that the combination is better than the same dose of either drug alone. Use of combination analgesics that contain codeine has been a source of some concern because of misuse from over-the-counter preparations.

[Pain management in urology]

This article reviews aspects of postoperative and chronic pain management in urology patients. Continuous epidural techniques are recommended for extensive retroperitoneal und transperitoneal surgery due to its excellent analgesia and facilitation of enhanced recovery. In patients without regional analgesia techniques, intravenous or oral non-opioid analgesics should be combined with titration of fast acting opioids on an as-needed basis. Oral slow-release opioids are increasingly being used as part of systemic pain management although little evidence exists. Local wound infiltration and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) treatment are simple and effective supplements for postoperative pain management. In 70-90% of urological cancer patients pain can be adequately relieved by consistent adherence to the WHO cancer pain recommendations. Additional pain relief approaches, such as radiation as well as psychosocial and spiritual needs of these patients have to be considered. In long-term treatment of non-cancer pain, effective use of opioids is not evidence-based. These patients often benefit from multimodal, interdisciplinary pain management comprising psychological and educational approaches as well as activating physiotherapy.

Pre emptive analgesia for reducing pain after cholecystectomy: Oral tramadol vs. acetaminophen codeine

Background:

Considering that protocols of postoperative pain management would be planned regarding the facilities of each center or region and the importance of its proper management to reduce its related complication and improve patient's satisfaction, in this study we compared the effect of orally administrated tramadol and acetaminophen-codeine in this regard.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial, 136 (68 in tramadol and 68 in acetaminophen codeine groups) ASA I and II patients scheduled for open cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia were enrolled. They randomly allocated to receive oral tramadol (50 mg capsule) or acetaminophen-codeine (325/10 mg) 1 hour before surgery. After surgery they evaluated for postoperative pain using VAS score, analgesic consumption and vomiting.

Results:

Mean of postoperative pain score during 24 hours after surgery was 2.1 ± 1.0 and 3.8 ± 2.0 in tramadol and acetaminophen-codeine groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Mean of analgesic consumption (morphine) during 24 hours after surgery was 6.2 ± 4.4 mg and 12.9 ± 5.7 mg in tramadol and acetaminophen-codeine groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Mean of vomiting during 24 hours after surgery was 1.2 ±0.9 and 0.4 ± 0.5 in tramadol and acetaminophen-codeine groups, respectively (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

The findings of current study indicated that in lower dose of tramadol (50 mg) and acetaminophen/codeine (325 mg/10 mg) the analgesic effect of tramadol is better and its side effects are higher than acetaminophen/codeine, which limit its use for mentioned purpose. It seems that administration of each of studied agents it depends on patients’ tolerance and decision of the physician.

Dental and related infections

Emergency physicians should be comfortable treating most dental and related infections. In this article, we outline recommended techniques to perform a dental examination, explore common pathologies, recommend pain and antibiotic management strategies and review common pitfalls. How to avoid overprescribing opioid analgesics is discussed in depth, along with recent studies to support this strategy.

Acute pain management in the postanesthesia care unit

Pain management in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) is continually evolving, with several new nonopioids expanding the list of available agents. Pain in the PACU is not an inevitable outcome of surgery. With careful planning, multimodal analgesic techniques instituted preoperatively will reduce pain in the PACU. Accurate assessment of the characteristics of pain will direct rational drug choices while minimizing side effects. Better management of pain in the PACU setting will likely improve patient satisfaction and facilitate shorter PACU stays.

Intranasal ketorolac: for short-term pain management

Ketorolac is a member of the pyrrolo-pyrrole group of NSAIDs, and has been available in several formulations for some time, for the treatment of pain. Intranasal ketorolac has recently become available. Intranasal ketorolac was effective in providing short-term relief from postoperative pain in four well designed, phase II or III trials. In the two phase III trials, a single intranasal dose of ketorolac 31.5 mg, with or without backup analgesia, was associated with significantly higher 6-hour summed post-treatment pain intensity difference scores (primary endpoint) than placebo in adult patients with acute pain following major surgery, including abdominal and orthopaedic surgery. Intranasal ketorolac 31.5 mg up to three or four times daily for ≤5 days also had an opioid-sparing effect in these trials, with significantly less morphine used among ketorolac than among placebo recipients over the first 48 hours of treatment. Moreover, a greater proportion of ketorolac recipients experienced analgesia onset within 1 and 1.5 hours but not 2 hours than placebo recipients, indicating a more rapid onset with intranasal ketorolac. In adult patients with acute pain following major surgery, intranasal ketorolac 31.5 mg three or four times daily for ≤5 days was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events in clinical trials were considered to be of mild severity and transient in nature, with those in the phase III trials generally being characteristic of common events following major abdominal surgery and morphine administration.

Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy remains an important modality for the treatment of neuropathic pain. However, as monotherapy current drugs are associated with limited efficacy and dose-related side effects. Combining two or more different drugs may improve analgesic efficacy and, in some situations, reduce overall side effects (e.g. if synergistic interactions allow for dose reductions of combined drugs).

OBJECTIVES

This review evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of various drug combinations for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of various drug combinations for neuropathic pain from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and handsearches of other reviews and trial registries. The most recent search was performed on 9 April 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomised studies comparing combinations of two or more drugs (systemic or topical) to placebo and/or at least one other comparator for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extracted from each study included: proportion of participants a) reporting ≥ 30% pain reduction from baseline OR ≥ moderate pain relief OR ≥ moderate global improvement; b) dropping out of the trial due to treatment-emergent adverse effects; c) reporting each specific adverse effect (e.g. sedation, dizziness) of ≥ moderate severity. The primary comparison of interest was between study drug(s) and one or both single-agent comparators. We combined studies if they evaluated the same drug class combination at roughly similar doses and durations of treatment. We used RevMan 5 to analyse data for binary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 21 eligible studies: four (578 participants) evaluated the combination of an opioid with gabapentin or pregabalin; two (77 participants) evaluated an opioid with a tricyclic antidepressant; one (56 participants) of gabapentin and nortriptyline; one (120 participants) of gabapentin and alpha-lipoic acid, three (90 participants) of fluphenazine with a tricyclic antidepressant; three (90 participants) of an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) blocker with an agent from a different drug class; five (604 participants) of various topical medications; one (313 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen; and another one (44 participants) of a cholecystokinin blocker (L-365,260) with morphine. The majority of combinations evaluated to date involve drugs, each of which share some element of central nervous system (CNS) depression (e.g. sedation, cognitive dysfunction). This aspect of side effect overlap between the combined agents was often reflected in similar or higher dropout rates for the combination and may thus substantially limit the utility of such drug combinations. Meta-analysis was possible for only one comparison of only one combination, i.e. gabapentin + opioid versus gabapentin alone. This meta-analysis involving 386 participants from two studies demonstrated modest, yet statistically significant, superiority of a gabapentin + opioid combination over gabapentin alone. However, this combination also produced significantly more frequent side effect-related trial dropouts compared to gabapentin alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Multiple, good-quality studies demonstrate superior efficacy of two-drug combinations. However, the number of available studies for any one specific combination, as well as other study factors (e.g. limited trial size and duration), preclude the recommendation of any one specific drug combination for neuropathic pain. Demonstration of combination benefits by several studies together with reports of widespread clinical polypharmacy for neuropathic pain surely provide a rationale for additional future rigorous evaluations. In order to properly identify specific drug combinations which provide superior efficacy and/or safety, we recommend that future neuropathic pain studies of two-drug combinations include comparisons with placebo and both single-agent components. Given the apparent adverse impact of combining agents with similar adverse effect profiles (e.g. CNS depression), the anticipated development and availability of non-sedating neuropathic pain agents could lead to the identification of more favourable analgesic drug combinations in which side effects are not compounded.

Single dose oral aspirin for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 'Single dose oral aspirin for acute pain'. Aspirin has been known for many years to be an effective analgesic for many different pain conditions. Although its use as an analgesic is now limited in developed countries, it is widely available, inexpensive, and remains commonly used throughout the world.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of single dose oral aspirin in acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For the earlier review, we identified randomised trials by searching CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) (1998, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 1998), EMBASE (1980 to January 1998), and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994). We updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Single oral dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of aspirin for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies for methodological quality and two review authors extracted the data independently. We used summed total pain relief (TOTPAR) over four to six hours to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. We used these derived results to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals, the relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours. We sought numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, as additional measures of efficacy. We collected information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies in which aspirin was used at doses from 300 mg to 1200 mg, but the vast majority of participants received either 600/650 mg (2409 participants, 64 studies) or 990/1000 mg (380 participants, eight studies). There was only one new study.Studies were overwhelmingly of adequate or good methodological quality. NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours were 4.2 (3.9 to 4.8), 3.8 (3.0 to 5.1), and 2.7 (2.0 to 3.8) for 600/650 mg, 900/1000 mg, and 1200 mg respectively, compared with placebo. Type of pain model had no significant impact on the results. Lower doses were not significantly different from placebo. These results do not differ from those of the earlier review.Fewer participants required rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo over four to eight hours postdose, but by 12 hours there was no difference. The number of participants experiencing adverse events was not significantly different from placebo for 600/650 mg aspirin, but for 900/1000 mg the number needed to treat to harm was 7.5 (4.8 to 17). The most commonly reported events were dizziness, drowsiness, gastric irritation, nausea, and vomiting, nearly all of which were of mild to moderate severity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin is an effective analgesic for acute pain of moderate to severe intensity. High doses are more effective, but are associated with increased adverse events, including drowsiness and gastric irritation. The pain relief achieved with aspirin was very similar milligram for milligram to that seen with paracetamol. There was no change to the conclusions in this update.

Single dose oral etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Etoricoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor licensed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain in some jurisdictions. This class of drugs is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One additional study in acute postoperative pain has been published since the original review was completed in Issue 2, 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of etoricoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 3 January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed quality, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants prescribed etoricoxib or placebo with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. We calculated relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

One additional study has been added to this updated review, making a total of six included studies with 1214 participants in comparisons of etoricoxib with placebo. All six studies reported on the 120 mg dose (798 participants in a comparison with placebo). At least 50% pain relief was reported by 66% with etoricoxib 120 mg and 12% with placebo (NNT 1.8 (1.7 to 2.0)). For dental studies only the NNT was 1.6 (1.5 to 1.8). Although the new study almost doubled the number of participants in included studies it added only about 25% more data for the 120 mg dose and the result was unchanged. Other doses (60, 90, 180, and 240 mg) were each studied in only one treatment arm and we did not undertake pooled analysis.Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication over 24 hours when taking etoricoxib 120 mg than placebo (NNT to prevent remedication 2.2 (1.9 to 2.8)), and the median time to use of rescue medication was 20 hours for etoricoxib and two hours for placebo. Adverse events were reported at a similar rate to placebo, with no serious events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional study did not change the results from the first review published in 2009, but does make the result more robust. Single dose oral etoricoxib produces high levels of good quality pain relief after surgery and adverse events did not differ from placebo. The 120 mg dose is as effective as, or better than, other commonly used analgesics.

Single dose oral celecoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review published in The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4. Celecoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor usually prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Its effectiveness in acute pain was demonstrated in the earlier reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of celecoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent search was to 3 January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of oral celecoxib or placebo for acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies for quality and extracted data. We converted summed pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) into dichotomous information, yielding the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, and used this to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief with celecoxib who would not have done so with placebo. We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (1380 participants) met the inclusion criteria. We identified five potentially relevant unpublished studies in the most recent searches, but data were not available at this time. The number of included studies therefore remains unchanged.The NNT for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg compared with placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over four to six hours was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 to 5.6) and 2.5 (2.2 to 2.9) respectively. The median time to use of rescue medication was 6.6 hours with celecoxib 200 mg, 8.4 with celecoxib 400 mg, and 2.3 hours with placebo. The proportion of participants requiring rescue medication over 24 hours was 74% with celecoxib 200 mg, 63% for celecoxib 400 mg, and 91% for placebo. The NNT to prevent one patient using rescue medication was 4.8 (3.5 to 7.7) and 3.5 (2.9 to 4.6) for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg respectively. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity, and were experienced by a similar proportion of participants in celecoxib and placebo groups. One serious adverse event probably related to celecoxib was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose oral celecoxib is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain relief. Indirect comparison suggests that the 400 mg dose has similar efficacy to ibuprofen 400 mg.

Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Healthcare decision-making is complex and should involve healthcare professionals, patients and the best level of evidence. The speed of information production creates barriers against keeping up to date. In this light, methodologists have proposed a new type of study: overviews of systematic reviews (OoRs). The aim here was to introduce and demonstrate the role of OoRs in information synthesis for healthcare professionals, managers, researchers and patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Time-series study conducted at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, jointly with the Postgraduate Program on Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo.

METHODS

To show the growth in the numbers of published papers that provide high-level evidence and thus demonstrate the importance of OoRs for synthesis and integration of information, three filters for study designs were applied to two databases. An equation for predicting the expected number of published papers was developed and applied.

RESULTS

Over the present decade, the number of randomized controlled trials in Medline might reach 2,863,203 and the number of systematic reviews might reach 174,262. Nine OoRs and 15 OoRs protocols have been published in the Cochrane Library.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exponential growth of published papers, as shown in this study, a new type of study directed especially towards healthcare decision-makers was proposed, named "overview of systematic reviews". This could reduce the uncertainties in decision-making and generate a new hierarchy in the pyramid of evidence.