Single dose oral gabapentin for established acute postoperative pain in adults

Comparison of the effects of preoperative celecoxib and gabapentin on pain, functional recovery, and quality of life after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

Acute pain is one of the main complaints of patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which causes delayed mobility, increased morphine consumption, and subsequently increased costs. Therefore, the present study was performed to evaluate the preventive effect of preoperative celecoxib and gabapentin on reducing patient pain as a primary outcome after TKA surgery.

Materials and Methods

This randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial was performed on 270 patients with osteoarthritis that were candidates for TKA surgery allocated into three groups. In the first group, 900 mg of gabapentin was administered orally on a daily basis for 3 days before surgery. In the second group, 200 mg of oral celecoxib was administered twice daily for 3 days before surgery. In the third group, oral placebo was administered twice daily for 3 days before the surgery. The patients' pain score and knee and its functional score were recoded.

Results

The mean of reduction pain in gabapentin and celecoxib groups was significantly lower than that of the control group at 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery (P < 0.001); however, two groups were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the two medication groups were not significantly different in this regard (P > 0.05). In addition, the knee score in the gabapentin group with the means of 85.40 ± 5.47 and the celecoxib group with the means of 87.03 ± 3.97 were significantly higher than those of the control group with the means of 78.90 ± 4.39 in the 1^st month after the surgery (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

According to the results of the present study, the preventive administration of gabapentin and celecoxib showed a significant and similar effectiveness on reducing patient pain after TKA surgery and on improving the KSS and quality of life scores.

Opioid and gabapentinoid prescriptions in England from 2015 to 2020

PURPOSE

Concerns gradually arose about misuse of gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), especially when used in combination with opioids. Because it can be a driver of usage, trends in prescribing habits may be interesting to analyse. The aim of this study is to examine the evolution of prescriptions of opioids and gabapentinoids in England from 2015 to 2020 at a regional level.

METHODS

This study included data from April 2015 to February 2020, focusing on prescribing data, extracted the OpenPrescribing database. We described the evolution of the prescriptions of opioids and gabapentinoids and calculated their ratios for each month. We used Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) to compare data between and within regions (over time).

RESULTS

During this period, opioid prescriptions remained stable (from -3.3% to +2.2%/year) and increased for gabapentinoids generally (from +1.5% to +2.2%). The ratio between gabapentinoid to opioid prescriptions increased by more than 20% in 2020 compared to 2015, variably between regions (F(6,406) = [120.2]; P<0.001; LSD Test: P<0.001; ANOVA for repeated measures: P<0.05). In 2019, a decline in the ratio occurred in all regions, but only persisting in the London commissioning region in 2020 (-14.4% in comparison with 2018, 95%CI: -12.8 to -16.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentinoids are increasingly prescribed in England. The ratio of gabapentinoid to opioid prescriptions in England increased from 2015 to 2020. The reclassification of gabapentinoids as controlled drugs, in 2019, may have been associated with a significant reduction, although larger prescribers may have been less influenced.

Comparison of Analgesic Prescriptions for Dental Pain and Patient Pain Outcomes Before vs After an Opioid Reduction Initiative

This cross-sectional study compares prescribing patterns of opioid and nonopioid analgesics and patients’ dental pain outcomes before vs after implementation of an opioid reduction initiative at a single dental clinic.

Gabapentin for acute pain in sickle cell disease: A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial

Pain in sickle cell disease (SCD) can have a neuropathic component. This randomized phase II double-blinded placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy of gabapentin in reducing pain and opioid consumption (morphine-equivalent dose [MED]) during acute vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC). Of 90 patients aged 1-18 years with VOC pain, 45 were randomized to a single gabapentin dose (15 mg/kg) and 45 to placebo, in addition to standard treatment; 42 and 44 patients were evaluable in the gabapentin and placebo arms, respectively. A decrease in pain of ≥33% was reported in 68% of patients in the gabapentin arm and 60% of those in the placebo arm (one-sided p = 0.23). The median MED (mg/kg) in the gabapentin (0.12) and placebo arms (0.13) was similar (p = 0.9). However, in the subset of patients with the HbSS genotype (n = 45), the mean (SD) absolute pain score decrease by the time of discharge was significantly greater in the gabapentin arm (5.9 [3.5]) than in the placebo arm (3.6 [3.3]) (p = 0.032). Pain scores in the overall study population were not significantly reduced when gabapentin was added to standard treatment; however, gabapentin benefited individuals with the more severe genotype, HbSS, during acute VOC. Larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of gabapentin versus placebo as an adjunct to multimodal pain regimens in surgical patients: protocol of a placebo controlled randomised controlled trial with blinding (GAP study)

INTRODUCTION

Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug currently licensed to treat epilepsy and neuropathic pain but has been used off-label to treat acute postoperative pain. The GAP study will compare the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of gabapentin as an adjunct to standard multimodal analgesia versus placebo for the management of pain after major surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The GAP study is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18 years and over, undergoing different types of major surgery (cardiac, thoracic or abdominal). Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either gabapentin (600 mg just before surgery and 600 mg/day for 2 days after surgery) or placebo in addition to usual pain management for each type of surgery. Patients will be followed up daily until hospital discharge and then at 4 weeks and 4 months after surgery. The primary outcome is length of hospital stay following surgery. Secondary outcomes include pain, total opioid use, adverse health events, health related quality of life and costs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee . Findings will be shared with participating hospitals and disseminated to the academic community through peer-reviewed publications and presentation at national and international meetings. Patients will be informed of the results through patient organisations and participant newsletters.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN63614165.

Gabapentinoid prescription in Oral Medicine and Oral Surgery practice. Part II − a systematic scoping review of the literature

Introduction: Gabapentinoids, pregabalin and gabapentin, neuronal voltage-gated calcium channel inhibitors are first-line treatments for painful neuropathic conditions (and several non-neuropathic painful conditions). Nevertheless, their efficacy and prescription in Oral Medicine and Oral Surgery practice has received little attention so far. A previous article, the first of a two-part series, presented the experience of a French tertiary orofacial pain clinic regarding the prescription of gabapentinoids in orofacial conditions. This second article aimed to explore the scientific literature on the subject. Material and methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted on multiple relevant databases (MEDLINE®, Cochrane®, Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des produits de santé, Haute Autorité de Santé) and journal archives (JOMOS, JSOMFS) to assess the indications, non-indications and contraindications of gabapentinoids in an Oral Medicine/Oral Surgery context. Results: Out of 131 records selected during the initial screening, 34 matched the inclusion criteria and were used for subsequent analyses. Gabapentinoids were prescribed in three clinical contexts: orofacial pain management (32 studies), anxiolysis (1 study) and prevention of postoperative nausea/vomiting (1 study), with variable quality of evidence: high (6 studies), moderate (3 studies), low (5 studies) and very low (20 studies) quality studies (GRADE scale). Untoward effects of gabapentinoids were reported in 16 studies, mainly neurological (vertigo, drowsiness, sedation) and gastro-intestinal (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation). Gabapentinoids were ineffective in preemptive and postoperative analgesia and for the management of mucositis-related pain. Discussion: There is some evidence supporting the use of gabapentinoids in Oral Medicine/Oral Surgery in adherence with current practices observed in France and other countries (practices often extrapolated from their use in other non-orofacial painful conditions). The methodological quality of the studies included in this scoping review is often poor and publication bias is most probable in this field. Therefore, any conclusion drawn from such studies must be subject to circumspection. Conclusion: Data obtained from the present scoping review suggests the potential use of gabapentinoids as second-line treatments for anxiolysis, prevention of postoperative nausea/vomiting and the management of trigeminal neuralgia and masticatory myalgia. Other potential indications of gabapentinoids in Oral Medicine/Oral Surgery practice include cranial neuralgias, post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathies, first bite syndrome, burning mouth syndrome and migraine prophylaxis, when other treatment options are inefficient or unavailable.

An investigation into the effect of gabapentin capsules on the reduction of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy in cancerous patients under platinum-based treatment

Introduction and Objective:

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a condition that occur in most patients. This study aimed to investigate the effect of gabapentin capsules on the reduction of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients admitted in the hematological ward for adult patients with platinum-based treatment.

Materials and Methods:

The present study was a randomized clinical trial, which consisted of a control group and an experimental one. The study population consisted of 126 women and men with colonic and gastric cancer who were admitted to Ahwaz Shafa Hospital of adult hematology ward. Of these, 120 subjects were eligible to enter the study. Immediately after chemotherapy, gabapentin capsules were taken. Up to 72 hours later, nausea and vomiting were compared. Descriptive statistics was used to investigate the demographic characteristics. Paired t-test, independent t-test and ANOVA were used to compare the results.

Results:

The results showed that most of the patients had gastric cancer in the experimental (70%) and control group (66.66%). The results also showed that chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in gabapentin recipient group was different from the placebo group. Accordingly, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in gabapentin group was lower than the placebo group.

Conclusion:

Post-operative nausea and vomiting is an unpleasant experience. Today, the patients find it worse than pain, and they believe it is hard to afford the cost of treatment. Gabapentin seems to be a good drug for reducing nausea and vomiting.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Improved patient outcomes using the enhanced recovery pathway in breast microsurgical reconstruction: a UK experience

Introduction

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway is a protocol aimed at optimizing patient care by reducing the physiological alterations caused by surgery, thus reducing recovery time, surgical morbidities and length of stay. This study assessed the impact of ERAS on patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction.

Methods

Patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction over an eight-month period were retrospectively examined. LOS, complication rates and perioperative outcomes were analysed. Results were compared between patients admitted on the traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS) and the ERAS pathways.

Results

One hundred and thirty-eight patients were included. Seventy-two patients were admitted on the TRAS pathway and 66 patients on the ERAS pathway. There was no difference in median LOS (4 days) between the two groups, p = 0.48. We noted a significant reduction in the total number of major complications (ERAS 11%, TRAS 24% p = 0.04) as well as significant differences in time to catheter removal, time to independent mobilisation, total opioid usage and time to removal of PCA, all in favour of the ERAS group. There was a non-significant reduction in return to theatre and readmission rate in the ERAS group (11% versus 21% p = 0.1 and 6% versus 11% p = 0.29 respectively). Obesity and complications were predictors of a prolonged LOS.

Conclusion

The ERAS pathway reduced overall and major complication rates in a tertiary centre using an already streamlined service. Adoption of ERAS pathways to reduce surgical morbidities and improve patient care is encouraged. Further work is required to optimise enhanced recovery in breast microsurgical reconstruction.

Gabapentin for Off-Label Use: Evidence-Based or Cause for Concern?

Gabapentin is widely used in the United States for a number of off-label indications, often as an alternative to opioid therapy. Increasing evidence has emerged suggesting that gabapentin may not be as benign as once thought and may be associated with substance abuse in concert with opioids. With concerns for safety mounting, it is prudent to examine the efficacy of gabapentin across its many uses to understand the risk-benefit balance. Reviews on off-label indications such as migraine, fibromyalgia, mental illness, and substance dependence have found modest to no effect on relevant clinical outcomes. This high-quality evidence has often been overshadowed by uncontrolled studies and limited case reports. Furthermore, the involvement of gabapentin in questionable marketing schemes further calls its use into question. Overall, clinicians should exercise rigorous appraisal of the available evidence for a given indication, and researchers should conduct larger, higher-quality studies to better assess the efficacy of gabapentin for many of its off-label uses.

An Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Pathway for Microvascular Breast Reconstruction Is Safe and Effective

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

The aim of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a standardized perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) clinical care pathway in microsurgical abdominal-based breast reconstruction.

Methods:

Development of a clinical care pathway was informed by the latest ERAS guideline for breast reconstruction. Key features included shortened preoperative fasting, judicious fluids, multimodal analgesics, early oral nutrition, early Foley catheter removal, and early ambulation. There were 3 groups of women in this cohort study: (1) traditional historical control; (2) transition group with partial implementation; and (3) ERAS. Narcotic use, patient-reported pain scores, antiemetic use, time to regular diet, time to first walk, hospital length of stay, and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the groups.

Results:

After implementation of the pathway, the use of parenteral narcotics was reduced by 88% (traditional, 112 mg; transition, 58 mg; ERAS, 13 mg; P < 0.0001), with no consequent increase in patient-reported pain. Patients in the ERAS cohort used less antiemetics (7.0, 5.3, 2.2 doses, P < 0.0001), returned to normal diet 19 hours earlier (46, 39, 27 hours, P < 0.0001), and walked 25 hours sooner (75, 70, 50 hours, P < 0.0001). Overall, hospital length of stay was reduced by 2 days in the ERAS cohort (6.6, 5.6, 4.8 days, P < 0.0001), without an increase in rates of major complications (9.5%, 10.1%, 8.3%, P = 0.9).

Conclusions:

A clinical care pathway in microsurgical breast reconstruction using the ERAS Society guideline promotes successful early recovery.

Gabapentin in procedure-specific postoperative pain management - preplanned subgroup analyses from a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Background

It has been argued that postoperative pain treatment should be “procedure-specific”, since different analgesics may have specific effects dependent on the surgical procedure. The aim of the present subgroup analysis was to compare the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative gabapentin treatment in different surgical procedures.

Methods

Relevant databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing gabapentin versus placebo. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were differences in 24-h morphine consumption, and serious adverse events (SAE) between surgical procedures. These subgroup analyses were predefined in a PRISMA compliant systematic review registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42013006538). It was predefined that conclusions should primarily be based on trials classified as overall low risk of bias.

Results

Seventy-four RCTs with 5645 patients were included, assessing benefit and harm in cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, mastectomy, and arthroplasty surgery, spinal surgery, and thoracic surgery.

Only eight of 74 trials were classified as overall low risk of bias limiting our ability to conclude on the estimates in most meta-analyses. The differences between surgical procedures in these trials were not statistically significant when tested for subgroup differences. Fifteen trials with 1377 patients reported a total of 59 SAEs, most of which were observed in the thoracic surgery group.

Conclusion

Both beneficial and harmful effects in these subgroup analyses were influenced by bias and insufficient data, limiting conclusions. With these limitations, we could not adequately test for differences in beneficial or harmful outcomes between six surgical subgroups undergoing perioperative gabapentin treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-017-0373-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Antidepressant Drugs for Postsurgical Pain: Current Status and Future Directions

Current treatments for postsurgical pain are often inadequate and adverse effects are substantial such that residual pain and/or side effects impair recovery. The recognition of analgesic efficacy with antidepressant drugs for chronic pain suggests the potential for efficacy in acute postsurgical pain. As reviewed here, current evidence suggests that approximately half of previous trials suggest efficacy of various antidepressants for acute postoperative pain. However, most trials are older with deficiencies including: lack of designation of a primary outcome, no assessment of movement-evoked pain, small size and limited safety assessment. Only one of three trials addressing prevention of chronic postsurgical pain suggested any efficacy; however, the evidence base for this indication is limited. Thus, current evidence does not yet support routine use of any one specific antidepressant for treatment of acute, or prevention of chronic, postsurgical pain. However, limitations in available trials are such that one cannot yet rule out the possibility that one or more antidepressant drugs may provide benefit in specific populations. Therefore, future larger trials should explore optimal dosing and duration of antidepressant treatment, procedure specificity, safety evaluation, and assessment of movement-evoked pain.

The use of gabapentin in the management of postoperative pain after total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Pain management after total hip arthroplasty (THA) varies and has been widely studied in recent years. Gabapentin as a third-generation antiepileptic drug that selectively affects the nociceptive process has been used for pain relief after THA. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the efficacy of gabapentin in THA.

Methods

An electronic-based search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving gabapentin and a placebo for THA were included. The meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Results

Five trials met the inclusion criteria. The cumulative narcotic consumption and the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at 24 and 48 h postoperatively were used for postoperative pain assessment. There was a significant decrease in morphine consumption at 24 h (P = 0.00). Compared with the control group, the VAS score (at rest) at 48 h was less in the gabapentin group (P = 0.00).

Conclusion

The administration of gabapentin is effective in decreasing postoperative narcotic consumption and the VAS score.

The use of gabapentin in the management of postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) varies and has been widely studied in recent years. Some randomized controlled studies have carried out to evaluate the effects of gabapentin on pain relief after TKA. However, no solid result was made about it. The purpose of this Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) was to estimate the overall effect of pain control of gabapentin versus placebo after a TKA. An electronic-based search using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial from 1966 to June 2015. RCTs involving gabapentin and placebo for total knee arthroplasty were included. The meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Six trials with 859 participants met the inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was cumulative narcotic consumption and the visual analog scale scores at 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours, postoperatively. The knee flexion degree and treatment side effects were also compiled to evaluate the safety of gabapentin. After testing for the heterogeneity and publication bias among studies, data were aggregated for random-effects modeling when necessary. There was a significant decrease in morphine consumption at 12 hours (MD = -4.69, 95% CI: -7.18 to -2.21, P = 0.0002), 24 hours (MD = -5.30, 95% CI: -9.94 to -0.66, P = 0.03), and 48 hours (MD = -17.80, 95% CI: -31.95 to -3.64, P = 0.01), respectively. Compared with the control group, the rate of pruritus was less in the gabapentin group (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.38, P = 0.00). In summary, the administration of gabapentin was effective in decreasing postoperative narcotic consumption and the incidence of pruritus. There was a high risk of selection bias and a higher heterogeneity of knee flexion range in this analysis. More high-quality large randomized controlled trials with long follow-up period are necessary for proper comparisons of the efficacy and safety of gabapentin with placebo.Systematic review registration number: No.

Addressing challenges of clinical trials in acute pain: The Pain Management of Vaso-occlusive Crisis in Children and Young Adults with Sickle Cell Disease Study

Background/aims:

Neuropathic pain is a known component of vaso-occlusive pain in sickle cell disease; however, drugs targeting neuropathic pain have not been studied in this population. Trials of acute pain are complicated by the need to obtain consent, to randomize participants expeditiously while optimally treating pain. We describe the challenges in designing and implementing the Pain Management of Vaso-occlusive Crisis in Children and Young Adults with Sickle Cell Disease Study (NCT01954927), a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine the effect of gabapentin for vaso-occlusive crisis.

Methods:

In the Pain Management of Vaso-occlusive Crisis in Children and Young Adults with Sickle Cell Disease Study, we aim to assess the analgesic effect of gabapentin during vaso-occlusive crisis. Difficulties we identified included avoiding delay of notification of study staff of potential participants which we resolved by automated notification. Concern for rapid randomization and drug dispensation was addressed through careful planning with an investigational pharmacy and a single liquid formulation. We considered obtaining consent during well-visits to avoid the time constraints with acute presentations, but the large number of patients and limited duration that consent is valid made this impractical.

Results:

In all, 79% of caregivers/children approached have agreed to participate. The trial is currently active, and enrollment is at 45.8% of that targeted (76 of 166) and expected to continue for two more years. Maintaining staff availability after-hours remains problematic, with 8% of screened patients missed for lack of available staff.

Lessons learned:

Lessons learned in designing a trial to expedite procedures in the acute pain setting include (1) building study evaluations upon a standard-of-care backbone; (2) implementing a simple study design to facilitate consent and data capture; (3) assuring ample, well-trained study staff; and (4) utilizing technology to automate procedures whenever possible.

Conclusion:

This study design has circumvented many of the logistical barriers usually associated with acute pain trials and may serve as a prototype for future studies.

Non-prescription (OTC) oral analgesics for acute pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose. They can be used for a range of different types of pain, but this overview reports on how well they work for acute pain (pain of short duration, usually with rapid onset). Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To examine published Cochrane reviews for information about the efficacy of pain medicines available without prescription using data from acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

We identified OTC analgesics available in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA by examining online pharmacy websites. We also included some analgesics (diclofenac potassium, dexketoprofen, dipyrone) of importance in parts of the world, but not currently available in these jurisdictions.We identified systematic reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. From individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also calculated the success rate to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief. We also examined the number of participants experiencing any adverse event, and whether the incidence was different from placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We found information on 21 different OTC analgesic drugs, doses, and formulations, using information from 10 Cochrane reviews, supplemented by information from one non-Cochrane review with additional information on ibuprofen formulations (high quality evidence). The lowest (best) NNT values were for combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol, with NNT values below 2. Analgesics with values close to 2 included fast acting formulations of ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg. Combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol had success rates of almost 70%, with dipyrone 500 mg, fast acting ibuprofen formulations 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg having success rates above 50%. Paracetamol and aspirin at various doses had NNT values of 3 or above, and success rates of 11% to 43%. We found no information on many of the commonly available low dose codeine combinations.The proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event were generally not different from placebo, except for aspirin 1000 mg and (barely) ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg. For ibuprofen plus paracetamol, adverse event rates were lower than with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a body of reliable evidence about the efficacy of some of the most commonly available drugs and doses widely available without prescription. The postoperative pain model is predominantly pain after third molar extraction, which is used as the industry model for everyday pain. The proportion of people with acute pain who get good pain relief with any of them ranges from around 70% at best to less than 20% at worst; low doses of some drugs in fast acting formulations were among the best. Adverse events were generally no different from placebo. Consumers can make an informed choice based on this knowledge, together with availability and price. Headache and migraine were not included in this overview.

Adverse events associated with single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011; that overview considered both efficacy and adverse events. This overview considers adverse events, with efficacy dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the adverse events associated with individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of adverse event rates associated with single-dose oral analgesics, compared with placebo, for acute postoperative pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group. We extracted information related to participants experiencing any adverse event, and reports of serious adverse events, and deaths from the individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

Information was available from 39 Cochrane reviews for 41 different analgesics or analgesic combinations (51 drug/dose/formulations) tested in single oral doses in participants with moderate or severe postoperative pain. This involved around 350 unique studies involving about 35,000 participants. Most studies involved younger participants with pain following removal of molar teeth.For most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and combinations not containing opioids, there were few examples where participants experienced significantly more or fewer adverse events than with placebo. For aspirin 1000 mg and diflunisal 1000 mg, opioids, or fixed-dose combination drugs containing opioids, participants typically experienced significantly more adverse events than with placebo. Studies of combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol reported significantly fewer adverse events.Serious adverse events were rare, occurring a rate of about 1 in 3200 participants.Most reviews did not report specific adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite ongoing problems with the measurement, recording, and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and in systematic reviews, the large amount of information available for single oral doses of analgesics provides evidence that adverse events rates are generally similar with active drug and placebo in these circumstances, except at higher doses of some drugs, and in combinations including opioids.

Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews, we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable.

MAIN RESULTS

The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.

Neuropathic pain in people with cancer (part 2): pharmacological and non-pharmacological management

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the management of neuropathic pain associated with cancer and to provide helpful clinical advice for nurses working with patients who may have neuropathic pain. While cancer pain is a mixed-mechanism pain, this article will focus only on neuropathic pain management. The impact of neuropathic pain on patients' quality of life is great and while many patients recover from their cancer, a significant number continue to suffer from a neuropathic pain syndrome. Management of neuropathic pain is significantly different from management of nociceptive pain with respect to pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Neuropathic pain is complex, and as such requires complex management using pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological approaches. Specific drugs for neuropathic pain may be effective for some patients, but not all; therefore, ongoing and comprehensive assessment and management are required. Furthermore, these patients may require trials of several drugs before they find one that works for them. It is important for nurses to understand neuropathic pain, its manifestation, impact on quality of life and management when nursing patients with neuropathic pain associated with cancer.

Gabapentin significantly decreases posthemorrhoidectomy pain: a prospective study

PURPOSE

Surgery for hemorrhoidectomy remains a painful procedure despite advances in pain management. Gabapentin is widely used for control of acute and chronic pain. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of gabapentin on posthemorrhoidectomy pain and opioid use.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label study. Patients requiring hemorrhoid surgery were recruited to be in control (standard of care) or treatment group (standard of care plus daily gabapentin).

RESULTS

Twenty-one treatment and 18 control patients were recruited. One patient from study group and two patients from control group were excluded due to failure to follow up. Pain levels for gabapentin group were significantly lower on postoperative days 1, 7, and 14 compared to the standard treatment group (3.68 vs. 6.82 p < 0.01, 2.68 vs. 5 p = 0.02 and 0.75 vs. 3.64 p < 0.001 respectively). There was a trend toward less opioids taken in gabapentin group for postoperative days 1, 7, and 14 (4.69 vs. 6.36; 2.13 vs. 2.73, and 0.125 vs. 0.9) but it did not reach statistical significance. The average hemorrhoidal grade and number of hemorrhoidal complexes removed was slightly higher in gabapentin group. Five control group patients experienced postoperative complications versus two gabapentin group patients. No gabapentin related complications were seen in the treatment group. The average cost of gabapentin course was $5.34 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily use of gabapentin in perioperative period significantly decreased reported levels of postoperative pain. This effective, inexpensive addition improves pain after hemorrhoid surgery. Randomized placebo-controlled studies would better define the usefulness of this medication for posthemorrhoidectomy 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.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Clinical pharmacology of analgesics assessed with human experimental pain models: bridging basic and clinical research

The medical impact of pain is such that much effort is being applied to develop novel analgesic drugs directed towards new targets and to investigate the analgesic efficacy of known drugs. Ongoing research requires cost-saving tools to translate basic science knowledge into clinically effective analgesic compounds. In this review we have re-examined the prediction of clinical analgesia by human experimental pain models as a basis for model selection in phase I studies. The overall prediction of analgesic efficacy or failure of a drug correlated well between experimental and clinical settings. However, correct model selection requires more detailed information about which model predicts a particular clinical pain condition. We hypothesized that if an analgesic drug was effective in an experimental pain model and also a specific clinical pain condition, then that model might be predictive for that particular condition and should be selected for development as an analgesic for that condition. The validity of the prediction increases with an increase in the numbers of analgesic drug classes for which this agreement was shown. From available evidence, only five clinical pain conditions were correctly predicted by seven different pain models for at least three different drugs. Most of these models combine a sensitization method. The analysis also identified several models with low impact with respect to their clinical translation. Thus, the presently identified agreements and non-agreements between analgesic effects on experimental and on clinical pain may serve as a solid basis to identify complex sets of human pain models that bridge basic science with clinical pain research.

Evidence-based postoperative pain management after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on the management of pain after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHOD

Randomized studies, published in English between January 1995 and July 2011, assessing analgesic and anaesthetic interventions in adults undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and reporting pain scores, were retrieved from the Embase and MEDLINE databases. The efficacy and adverse effects of the analgesic techniques was assessed. The recommendations were based on procedure-specific evidence from a systematic review and supplementary transferable evidence from other relevant procedures.

RESULTS

Of the 170 randomized studies identified, 12 studies were included. Overall, all approaches including ketorolac, methylprednisolone, intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine, intravenous lidocaine infusion, intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia improved pain relief, reduced opioid requirements and improved bowel function. However, there were significant differences in the study designs and the variables evaluated, precluding quantitative analysis. The L'Abbé plots of the data from the epidural analgesia studies included in this review indicate that the pain scores in the nonepidural groups, although higher than those in the epidural groups, were within an acceptable level (i.e. < 4/10).

CONCLUSION

Infiltration of surgical incisions with local anaesthetic at the end of surgery, systemic steroids, conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors in combination with paracetamol with opioid used as rescue are recommended. Intravenous lidocaine infusion is recommended, but not as the first line of therapy. However, neuraxial blocks (i.e. epidural analgesia and spinal morphine) are not necessary based on high risk:benefit ratio.

Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates parts of two earlier Cochrane reviews investigating effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage pain, predominantly for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain management.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin in acute, chronic or cancer pain from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources. The date of the most recent search was January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain with assessment of pain intensity and/or pain relief, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTs), concentrating on IMMPACT (Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit, and to harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (3571 participants), studied gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 78% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. Using the IMMPACT definition of at least moderate benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 14 studies with 2831 participants, 43% improving with gabapentin and 26% with placebo; the NNT was 5.8 (4.8 to 7.2). Using the IMMPACT definition of substantial benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 13 studies with 2627 participants, 31% improving with gabapentin and 17% with placebo; the NNT was 6.8 (5.6 to 8.7). These estimates of efficacy are more conservative than those reported in a previous review. Data from few studies and participants were available for other painful conditions.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin can expect to have at least one adverse event (66%), withdraw because of an adverse event (12%), suffer dizziness (21%), somnolence (16%), peripheral oedema (8%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (4%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for comparisons with other active treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin provides pain relief of a high level in about a third of people who take if for painful neuropathic pain. Adverse events are frequent, but mostly tolerable. More conservative estimates of efficacy resulted from using better definitions of efficacy outcome at higher, clinically important, levels, combined with a considerable increase in the numbers of studies and participants available for analysis.