Etodolac: analgesic effects in musculoskeletal and postoperative pain

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain

BACKGROUND

Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used in the treatment of LBP, particularly in people with acute LBP. In 2008, a Cochrane Review was published about the efficacy of NSAIDs for LBP (acute, chronic, and sciatica), identifying a small but significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo for short-term pain reduction and global improvement in participants with acute LBP. This is an update of the previous review, focusing on acute LBP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo and other comparison treatments for acute LBP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and two trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCT) to 7 January 2020. We also screened the reference lists from relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that assessed the use of one or more types of NSAIDs compared to placebo (the main comparison) or alternative treatments for acute LBP in adults (≥ 18 years); conducted in both primary and secondary care settings. We assessed the effects of treatment on pain reduction, disability, global improvement, adverse events, and return to work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials to be included in this review, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted the data. If appropriate, we performed a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model throughout, due to expected variability between studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials, with a total of 5356 participants (age range 16 to 78 years). Follow-up ranged from one day to six months. Studies were conducted across the globe, the majority taking place in Europe and North-America. Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region were not represented. We considered seven studies at low risk of bias. Performance and attrition were the most common biases. There was often a lack of information on randomisation procedures and allocation concealment (selection bias); studies were prone to selective reporting bias, since most studies did not register their trials. Almost half of the studies were industry-funded. There is moderate quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective in short-term (≤ 3 weeks) reduction of pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 100) than placebo (mean difference (MD) -7.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.98 to -3.61; 4 RCTs, N = 815). There is high quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term improvement in disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), 0 to 24) than placebo (MD -2.02, 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15; 2 RCTs, N = 471). The magnitude of these effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are slightly more effective for short-term global improvement than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75; 5 RCTs, N = 1201), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² 52%) between studies. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events when using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 6 RCTs, N = 1394). There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference between the proportion of participants who could return to work after seven days between those who used NSAIDs and those who used placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.23; 1 RCT, N = 266). There is low quality evidence of no clear difference in short-term reduction of pain intensity between those who took selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAIDs compared to non-selective NSAIDs (mean change from baseline -2.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 4.03; 2 RCTs, N = 437). There is moderate quality evidence of conflicting results for short-term disability improvement between groups (2 RCTs, N = 437). Low quality evidence from one trial (N = 333) reported no clear difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing global improvement. There is very low quality evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events between those who took COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.50; 2 RCTs, N = 444). No data were reported for return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review included 32 trials to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in people with acute LBP. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low, thus further research is (very) likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect, and may change the estimates. NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than placebo for short-term pain reduction (moderate certainty), disability (high certainty), and global improvement (low certainty), but the magnitude of the effects is small and probably not clinically relevant. There was no clear difference in short-term pain reduction (low certainty) when comparing selective COX-2 inhibitors to non-selective NSAIDs. We found very low evidence of no clear difference in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events in both the comparison of NSAIDs versus placebo and selective COX-2 inhibitors versus non-selective NSAIDs. We were unable to draw conclusions about adverse events and the safety of NSAIDs for longer-term use, since we only included RCTs with a primary focus on short-term use of NSAIDs and a short follow-up. These are not optimal for answering questions about longer-term or rare adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of 400 and 800 mg etodolac vs. 1,000 mg paracetamol in acute treatment of migraine: a randomized, double-blind, crossover, multicenter, phase III clinical trial

AIM

We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of etodolac, in acute migraine attacks in comparison with paracetamol (acetaminophen).

METHODS

We designed a randomized, double-blind, crossover phase III clinical trial for patients diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year, according to ICHD-II criteria. Two hundred and twenty-nine adult patients having 2 to 8 attacks monthly from 17 centers were included. The patients were instructed to use 3 attack treatment packages consisting of 1,000 mg paracetamol, 400 mg etodolac, and 800 mg etodolac on 3 migraine attacks of moderate-severe intensity each in a 3-month treatment period, interchangeably.

RESULTS

Any pain medication was used in 1,570 migraine attacks while study treatments were used in 1,047 attacks. The results for 1,000 mg paracetamol, 400 mg etodolac, and 800 mg etodolac were as follows: response of headache at 2 hours 44.9%, 48.3% and 46.1%; pain-free at 2 hours 19.2%, 19.3% and 24.1%; sustained pain-free from 2 to 24 hours 34.3%, 38.3% and 41.1%; relapse rates in 2 to 24 hours 7.3%, 14.3% and 9.7%. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the headache response, pain-free, sustained pain-free, and relapse rates. Nausea, vomiting, phonophobia, or photophobia decreased similarly in all groups within 24 hours of treatment administration. Drug-related adverse events were noted in 8 patients with 1,000 mg paracetamol, in 9 patients with 400 mg etodolac and in 9 patients for 800 mg etodolac during the study.

COMMENT

Our study showed that etodolac is a safe and effective alternative in acute migraine treatment and showed comparable efficacy to paracetamol 1,000 mg. Etodolac may be considered as an alternative option for acute treatment of migraine.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of etodolac and diclofenac sodium injection in patients with postoperative orthopedic pain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of etodolac injection and diclofenac injection in patients with postoperative orthopedic pain.

METHODS

This was multicentric, randomized, assessor-blind and parallel-group study. A group of 158 patients with moderate to severe pain following orthopedic surgery were randomly assigned to receive either etodolac 400 mg twice a day (n = 78) or diclofenac 75 mg thrice a day (n = 80).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome measures were pain intensity difference, sum of pain intensity differences and pain relief whereas secondary efficacy variables included maximum fall in pain intensity, number of doses of study medication consumed, number of patients who required rescue medication and overall response to therapy.

RESULTS

Mean pain intensity differences assessed on 10 cm VAS were significantly better for etodolac arm compared to diclofenac arm at 4, 8, 20 and 24 hours (p < 0.05). Sum of pain intensity differences over the first 8 hours (-21.31 ± 6.26 for etodolac vs. -19.13 ± 6.98 for diclofenac; p = 0.041) and over the 24 hours (-39.83 ± 10.70 for etodolac vs. -35.25 ± 12.00 for diclofenac; p = 0.012) for the etodolac group was significantly superior than diclofenac group. Assessment of pain relief showed that etodolac injection was significantly more effective than diclofenac injection (p < 0.0001) over the 24 hour assessment period. Maximum fall in pain intensity score, number of doses of study medication consumed and patients' and investigators' overall response to the drug at the end of treatment period were also significantly superior in the etodolac arm as compared to the diclofenac arm (p < 0.05). However, the number of patients who were rescued was comparable in both the treatment arms. A change in emotional functioning of the patients was not captured in this study. Both the study medications were well tolerated with no incidence of SAE throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

Etodolac can be considered as an effective alternative to traditional NSAIDS in the treatment of post operative pain.

Etodolac in the management of pain: a clinical review of a multipurpose analgesic

Etodolac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with analgesic properties. Its primary anti-inflammatory mechanism of action is through a selective effect on cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2). It is rapidly absorbed after oral administration, and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) is reached in 1-2 h, with an elimination half-life (t1/2 ) of 6-8 h.Etodolac has been widely applied in the treatment of inflammatory arthritides such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and gout and in osteoarthritis and has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated.However, etodolac has other applications which rely primarily on its efficacy as an analgesic. In particular, etodolac has been evaluated in the treatment of a variety of different pain states. Etodolac has been observed to be efficacious in the treatment of acute pain following dental extraction, orthopaedic and urological surgery, and episiotomy, as well as in the treatment of pain due to acute sports injuries, primary dysmenorrhoea, tendonitis, bursitis, periarthritis, radiculalgia and low back pain.These studies indicate that etodolac is a multipurpose analgesic with many clinical applications in addition to its use in the treatment of inflammatory and degenerative forms of arthritis.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: an updated Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

NSAIDs are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch, or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials. Randomized trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in nonspecific low back pain with or without sciatica were included.

RESULTS

In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favor of NSAIDs compared with placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side effects than traditional NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID, which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared with traditional NSAIDs in the randomized controlled trials included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low-back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the effects of NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of non-specific low-back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in non-specific low-back pain with or without sciatica were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. All studies were also assessed on clinical relevance, from which no further interpretations or conclusions were drawn. If data were considered clinically homogeneous, a meta-analysis was performed. If data were lacking for clinically homogeneous trials, a qualitative analysis was performed using a rating system with four levels of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, no evidence).

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low-back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low-back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low-back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side-effects than traditional NSAIDs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low-back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared to traditional NSAIDs in the RCTs included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.

WITHDRAWN: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of NSAIDs in the treatment of non-specific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Medline and Embase databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) up to and including September 1998 if reported in English, Dutch or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in non-specific low back pain with or without radiation were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors blinded with respect to authors, institution and journal independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. A methodological quality score was applied, and studies meeting at least six of 11 specified criteria were considered high quality studies. If data were considered clinically homogeneous, a meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model for statistically homogeneous subgroups and a random effects model for statistically heterogeneous subgroups. If data were considered clinically heterogeneous, a qualitative analysis was performed using a rating system with four levels of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, no).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 51 trials (total number of patients = 6057) were included in this review, of which 46 were published in English and five in German. Sixteen trials (31%) were of high quality. The pooled Relative Risk for global improvement after one week was 1.24 (95% CI 1.10 , 1.41) and for additional analgesic use 1.29 (95% CI 1.05 , 1.57), indicating a statistically significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared to placebo. The results of the qualitative analysis showed that there is conflicting evidence (level 3) that NSAIDs are more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, and that there is moderate evidence (level 2) that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence (level 1) that various types of NSAIDs are equally effective for acute low back pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the evidence from the 51 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute low back pain. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID which is clearly more effective than others. Sufficient evidence on chronic low back pain is still lacking.

Effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of acute and prevention of recurrent gout--a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the evidence for the effectiveness of treatments for acute gout and the prevention of recurrent gout.

METHOD

Seven electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of treatments for gout from their inception to the end of 2004. No language restrictions were applied. All randomized controlled trials of treatments routinely available for the treatment of gout were included. Trials of the prevention of recurrence were included only if patients who had had gout and had at least 6 months of follow-up were studied.

RESULTS

We found 13 randomized controlled trials of treatment for acute gout, two of which were placebo controlled. Colchicine was found to be effective in one study; however, the entire colchicine group developed toxicity. The only robust conclusion from studies of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is that pain relief from indometacin and etoricoxib are equivalent. We found one randomized controlled trial, reported only as a conference abstract, of recurrent gout prevention.

CONCLUSION

The shortage of robust data to inform the management of a common problem such as gout is surprising. All of the drugs used to treat gout can have serious side effects. The incidence of gout is highest in the elderly population. It is in this group, who are at a high risk of serious adverse events, that we are using drugs of known toxicity. The balance of risks and benefits for the drug treatment of gout needs to be reassessed.

Etodolac versus dexamethasone effect in reduction of postoperative symptoms following surgical endodontic treatment: a double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this prospective study was to analyze the effect of etodolac versus dexamethasone in reducing postoperative pain in patients who had surgical endodontic treatment using a strict protocol.

STUDY DESIGN

The study consisted of 90 patients (38 males and 52 females) referred for surgical endodontic treatment. All procedures were performed using a microsurgical technique with a strict protocol. Patients were randomly premedicated with placebo or with one of both protocols: either a single dose of oral dexamethasone, 8 mg, preoperatively and 2 single doses, 4 mg, 1 and 2 days postoperatively, or a single dose of etodolac, 600 mg, and 2 single doses, 600 mg, 1 and 2 days postoperatively. Pain was recorded at 8, 24, and 48 hours, as well as 7 days postoperatively, on a 1-10 scale. The influence of different variables on postoperative sequelae was analyzed.

RESULTS

On a 1-10 scale, the mean values of pain report recorded were 3.8 +/- 2.9 (8 hours postoperatively), 2.93 +/- 2.4 (24 hours), 2.31 +/- 2.2 (48 hours), and 1.4 +/- 0.9 (7 days postoperatively). One day postoperatively, 41.8% of the patients reported no or very mild pain (score 1 or 2), whereas after 7 days, 87.9% reported no or very mild pain (score 1 or 2). Both etodolac and dexamethasone had a significant effect of reducing postoperative pain in patients who had surgical endodontic procedure compared with placebo (P < or = .001).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pain following endodontic surgical treatment is not uncommon. Etodolac as well as dexamethasone might serve as a pain relief measure for postoperative pain in these patients.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized and double-blind controlled trials was performed.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain with or without radiation, and to assess which type of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug is most effective.

METHODS

For this study, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase, and reference lists of articles were searched. Two reviewers blinded with respect to authors, institution, and journal independently extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of the studies. If data were considered clinically homogeneous, a meta-analysis was performed. If data were considered clinically heterogeneous, a qualitative analysis was performed using a rating system with four levels of evidence: strong, moderate, limited, and no evidence.

RESULTS

This review involved 51 trials and 6057 patients. Of these trials, 16 (31%) were of high quality. The pooled relative risk for global improvement after 1 week was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10-1.41), and for additional analgesic use was 1.29 (95% CI = 1.05-1.57), indicating a statistically significant but small effect in favor of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as compared with a placebo. The results of the qualitative analysis showed that there is conflicting evidence (Level 3) that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, and that there is moderate evidence (Level 2) that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence (Level 1) that various types of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are equally effective for acute low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from the 51 trials included in this review suggests that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute low back pain. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is clearly more effective than others. Sufficient evidence on chronic low back pain still is lacking.

The clinical effect of ketoprofen after arthroscopic subacromial decompression: a randomized double-blind prospective study

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the clinical effect of ketoprofen after arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD). The design was randomized, prospective, and double-blind, with a placebo control group. Forty-one consecutive patients with subacromial impingement syndrome, were randomized to treatment with ketoprofen 200 mg once daily or placebo for 6 weeks following ASD. For additional analgesia, patients used paracetamol if necessary. Clinical follow-up was performed at 6 weeks and at 2 years postoperatively. At the 6-week follow-up, the patients treated with ketoprofen had a statistically significant increase in UCLA total score (P<.05), range of movement (P<.05), and satisfaction (P<.05), and they had significantly less pain (P<.05). There was no statistical difference between the ketoprofen and placebo groups regarding strength. Patients receiving ketoprofen had significantly less need for additional analgesia (P<.05). At the 2-year follow-up, there were no differences in the scores between the ketoprofen and placebo group.

A comparison of etodolac (Ultradol) with acetaminophen plus codeine (Tylenol #3) in controlling post-surgical pain in vasectomy patients

The efficacy and safety of etodolac (Ultradol) and acetaminophen plus codeine [A + C (Tylenol #3)] in controlling post-surgical pain were compared in an open-label, randomized, parallel-group outpatient study. Patients who were voluntarily having a vasectomy performed for sterilization were assigned to receive either etodolac 200 mg (20 patients) or A + C (20 patients). All medication was taken as required for up to 7 days. Efficacy assessments were made at 1, 6 and 24 hours after surgery and included pain measurement (Likert Visual Analogue scale), patient and physician global assessments and time to analgesic relief. Safety assessments were made throughout the study and included vital signs and adverse event monitoring. Results of the study indicated that patients taking etodolac were more likely to say they could return to work 24 hours after their vasectomy (p = 0.04). There were no other statistically significant differences between the two groups of patients. The results from this study indicate that etodolac and A + C are equally efficacious and well-tolerated for the control of post-vasectomy pain and that patients may observe an increased benefit with etodolac by being able to return to work sooner.