Evidence for analgesic effect in acute pain - 50 years on

Acupuncture for response and complete pain relief time of acute renal colic: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background

The integration of acupuncture with intramuscular injection of diclofenac sodium can expedite the onset of analgesia in treating acute renal colic caused by urolithiasis. However, it remains unclear whether acupuncture can accelerate pain relief constantly until complete remission. This study aimed to explore the extent to which acupuncture can expedite the onset time of response or complete pain relief in treating acute renal colic, and the predictive value of patient characteristics for treatment efficacy.

Methods

This secondary analysis utilized data from a prior randomized controlled trial. Eighty patients with acute renal colic were randomly assigned 1:1 to the acupuncture group or the sham acupuncture group. After intramuscular injection of diclofenac sodium, acupuncture or sham acupuncture was delivered to patients. The outcomes included time to response (at least a 50 % reduction in pain) and complete pain relief. Between-group comparison under the 2 events was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodology. Subgroup analysis was performed utilizing the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The median response time and complete pain relief time in the acupuncture group were lower than those in the sham acupuncture group (5 vs 30 min, Log Rank P < 0.001; 20 min vs not observed, Log Rank P < 0.001, respectively). Hazard Ratios (HRs) for response across all subgroups favored the acupuncture group. All HRs for complete pain relief favored acupuncture, expect large stone and moderate pain at baseline. No interaction was found in either event.

Conclusion

Acupuncture can accelerate the response time and complete pain relief time for patients with acute renal colic, with the efficacy universally.

Trial registration

This study has been registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1900025202.

Topical ophthalmic anesthetics for corneal abrasions

BACKGROUND

Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and ophthalmic complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical ophthalmic anesthetics compared with placebo or other treatments in persons with corneal abrasions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase.com; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The search was performed on 10 February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical ophthalmic anesthetics alone or in combination with another treatment (e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) versus a non-anesthetic control group (e.g. placebo, non-treatment, or alternative treatment). We included trials that enrolled participants of all ages who had corneal abrasions within 48 hours of presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine parallel-group RCTs with a total of 556 participants (median number of participants per study: 45, interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 74), conducted in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, South Korea, Turkey, New Zealand, UK, and USA. Study characteristics and risk of bias Four RCTs (314 participants) investigated post-traumatic corneal abrasions diagnosed in the emergency department setting. Five trials described 242 participants from ophthalmology surgery centers with post-surgical corneal defects: four from photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and one from pterygium surgery. Study duration ranged from two days to six months, the most common being one week (four RCTs). Treatment duration ranged from three hours to one week (nine RCTs); the majority were between 24 and 48 hours (five RCTs). The age of participants was reported in eight studies, ranging from 17 to 74 years of age. Only one participant in one trial was under 18 years of age. Of four studies that reported funding sources, none was industry-sponsored. We judged a high risk of bias in one trial with respect to the outcome pain control by 48 hours, and in five of seven trials with respect to the outcome complications at the furthest time point. The domain for which we assessed studies to be at the highest risk of bias was missing or selective reporting of outcome data. Findings The treatments investigated included topical anesthetics compared with placebo, topical anesthetic compared with NSAID (post-surgical cases), and topical anesthetics plus NSAID compared with placebo (post-surgical cases). Pain control by 24 hours In all studies, self-reported pain outcomes were on a 10-point scale, where lower numbers represent less pain. In post-surgical trials, topical anesthetics provided a moderate reduction in self-reported pain at 24 hours compared with placebo of 1.28 points on a 10-point scale (mean difference (MD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.76 to -0.80; 3 RCTs, 119 participants). In the post-trauma participants, there may be little or no difference in effect (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 1 RCT, 76 participants). Compared with NSAID in post-surgical participants, topical anesthetics resulted in a slight increase in pain at 24 hours (MD 0.82, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 74 participants). One RCT compared topical anesthetics plus NSAID to placebo. There may be a large reduction in pain at 24 hours with topical anesthetics plus NSAID in post-surgical participants, but the evidence to support this large effect is very uncertain (MD -5.72, 95% CI -7.35 to -4.09; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pain control by 48 hours Compared with placebo, topical anesthetics reduced post-trauma pain substantially by 48 hours (MD -5.68, 95% CI -6.38 to -4.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants) but had little to no effect on post-surgical pain (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 44 participants), although the evidence is very uncertain. Pain control by 72 hours One post-surgical RCT showed little or no effect of topical anesthetics compared with placebo by 72 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.04; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with unresolved epithelial defects When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics increased the number of participants without complete resolution of defects in trials of post-trauma participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.42; 3 RCTs, 221 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The proportion of placebo-treated post-surgical participants with unresolved epithelial defects at 24 to 72 hours was lower when compared with those assigned to topical anesthetics (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or topical anesthetics plus NSAID (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with complications at the longest follow-up When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics resulted in a higher proportion of post-trauma participants with complications at up to two weeks (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.46; 3 RCTs, 242 participants) and post-surgical participants with complications at up to one week (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 128.02; 1 RCT, 44 participants). When topical anesthetic plus NSAID was compared with placebo, no complications were reported in either treatment arm up to one week post-surgery (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 30 participants). The evidence is very uncertain for safety outcomes. Quality of life None of the included trials assessed quality of life outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite topical anesthetics providing excellent pain control in the intraoperative setting, the currently available evidence provides little or no certainty about their efficacy for reducing ocular pain in the initial 24 to 72 hours after a corneal abrasion, whether from unintentional trauma or surgery. We have very low confidence in this evidence as a basis to recommend topical anesthetics as an efficacious treatment modality to relieve pain from corneal abrasions. We also found no evidence of a substantial effect on epithelial healing up to 72 hours or a reduction in ocular complications when we compared anesthetics alone or with NSAIDs versus placebo.

Access to pain management from a legal and human rights perspective

Patients who experience pain require adequate pain management provided by healthcare professionals who have access to pain relief medicines and are trained in the assessment and treatment of pain. Patients also need their pain to be acknowledged, understood and believed. These patient needs in relation to pain management can be considered from a legal and human rights perspective. This article describes human rights legislation in the UK, how it affects healthcare practice and what it means for healthcare professionals. It discusses barriers to pain management, the concept of pain management as a human right, the obligation of healthcare organisations to provide pain management and the limits to patients' rights to pain management. Finally, it proposes strategies that nurses can use to uphold a patient's human rights in relation to pain management.

Analgesic benefit of metamizole and ibuprofen vs. either medication alone: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain relief remains a key problem after surgery. Multimodal pain therapy has proven beneficial in alleviating pain to a certain extent. However, when combining non-opioids, the focus has been on NSAIDs and paracetamol, but effects of combined use are only moderate. Metamizole could be a potent adjunct, due to its preclusion in several countries, data on its combined use are sparse, despite its common use in many countries. The aim of this study was to examine whether the combination of metamizole and ibuprofen is superior in relieving postoperative pain to either drug alone.

METHODS

For this randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 35 patients undergoing bilateral lower third molar extraction were randomized. Each patient received three applications of 1000mg metamizole + 400mg ibuprofen for surgery on one side and either 1000mg metamizole + placebo or 400mg ibuprofen + placebo on the other side. Pain ratings, rescue-medication (tramadol), and sleep were assessed for 18 hours.

RESULTS

The combined treatment of metamizole and ibuprofen showed lower mean pain scores over 12 hours than ibuprofen (2.4±1.3 vs 3.8±1.6; P=0.005)). Further, combined treatment showed lower mean pain scores over 6 hours than ibuprofen (2.0±1.2 vs. 3.1±1.6; P=0.022) or metamizole alone (2.0±1.2 vs. 3.3±1.7; P=0.015). Consumption of rescue medication was lowest in the combination-group (25% vs. 46%-metamizole; 50%-ibuprofen). The trial was stopped prematurely as the COVID-pandemic halted elective surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined use enables superior pain control compared to ibuprofen after molar extraction and tends to be superior to metamizole alone. The premature study-termination may overestimate this effect.

Pharmacological Management of Acute Endodontic Pain

Pain associated with infections of the tooth pulp and periapical tissues is intense and often the most common reason for patients seeking emergency dental care. Effective management of acute dental pain requires a deep understanding of pain mechanisms, which enables accurate diagnosis and definitive treatment. While drugs are only used as an adjunct to definitive dental treatment, a thorough understanding of their mechanism of action and effectiveness enables clinicians to effectively control intra-operative and post-operative pain and prevent persistent pain. This review describes how pain is detected, processed, and perceived. It also provides information on evidence-based strategies on the use of different classes of drugs to effectively manage endodontic pain.

Single-dose intravenous ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous (IV) ibuprofen, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 10 June 2021. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a 4- and 6-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants reporting or experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and specific NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. We were not able to carry out any planned meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria, involving 201 total participants, mostly female (mean age 42 years), undergoing primary, unilateral, distal, first metatarsal bunionectomy (with osteotomy and internal fixation). Ibuprofen 300 mg, placebo or acetaminophen 1000 mg was administered intravenously to participants reporting moderate pain intensity the day after surgery. Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we did not perform any quantitative analyses. The study was at low risk of bias for most domains. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision. Ibuprofen versus placebo Findings of the single study found that at both the 4-hour and 6-hour assessment period, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 32% (24/76) for those assigned to ibuprofen and 22% (11/50) for those assigned to placebo. These findings produced a risk ratio (RR) of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 2.66 versus placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over the 4-hour and 6-hour period (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 71 minutes for placebo (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study (1 study, 126 participants), 58/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 39/50 (78%) assigned to placebo reported or experienced any adverse event (AE), (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). No serious AEs (SAEs) were experienced (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus active comparators Ibuprofen (300 mg) was similar to the active comparator, IV acetaminophen (1000 mg) at 4 hours and 6 hours (1 study, 126 participants). For those assigned to active control (acetaminophen), the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 35% (26/75) at 4 hours and 31% (23/75) at 6 hours. At 4 hours, these findings produced a RR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). At 6 hours, these findings produced a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 125 minutes for the active comparator, acetaminophen (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study, 8/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 45/75 (60%) assigned to active control (acetaminophen) reported or experienced any AE, (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59; very low-certainty evidence). No SAEs were experienced (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that IV ibuprofen is effective and safe for acute postoperative pain in adults.

Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs  Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.   Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Gastrointestinal pain

Gastrointestinal (GI) pain - a form of visceral pain - is common in some disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn's disease and pancreatitis. However, identifying the cause of GI pain frequently represents a diagnostic challenge as the clinical presentation is often blurred by concomitant autonomic and somatic symptoms. In addition, GI pain can be nociceptive, neuropathic and associated with cancer, but in many cases multiple aetiologies coexist in an individual patient. Mechanisms of GI pain are complex and include both peripheral and central sensitization and the involvement of the autonomic nervous system, which has a role in generating the symptoms that frequently accompany pain. Treatment of GI pain depends on the precise type of pain and the primary disorder in the patient but can include, for example, pharmacological therapy, cognitive behavioural therapies, invasive surgical procedures, endoscopic procedures and lifestyle alterations. Owing to the major differences between organ involvement, disease mechanisms and individual factors, treatment always needs to be personalized and some data suggest that phenotyping and subsequent individual management of GI pain might be options in the future.

Single‐dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single‐dose IV ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate‐to‐severe postoperative pain in adults.

Estimating relative efficacy in acute postoperative pain: network meta-analysis is consistent with indirect comparison to placebo alone

Network meta-analysis uses direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across them. Network meta-analysis uses more data than a series of direct comparisons with placebo, and theoretically should produce more reliable results. We used a Cochrane overview review of acute postoperative pain trials and other systematic reviews to provide data to test this hypothesis. Some 261 trials published between 1966 and 2016 included 39,753 patients examining 52 active drug and dose combinations (27,726 given active drug and 12,027 placebo), in any type of surgery (72% dental). Most trials were small; 42% of patients were in trials with arms <50 patients, and 27% in trials with arms ≥100 patients. Response to placebo in third molar extraction fell by half in studies over 30 to 40 years (171 trials, 7882 patients given placebo). Network meta-analysis and Cochrane analyses provided very similar results (average difference 0.04 number needed to treat units), with no significant difference for almost all comparisons apart from some with small patient numbers or small effect size, or both. Network meta-analysis did not detect significant differences between effective analgesics. The similarity between network meta-analysis and Cochrane indirect analyses probably arose from stringent quality criteria in trials accepted in Cochrane reviews (with consequent low risk of bias) and consistency in methods and outcomes. Network meta-analysis is a useful analytical tool that increases our confidence in estimates of efficacy of analgesics in acute postoperative pain, in this case by providing similar results.

Perioperative intravenous ketamine for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Inadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may enhance conventional analgesics in the acute postoperative setting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in adult patients when used for the treatment or prevention of acute pain following general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to July 2018 and three trials registers (metaRegister of controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and being treated with perioperative intravenous ketamine. Studies compared ketamine with placebo, or compared ketamine plus a basic analgesic, such as morphine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with a basic analgesic alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and performed analyses. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and pain intensity at rest and during movement at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic request, assessment of postoperative hyperalgesia, central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 130 studies with 8341 participants. Ketamine was given to 4588 participants and 3753 participants served as controls. Types of surgery included ear, nose or throat surgery, wisdom tooth extraction, thoracotomy, lumbar fusion surgery, microdiscectomy, hip joint replacement surgery, knee joint replacement surgery, anterior cruciate ligament repair, knee arthroscopy, mastectomy, haemorrhoidectomy, abdominal surgery, radical prostatectomy, thyroid surgery, elective caesarean section, and laparoscopic surgery. Racemic ketamine bolus doses were predominantly 0.25 mg to 1 mg, and infusions 2 to 5 µg/kg/minute; 10 studies used only S-ketamine and one only R-ketamine. Risk of bias was generally low or uncertain, except for study size; most had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, resulting in high heterogeneity, as expected, for most analyses. We did not stratify the main analysis by type of surgery or any other factor, such as dose or timing of ketamine administration, and used a non-stratified analysis.Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 24 hours by 8 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI 6 to 9; 19% from 42 mg consumed by participants given placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 65 studies, 4004 participants). Over 48 hours, opioid consumption was 13 mg lower (95% CI 10 to 15; 19% from 67 mg with placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 37 studies, 2449 participants).Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced pain at rest at 24 hours by 5/100 mm on a visual analogue scale (95% CI 4 to 7; 19% lower from 26/100 mm with placebo, high-quality evidence; 82 studies, 5004 participants), and at 48 hours by 5/100 mm (95% CI 3 to 7; 22% lower from 23/100 mm, high-quality evidence; 49 studies, 2962 participants). Pain during movement was reduced at 24 hours (6/100 mm, 14% lower from 42/100 mm, moderate-quality evidence; 29 studies, 1806 participants), and 48 hours (6/100 mm, 16% lower from 37 mm, low-quality evidence; 23 studies, 1353 participants).Results for primary outcomes were consistent when analysed by pain at rest or on movement, operation type, and timing of administration, or sensitivity to study size and pain intensity. No analysis by dose was possible. There was no difference when nitrous oxide was used. We downgraded the quality of the evidence once if numbers of participants were large but small-study effects were present, or twice if numbers were small and small-study effects likely but testing not possible.Ketamine increased the time for the first postoperative analgesic request by 54 minutes (95% CI 37 to 71 minutes), from a mean of 39 minutes with placebo (moderate-quality evidence; 31 studies, 1678 participants). Ketamine reduced the area of postoperative hyperalgesia by 7 cm² (95% CI -11.9 to -2.2), compared with placebo (very low-quality evidence; 7 studies 333 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence because of small-study effects or because the number of participants was below 400.CNS adverse events occurred in 52 studies, while 53 studies reported of absence of CNS adverse events. Overall, 187/3614 (5%) participants receiving ketamine and 122/2924 (4%) receiving control treatment experienced an adverse event (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.4; high-quality evidence; 105 studies, 6538 participants). Ketamine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting from 27% with placebo to 23% with ketamine (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96; the number needed to treat to prevent one episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting with perioperative intravenous ketamine administration was 24 (95% CI 16 to 54; high-quality evidence; 95 studies, 5965 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative analgesic consumption and pain intensity. Results were consistent in different operation types or timing of ketamine administration, with larger and smaller studies, and by higher and lower pain intensity. CNS adverse events were little different with ketamine or control. Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small extent, of arguable clinical relevance.

Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.Primary outcomeThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.For time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).For the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).The numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.Overall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.There were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Procedure-Specific Pain Management (PROSPECT) - An update

Post-operative pain management protocols may be optimised by examining procedure-specific evidence and outcomes. This recognition led to the formation of the PROcedure-SPECific Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) collaboration of anaesthesiologists and surgeons. The aim of PROSPECT is to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations to prevent and treat post-operative pain after specific surgical procedures, thereby overcoming the limitations of generic, non-specific guidelines. Updates in the methodology of PROSPECT in 2017 have placed an increased emphasis on the clinical relevance of studies, including a focus on interventions in the context of multimodal analgesia strategies and consideration of risks and benefits of interventions in specific surgical settings. Evidence-based reviews of analgesic measures, including advice on surgical techniques and adjuvants after diverse surgical procedures, have been completed by the PROSPECT collaboration and are accessible on the website (www.postoppain.org) and published in the peer-reviewed literature. These reviews continue to identify significant gaps in clinically relevant research on post-operative analgesia and are possibly leading to a closing of some of these gaps.

Diclofenac Potassium in Acute Postoperative Pain and Dysmenorrhoea: Results from Comprehensive Clinical Trial Reports

We compared the efficacy of diclofenac potassium in unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) and published reports to examine publication bias, industry bias, and comprehensiveness. Novartis provided CSRs of randomised double-blind trials of diclofenac potassium involving postoperative patients following third molar extraction (3 trials, n=519), gynaecological surgery (3 trials, n=679), and dysmenorrhoea (2 trials, n=711) conducted in 1988–1990. Searches identified published reports of 6 trials. Information from 599/1909 patients was not published; trials with 846/1909 patients were published in a defunct journal. Greater methodological information in CSRs contributed to lesser risk of bias than published trials. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) from CSRs for all six postoperative trials for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over 6 h were 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.9–2.6) and 2.1 (1.8–2.4) for 50 and 100 mg diclofenac potassium, respectively. A Cochrane review of published trial data reported NNTs of 2.1 and 1.9, and one comprehensive analysis reported NNTs of 2.2 and 2.1, respectively. All analyses had similar results for patients remedicating within 8 h. No data from dysmenorrhoea CSRs appeared in a Cochrane review. CSRs provide useful information and increase confidence. Stable efficacy estimates with standard study designs reduce the need for updating reviews.

Adverse events associated with medium- and long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common and can be challenging to manage. Despite increased utilisation of opioids, the safety and efficacy of long-term use of these compounds for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. This overview of Cochrane Reviews complements the overview entitled 'High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews'.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the occurrence and nature of adverse events associated with any opioid agent (any dose, frequency, or route of administration) used on a medium- or long-term basis for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library) Issue 3, 2017 on 8 March 2017 to identify all Cochrane Reviews of studies of medium- or long-term opioid use (2 weeks or more) for CNCP in adults aged 18 and over. We assessed the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR criteria (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) as adapted for Cochrane Overviews. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 16 reviews in our overview, of which 14 presented unique quantitative data. These 14 Cochrane Reviews investigated 14 different opioid agents that were administered for time periods of two weeks or longer. The longest study was 13 months in duration, with most in the 6- to 16-week range. The quality of the included reviews was high using AMSTAR criteria, with 11 reviews meeting all 10 criteria, and 5 of the reviews meeting 9 out of 10, not scoring a point for either duplicate study selection and data extraction, or searching for articles irrespective of language and publication type. The quality of the evidence for the generic adverse event outcomes according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate, with risk of bias and imprecision being identified for the following generic adverse event outcomes: any adverse event, any serious adverse event, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence for specific adverse events led to a downgrading to very low- to moderate-quality evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.We calculated the equivalent milligrams of morphine per 24 hours for each opioid studied (buprenorphine, codeine, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, levorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, tilidine, and tramadol). In the 14 Cochrane Reviews providing unique quantitative data, there were 61 studies with a total of 18,679 randomised participants; 12 of these studies had a cross-over design with two to four arms and a total of 796 participants. Based on the 14 selected Cochrane Reviews, there was a significantly increased risk of experiencing any adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.66) as well as with opioids compared to a non-opioid active pharmacological comparator, with a similar risk ratio (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33). There was also a significantly increased risk of experiencing a serious adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.67). Furthermore, we found significantly increased risk ratios with opioids compared to placebo for a number of specific adverse events: constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, hot flushes, increased sweating, nausea, pruritus, and vomiting.There was no data on any of the following prespecified adverse events of interest in any of the included reviews in this overview of Cochrane Reviews: addiction, cognitive dysfunction, depressive symptoms or mood disturbances, hypogonadism or other endocrine dysfunction, respiratory depression, sexual dysfunction, and sleep apnoea or sleep-disordered breathing. We found no data for adverse events analysed by sex or ethnicity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A number of adverse events, including serious adverse events, are associated with the medium- and long-term use of opioids for CNCP. The absolute event rate for any adverse event with opioids in trials using a placebo as comparison was 78%, with an absolute event rate of 7.5% for any serious adverse event. Based on the adverse events identified, clinically relevant benefit would need to be clearly demonstrated before long-term use could be considered in people with CNCP in clinical practice. A number of adverse events that we would have expected to occur with opioid use were not reported in the included Cochrane Reviews. Going forward, we recommend more rigorous identification and reporting of all adverse events in randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews on opioid therapy. The absence of data for many adverse events represents a serious limitation of the evidence on opioids. We also recommend extending study follow-up, as a latency of onset may exist for some adverse events.

Single dose oral ketoprofen or dexketoprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of "Single dose oral ketoprofen and dexketoprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults" last updated in Issue 4, 2009. Ketoprofen is a non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used to treat acute and chronic painful conditions. Dexketoprofen is the (S)-enantiomer, which is believed to confer analgesia. Theoretically dexketoprofen is expected to provide equivalent analgesia to ketoprofen at half the dose, with a consequent reduction in gastrointestinal adverse events. This review is one of a series on oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain. Individual reviews have been brought together in two overviews to provide information about the relative efficacy and harm of the different interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of single dose oral ketoprofen and oral dexketoprofen compared with placebo for acute postoperative pain, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in the same way, and criteria of efficacy recommended by an in-depth study at the individual patient level.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from 2009 to 28 March 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered ketoprofen or dexketoprofen in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ketoprofen and dexketoprofen, compared with placebo, where there were sufficient data. We collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours, the median time to use of rescue medication, and the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication. We also collected information on adverse events and withdrawals. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE, and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 24 studies; six additional studies added 1001 participants involved in comparisons of ketoprofen or dexketoprofen and placebo, with a 12% increase in participants taking ketoprofen and a 65% increase for dexketoprofen. Most participants (70%) were women. Dental studies typically involved young participants (mean age 20 to 30 years); other types of surgery involved older participants (mean age 37 to 68 years). Overall, we judged the studies at high risk of bias only for small size, which can lead to an overestimation of benefit.Ketoprofen doses ranged between 6.5 mg and 150 mg. The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours with the usual ketoprofen oral dose of 50 mg was 57%, compared to 23% with placebo, giving an NNT of 2.9 (95% CI 2.4 to 3.7) (RR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0 to 3.1; 594 participants; 8 studies; high quality evidence). Efficacy was significantly better in dental studies (NNT 1.8) than other surgery (NNT 4.2). The proportion of participants using rescue medication within six hours was lower with ketoprofen (32%) than with placebo (75%), giving a number needed to treat to prevent use of rescue medication (NNTp) of 2.3 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.1); 263 participants; 4 studies; high quality evidence). Median time to remedication estimates were poorly reported. Reports of any adverse event were similar with ketoprofen (18%) and placebo (11%) (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.8; 342 participants; 5 studies; high quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events (very low quality evidence).Dexketoprofen doses ranged between 5 mg and 100 mg. The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours with the usual dexketoprofen oral dose of 20 mg or 25 mg was 52%, compared to 27% with placebo, giving an NNT of 4.1 (95% CI 3.3 to 5.2) (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.2; 1177 participants; 8 studies; high quality evidence). Efficacy was significantly better in dental studies (NNT 2.7) than other surgery (NNT 5.7). The proportion of participants using rescue medication within six hours was lower with dexketoprofen (47%) than placebo (69%), giving an NNTp of 4.7 (95% CI 3.3 to 8.0); 445 participants; 5 studies; high quality evidence). Median time to remedication estimates were poorly reported. Reports of any adverse event were similar with dexketoprofen (14%) and placebo (10%) (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.2; 536 participants, 6 studies; high quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ketoprofen at doses of 25 mg to 100 mg is an effective analgesic in moderate to severe acute postoperative pain with an NNT for at least 50% pain relief of 2.9 with a 50 mg dose. This is similar to that of commonly used NSAIDs such as ibuprofen (NNT 2.5 for 400 mg dose) and diclofenac (NNT 2.7 for 50 mg dose). Dexketoprofen is also effective with an NNT of 4.1 in the dose range 10 mg to 25 mg. Differential efficacy between dental surgery and other types of surgery seen for both drugs is unusual. Both drugs were well tolerated in single doses.

Single dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single dose of intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

Single fixed-dose oral dexketoprofen plus tramadol for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief than either drug alone in acute pain. This appears to be broadly true across a range of different drug combinations, in postoperative pain and migraine headache. A new combination of dexketoprofen (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) plus tramadol (an opioid) has been tested in acute postoperative pain conditions. It is not yet licensed for use. This review is one of a series on oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain. Individual reviews have been brought together in two overviews to provide information about the relative efficacy and harm of the different interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single fixed-dose of oral dexketoprofen plus tramadol, compared with placebo, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes. A secondary objective was to compare the combination with the individual analgesics alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 31 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of oral dexketoprofen plus tramadol administered as a single oral dose, for the relief of acute postoperative pain in adults, and compared to placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for dexketoprofen plus tramadol, compared with placebo with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours, the median time to use of rescue medication, and the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication. We also collected information on adverse events and withdrawals. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.We also collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours for dexketoprofen alone and tramadol alone.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies with 1853 participants who had undergone surgical removal of impacted wisdom teeth, hip replacement, or hysterectomy. The overall risk of bias across the three included studies was low, with unclear risk of bias in relation to the size of the three studies. Two studies did not report all our prespecified outcomes, which limited the analyses we could do.The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours with dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg was 66%, compared to 32% with placebo, giving an NNT of 3.0 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.7) (RR 2.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 2.4); 748 participants; 3 studies) (moderate quality evidence). The response rate with dexketoprofen 25 mg alone was 53% (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.4); 744 participants; 3 studies) and with tramadol alone was 45% (RR 1.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.7); 741 participants; 3 studies) (moderate quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of some inconsistency in the results.The median time to use of rescue medication could not be estimated exactly, but was probably eight hours or more, indicating a long duration of effect (moderate quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because it was not possible to estimate the effect exactly in the two multiple dose studies, resulting in imprecision. Fewer participants used rescue medication with higher doses of active treatment (summary statistic not calculated; 123 participants; 1 study) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because the data came from a single study with few participants and events.Adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported consistently for the single dose phase of the studies. In the single dose study, 11% of participants experienced adverse events with dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg, which were mostly mild or moderate nausea, vomiting, or dizziness, and typical with these medicines. Rates were lower with placebo and lower doses (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence because the data came from a single study with few participants and events. Information on multiple dosing over three and five days supported a low event rate with the combination. Overall, rates were generally low in all treatment arms, as they were for withdrawals for adverse events or other reasons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single oral dose of dexketoprofen 25 mg plus tramadol 75 mg provided good levels of pain relief with long duration of action to more people than placebo or the same dose of dexketoprofen or tramadol alone. The magnitude of the effect was similar to other good analgesics. Adverse event rates were low.There is modest uncertainty about the precision of the point estimate for efficacy, but the NNT of 3 is consistent with other analgesics considered effective and commonly used.

Putting it all together: recommendations for improving pain management in plastic surgical procedures

SUMMARY

The benefits of optimal pain management are well recognized. Nevertheless, treatment of postoperative pain continues to be a major challenge, and inadequate postoperative pain relief remains disturbingly high. One of the reasons for suboptimal pain management may be related to inadequate or improper application of available analgesic therapies. Use of patient-specific and procedure-specific pain management strategies should improve pain control and consequently improve perioperative outcome, including early ambulation, ability to perform rehabilitation activities, and return to activities of daily living. This article discusses the current evidence that should allow improved postoperative pain control with emphasis on the use of procedure-specific pain management.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

There is good evidence that combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief in acute pain and headache than either drug alone, and that the drug-specific benefits are essentially additive. This appears to be broadly true in postoperative pain and migraine headache across a range of different drug combinations, and when tested in the same and different trials. Adding caffeine to analgesics also increases the number of people obtaining good pain relief. Combinations of ibuprofen and caffeine are available without prescription in some parts of the world.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 1 February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five randomised, double-blind studies with 1501 participants, but only four had been published and had relevant outcome data. These four studies were of high quality, although two of the studies were small.Both ibuprofen 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg and ibuprofen 100 mg + caffeine 100 mg produced significantly more participants than placebo who achieved at least 50% of maximum pain relief over six hours, and both doses significantly reduced remedication rates (moderate quality evidence). For at least 50% of maximum pain relief, the NNT was 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.5) for ibuprofen 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg (four studies, 334 participants) and 2.4 (1.9 to 3.1) for ibuprofen 100 mg + caffeine 100 mg (two studies, 200 participants) (moderate quality evidence). These values were close to those predicted by published models for combination analgesics in acute pain, and were supported by low (good) NNT values for prevention of remedication.Adverse event rates were low, and no sensible analysis was possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For ibuprofen 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg particularly, the low NNT value is among the lowest (best) values for analgesics in this pain model. The combination is not commonly available, but can be probably be achieved by taking a single 200 mg ibuprofen tablet with a cup of modestly strong coffee or caffeine tablets. In principle, this can deliver good analgesia at lower doses of ibuprofen.

Single dose oral diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, available as a potassium salt (immediate release) or sodium salt (enteric coated to suppress dissolution in the stomach). This review updates an earlier review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 2, 2009) entitled 'Single dose oral diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults'.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 9 March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral diclofenac (sodium or potassium) for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

This update included three new studies, providing a 26% increase in participants in comparisons between diclofenac and placebo. We included 18 studies involving 3714 participants, 1902 treated with diclofenac and 1007 with placebo. This update has also changed the focus of the review, examining the effects of formulation in more detail than previously. This is a result of increased understanding of the importance of speed of onset in determining analgesic efficacy in acute pain.The largest body of information, for diclofenac potassium 50 mg, in seven studies, produced an NNT for at least 50% of maximum pain relief compared with placebo of 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 2.5) (high quality evidence). There was a graded improvement in efficacy as doses rose from 25 mg to 100 mg, both for participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, and for remedication within 6 to 8 hours. Fast-acting formulations (dispersible products, solutions, and softgel formulations) had a similar efficacy for a 50 mg dose, with an NNT of 2.4 (2.0 to 3.0). Diclofenac sodium in a small number of studies produced a lesser effect, with an NNT of 6.6 (4.1 to 17) for the 50 mg dose.Adverse event rates were low in these single dose studies, with no difference between diclofenac and placebo (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Diclofenac potassium provides good pain relief at 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg doses. Diclofenac sodium has limited efficacy and should probably not be used in acute pain.

Dexketoprofen/tramadol: randomised double-blind trial and confirmation of empirical theory of combination analgesics in acute pain

Background

Combination analgesics are effective in acute pain, and a theoretical framework predicts efficacy for combinations. The combination of dexketoprofen and tramadol is untested, but predicted to be highly effective.

Methods

This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, single-dose trial in patients with moderate or severe pain following third molar extraction. There were ten treatment arms, including dexketoprofen trometamol (12.5 mg and 25 mg) and tramadol hydrochloride (37.5 mg and 75 mg), given as four different fixed combinations and single components, with ibuprofen 400 mg as active control as well as a placebo control. The study objective was to evaluate the superior analgesic efficacy and safety of each combination and each single agent versus placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least 50 % max TOTPAR over six hours.

Results

606 patients were randomised and provided at least one post-dose assessment. All combinations were significantly better than placebo. The highest percentage of responders (72 %) was achieved in the dexketoprofen trometamol 25 mg plus tramadol hydrochloride 75 mg group (NNT 1.6, 95 % confidence interval 1.3 to 2.1). Addition of tramadol to dexketoprofen resulted in greater peak pain relief and greater pain relief over the longer term, particularly at times longer than six hours (median duration of 8.1 h). Adverse events were unremarkable.

Conclusions

Dexketoprofen trometamol 25 mg combined with tramadol hydrochloride 75 mg provided good analgesia with rapid onset and long duration in a model of moderate to severe pain. The results of the dose finding study are consistent with pre-trial calculations based on empirical formulae.

Trial registration

EudraCT (2010-022798-32); Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01307020).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-015-0541-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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

PERSPECTIVE

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

Combining ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute pain management after third-molar extractions: translating clinical research to dental practice

BACKGROUND

Effective and safe drug therapy for the management of acute postoperative pain has relied on orally administered analgesics such as ibuprofen, naproxen and acetaminophen, or N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (APAP), as well as combination formulations containing opioids such as hydrocodone with APAP. The combination of ibuprofen and APAP has been advocated in the last few years as an alternative therapy for postoperative pain management. The authors conducted a critical analysis to evaluate the scientific evidence for using the ibuprofen-APAP combination and propose clinical treatment recommendations for its use in managing acute postoperative pain in dentistry.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors used quantitative evidence-based reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration to determine the relative analgesic efficacy and safety of combining ibuprofen and APAP. They found additional articles by searching the Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the quantitative systematic reviews indicated that the ibuprofen-APAP combination may be a more effective analgesic, with fewer untoward effects, than are many of the currently available opioid-containing formulations. In addition, the authors found several randomized controlled trials that also indicated that the ibuprofen-APAP combination provided greater pain relief than did ibuprofen or APAP alone after third-molar extractions. The adverse effects associated with the combination were similar to those of the individual component drugs. Practical Implications. Combining ibuprofen with APAP provides dentists with an additional therapeutic strategy for managing acute postoperative dental pain. This combination has been reported to provide greater analgesia without significantly increasing the adverse effects that often are associated with opioid-containing analgesic combinations. When making stepwise recommendations for the management of acute postoperative dental pain, dentists should consider including ibuprofen-APAP combination therapy.

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.

Dronabinol and chronic pain: importance of mechanistic considerations

INTRODUCTION

Although medicinal cannabis has been used for many centuries, the therapeutic potential of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC; international non-proprietary name = dronabinol) in current pain management remains unclear. Several pharmaceutical products with defined natural or synthesized Δ9-THC content have been developed, resulting in increasing numbers of clinical trials investigating the analgesic efficacy of dronabinol in various pain conditions. Different underlying pain mechanisms, including sensitization of nociceptive sensory pathways and alterations in cognitive and autonomic processing, might explain the varying analgesic effects of dronabinol in chronic pain states.

AREAS COVERED

The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and mechanisms of action of products with a defined dronabinol content are summarized. Additionally, randomized clinical trials investigating the analgesic efficacy of pharmaceutical cannabis based products are reviewed for the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain.

EXPERT OPINION

We suggest a mechanism-based approach beyond measurement of subjective pain relief to evaluate the therapeutic potential of dronabinol in chronic pain management. Development of objective mechanistic diagnostic biomarkers reflecting altered sensory and cognitive processing in the brain is essential to evaluate dronabinol induced analgesia, and to permit identification of responders and/or non-responders to dronabinol treatment.

Conditioned pain modulation and situational pain catastrophizing as preoperative predictors of pain following chest wall surgery: a prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Variability in patients' postoperative pain experience and response to treatment challenges effective pain management. Variability in pain reflects individual differences in inhibitory pain modulation and psychological sensitivity, which in turn may be clinically relevant for the disposition to acquire pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of conditioned pain modulation and situational pain catastrophizing on postoperative pain and pain persistency.

METHODS

Preoperatively, 42 healthy males undergoing funnel chest surgery completed the Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Beck's Depression Inventory before undergoing a sequential conditioned pain modulation paradigm. Subsequently, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale was introduced and patients were instructed to reference the conditioning pain while answering. Ratings of movement-evoked pain and consumption of morphine equivalents were obtained during postoperative days 2-5. Pain was reevaluated at six months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Patients reporting persistent pain at six months follow-up (n = 15) were not significantly different from pain-free patients (n = 16) concerning preoperative conditioned pain modulation response (Z = 1.0, P = 0.3) or level of catastrophizing (Z = 0.4, P = 1.0). In the acute postoperative phase, situational pain catastrophizing predicted movement-evoked pain, independently of anxiety and depression (β = 1.0, P = 0.007) whereas conditioned pain modulation predicted morphine consumption (β = -0.005, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative conditioned pain modulation and situational pain catastrophizing were not associated with the development of persistent postoperative pain following funnel chest repair. Secondary outcome analyses indicated that conditioned pain modulation predicted morphine consumption and situational pain catastrophizing predicted movement-evoked pain intensity in the acute postoperative phase. These findings may have important implications for developing strategies to treat or prevent acute postoperative pain in selected patients. Pain may be predicted and the malfunctioning pain inhibition mechanism as tested with CPM may be treated with suitable drugs augmenting descending inhibition.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Faster, higher, stronger? Evidence for formulation and efficacy for ibuprofen in acute pain

A Cochrane review of ibuprofen in acute pain suggested that rapidly absorbed formulations of salts, or features to speed absorption, provided better analgesia than standard ibuprofen as the free acid. We examined several lines of evidence to investigate what benefit derived from fast-acting formulations. A systematic review of the kinetics of oral ibuprofen (30 studies, 1015 subjects) showed that median maximum plasma concentrations of fast-acting formulations occurred before 50 min (29-35 min for arginine, lysine, and sodium salts) compared with 90 min for standard formulations. An updated analysis of clinical trials (over 10,000 patients) showed that fast-acting formulations produced significantly better analgesia over 6h and fewer remedications than standard formulations in both indirect and direct comparisons. In dental studies, 200-mg fast-acting ibuprofen (number needed to treat 2.1; 95% confidence interval 1.9-2.4) was as effective as 400 mg standard ibuprofen (number needed to treat 2.4; 95% confidence interval 2.2-2.5), with faster onset of analgesia. Individual patient data analysis in dental pain demonstrated a strong correlation between more rapid reduction of pain intensity over 0-60 min and better pain relief over 0-6h. Rapid initial reduction of pain intensity was also linked with reduced need for remedication. Fast-acting formulations of ibuprofen demonstrated more rapid absorption, faster initial pain reduction, good overall analgesia in more patients at the same dose, and probably longer-lasting analgesia, but with no higher rate of patients reporting adverse events. Achieving a better analgesic effect with fast-acting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug formulations has important implications for safety. Formulation chemistry is of potential importance for analgesics.