An investigation into the comparative efficacy of soluble aspirin and solid paracetamol in postoperative pain after third molar surgery

A New Generation of Antiplatelet, and Anticoagulant Medication and the Implications for the Dental Surgeon

The management of dental patients taking either antiplatelet medication, anticoagulant medication or both has been well established in the previous literature. Recently, new generations of drugs have emerged which are becoming increasingly common, including direct thrombin inhibitors, factor X inhibitors and a new class of oral thienopyridines. The implications of these drugs for the dental surgeon are not yet fully known. Awareness remains low and there is very little information available within the literature on safe use during surgery. This review paper aims to provide some guidance for dental practitioners performing invasive procedures. CPD/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A new generation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs have serious implications for patients undergoing surgery and their use is increasing.

Short-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse effects: An updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

In this article, the authors examine the available scientific evidence regarding adverse effects of short-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Short-term use was defined as 10 days or fewer.

METHODS

The authors reviewed randomized controlled clinical trials and cohort and case-controlled clinical studies published between 2001 and June 2015 in which the investigators reported on the safety of nonselective cyclooxygenase inhibitors and of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor NSAIDs.

RESULTS

The systematic review process according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines allowed the authors to identify 40 studies that met the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the available scientific evidence, NSAIDs may be considered relatively safe drugs when prescribed at the most effective dose and for the shortest duration of time, which was defined to be 10 days or fewer.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although the US Food and Drug Administration recommends the use of NSAIDs beyond 10 days to be accompanied by a consultation with a health care provider, the use of NSAIDs may be considered relatively safe when prescribed at the most effective dose and for the shortest duration of time, which was defined as 10 days or fewer. Exceptions would be for patients at risk of developing NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, patients with prior myocardial infarction who are receiving antithrombotic therapy, patients with asthma, and patients with a history of renal disease.

Aspirin in the 21st century-common mechanisms of disease and their modulation by aspirin: a report from the 2015 scientific conference of the international aspirin foundation, 28 August, London, UK

Professor Peter Rothwell of Oxford University chaired the annual Scientific Conference of the International Aspirin Foundation in London on 28 August 2015. It took the form of four sessions. Aspirin has more than one action in its effects on disease. Its acetylation of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) in platelets leads to the blockade of pro-inflammatory chemicals and generation of anti-inflammatory mediators and increase in nitrous oxide (NO) production, which helps to preserve arterial endothelium. But platelets are not its only target. There is now evidence that aspirin has a direct antitumour effect on intestinal mucosal cells that block their potential transformation into cancer cells. Randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) in people with histories of colorectal neoplasia have shown that aspirin reduces the risk of recurrent adenomas and reduces long-term cancer incidence in patients with Lynch syndrome. Among women given aspirin for cardiovascular disease, there were fewer cancers than in those given placebo. Epidemiological evidence has suggested that aspirin treatment after cancer is diagnosed reduces the incidence of metastases and prolongs survival, and long-term studies of anticancer treatment with aspirin are under way to confirm this. Apart from cancer studies, aspirin use is now firmly established as treatment for antiphospholipid syndrome (Hughes syndrome) and is being used to prevent and treat the heightened risk of cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus and in patients with HIV.

Gastrointestinal adverse effects of short-term aspirin use: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials

Background and Objectives

Aspirin is widely used for short-term treatment of pain, fever or colds, but there are only limited data regarding the safety of this use. To summarize the available data on this topic, we conducted a meta-analysis of the published clinical trial literature regarding the gastrointestinal adverse effects of short-term use of aspirin in comparison with placebo and other medications commonly used for the same purpose.

Data Sources and Methods

An extensive literature search identified 119,310 articles regarding possible adverse effects of aspirin, among which 23,131 appeared to possibly include relevant data. An automated text-mining procedure was used to score the references for potential relevance for the meta-analysis. The 3,983 highest-scoring articles were reviewed individually to identify those with data that could be included in this analysis. Ultimately, 78 relevant articles were identified that contained gastrointestinal adverse event data from clinical trials of aspirin versus placebo or an active comparator. Odds ratios (ORs) computed using a Mantel–Haenszel estimator were used to summarize the comparative effects on dyspepsia, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, considered separately and also aggregated as ‘minor gastrointestinal events’. Gastrointestinal bleeds, ulcers, and perforations were also investigated.

Results

Data were obtained regarding 19,829 subjects (34 % treated with aspirin, 17 % placebo, and 49 % an active comparator). About half of the aspirin subjects took a single dose. Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of minor gastrointestinal events than placebo or active comparators: the summary ORs were 1.46 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.15–1.86) and 1.81 (95 % CI 1.61–2.04), respectively. Ulcers, perforation, and serious bleeding were not seen after use of aspirin or any of the other interventions.

Conclusions

During short-term use, aspirin is associated with a higher frequency of gastrointestinal complaints than other medications commonly used for treatment of pain, colds, and fever. Serious adverse events were not observed with aspirin or any of the comparators.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40268-013-0011-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of green tea mouthwash in postoperative pain control following surgical removal of impacted third molars: double blind randomized clinical trial

Background

Pain following surgical removal of impacted molars has remained an important concern among practitioners. Various protocols have been proposed to reduce postoperative pain. However, each one has special side effects and limitations. As green tea possesses anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of green tea mouthwash in controlling postoperative pain.

Materials and methods

In a study with split-mouth and double blind design, 44 patients in need of bilateral removal of impacted third molars underwent randomized surgical extraction; following one surgery patients rinsed with a green tea mouthwash from the first to seventh postoperative day and after other extraction rinsed with placebo mouthwash in the same duration. Both patients and surgeon were blinded to the type of mouthwash. The predictor variable was type of mouthwash and primary outcome variable was postoperative pain measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) during first week after surgery. In addition, number of analgesics patients used after surgery recorded. To measure the effect of green tea mouthwash, repeated measures test with confidence interval of 95% was performed.

Results

Total of 43 patients with mean age of 24 years underwent total of 86 surgeries. VAS value had no statistically difference prior rinsing among groups (P-value > 0.05). However, the mean value of VAS following rinsing with green tea was statistically lower than placebo in postoperative days of 3–7 (P-value < 0.05). In addition, while rinsing with green tea, patients took significantly lower number of analgesics after surgery (P-value < 0.05). No side effects reported.

Conclusion

Green tea mouthwash could be an appropriate and safe choice to control postoperative pain after third molar surgery.

Single dose oral aspirin for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Single dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2004 - this original review had been split from a previous title on 'Single dose paracetamol (acetaminophen) with and without codeine for postoperative pain'. The last version of this review concluded that paracetamol is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain, but additional trials have since been published. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol using current data, and to compare the findings with other analgesics evaluated in the same way.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of single dose oral paracetamol for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database and reference lists of articles to update an existing version of the review in July 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with paracetamol or placebo experiencing at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, using validated equations. Number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) was calculated, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use, were sought as measures of duration of analgesia. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies, with 5762 participants, were included: 3277 participants were treated with a single oral dose of paracetamol and 2425 with placebo. About half of participants treated with paracetamol at standard doses achieved at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, compared with about 20% treated with placebo. NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours following a single dose of paracetamol were as follows: 500 mg NNT 3.5 (2.7 to 4.8); 600 to 650 mg NNT 4.6 (3.9 to 5.5); 975 to 1000 mg NNT 3.6 (3.4 to 4.0). There was no dose response. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant effect of trial size or quality on this outcome.About half of participants needed additional analgesia over four to six hours, compared with about 70% with placebo. Five people would need to be treated with 1000 mg paracetamol, the most commonly used dose, to prevent one needing rescue medication over four to six hours, who would have needed it with placebo. Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and often incomplete. Reported adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and occurred at similar rates with 1000 mg paracetamol and placebo. No serious adverse events were reported. Withdrawals due to adverse events were uncommon and occurred in both paracetamol and placebo treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of paracetamol provides effective analgesia for about half of patients with acute postoperative pain, for a period of about four hours, and is associated with few, mainly mild, adverse events.

Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol has been commonly used for the relief of postoperative pain following oral surgery. In this review we investigated the optimal dose of paracetamol and the optimal time for drug administration to provide pain relief, taking into account the side effects of different doses of the drug. This will inform dentists and their patients of the best strategy for pain relief after the surgical removal of wisdom teeth.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, compared to placebo, at different doses and administered postoperatively.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE and the Current Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to manufacturers of analgesic pharmaceuticals, we searched personal references in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 24th August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, parallel group, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trials of paracetamol for acute pain, following third molar surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All trials identified were scanned independently and in duplicate by two review authors, any disagreements were resolved by discussion, or if necessary a third review author was consulted. The proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief was calculated for both paracetamol and placebo. The number of patients experiencing adverse events, and/or the total number of adverse events reported were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2048 patients were initially enrolled in the trials (1148 received paracetamol, and 892 the placebo) and of these 1968 (96%) were included in the meta-analysis (1133 received paracetamol, and 835 the placebo). Paracetamol provided a statistically significant benefit when compared with placebo for pain relief and pain intensity at both 4 and 6 hours. Most studies were found to have moderate risk of bias, with poorly reported allocation concealment being the main problem. Risk ratio values for pain relief at 4 hours 2.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89 to 4.29), and at 6 hours 3.32 (95% CI 1.88 to 5.87). A statistically significant benefit was also found between up to 1000 mg and 1000 mg doses, the higher the dose giving greater benefit for each measure at both time points. There was no statistically significant difference between the number of patients who reported adverse events, overall this being 19% in the paracetamol group and 16% in the placebo group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol is a safe, effective drug for the treatment of postoperative pain following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth.

Efficacy and safety of over-the-counter analgesics in the treatment of common cold and flu

RATIONALE

Common cold and flu are the most common human illnesses, and over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics are widely used to treat the pain and fever symptoms. Despite the every day use of these analgesic there is little information available in the literature on the efficacy and safety of these medicines in treating colds and flu symptoms. The aim of this review was to determine the safety and efficacy of the analgesics, aspirin, paracetamol and aspirin for the treatment of colds and flu.

METHODS

Electronic databases and a personal database were searched and the information retrieved together with information from relevant textbooks has been integrated in the review.

RESULTS

The literature search established that there is relatively little information on the use of analgesics in treating colds and flu and that much of the safety and efficacy data must be related to other pain and fever models. The review establishes that aspirin, paracetamol and ibuprofen are safe in OTC doses and that there is no evidence for any difference between the medicines as regards efficacy and safety for treatment of colds and flu (except in certain cases such as the use of aspirin in feverish children). There is also no evidence that these medicines prolong the course of colds and flu by any effect on the immune system or by reducing fever.

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of clinical data on the safety and efficacy of analgesics for the treatment of colds and flu symptoms a case can be made that these medicines are safe and effective for treatment of these common illnesses.

Colon perforation with acute peritonitis after taking clindamycin and diclofenac following wisdom tooth removal

INTRODUCTION

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have a high analgesic and anti-inflammatory effect and are widely taken for acute and chronic pain. Especially following long-term use, they may cause gastrointestinal side effects such as mucosal ulceration, perforation and strictures in the small and large bowel.

PATIENT

A 16-year-old female developed colonic perforation and purulent peritonitis after wisdom tooth removal and short-term intake of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

DISCUSSION

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may exert their deleterious effects on the lower gastrointestinal tract through both local and systemic actions. Systemic effects are caused by the inhibition of cyclooxygenase and reduction of protective prostaglandins. The local damage of the intestinal mucosa in the distal bowel segments seems to be caused by sustained release formulation with a high enterohepatic circulation. The latter may act time and again on the intestinal mucosa through metabolites secreted in the gallbladder. Concomitant intake of clindamycin may have favoured this acute complication.

CONCLUSION

Intestinal perforation after short-term intake of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is very rare. However, it is life-threatening and illustrates the need for careful prescribing at as low an effective dose and as short a time as possible, especially when combining different drugs. Paracetamol only has a weak effect on cyclooxygenase and continues to be a possible alternative for postoperative dental pain with a favourable benefit-risk ratio. It is the drug of choice for children, adolescents and patients with an increased risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastro-enteropathy.

Research in primary dental care. Part 2: Developing a research question

The first step in planning and conducting any research is identifying the research question, that is a testable statement of the question which the research aims to answer. In this article three distinct types of research question are identified: Descriptive questions (for example Who? What? Where? When?); Questions of relationships (How are two or more things related?); Questions of comparison (often these questions will ask about cause and effect). Examples are given of each type of research question. The process of devising a research question is described, in particular searching for relevant information, and evaluating the quality of the information obtained. A list of useful resources is provided.