A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind Study Comparing the??Efficacy and Tolerability of Intramuscular Dexketoprofen versus Diclofenac in the Symptomatic Treatment of Acute Low Back Pain

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the short-term efficacy of a single-administration intramuscular injection with the fixed combination of thiocolchicoside-diclofenac versus diclofenac monotherapy in patients with acute moderate-to-severe low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem that may be accompanied by muscle spasm and decreased mobility. The combination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants represents an advantageous therapeutic option, however, available data on their combined use are conflicting. This prospective, randomized, single-blind, two-parallel-group trial assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular (IM) injection of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) diclofenac (75 mg)-thiocolchicoside (4 mg/4 ml) product (test treatment) compared to diclofenac (75 mg/3 ml) alone (reference treatment) for the symptomatic relief of acute LBP. Tolerability and safety were also assessed as secondary variables.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-four patients were enrolled (safety population) and randomly allocated to the combination or single-agent regimen. Pain intensity and muscle spasm, assessed respectively by the patient-reported visual analogue scale and investigator-performed finger-to-floor distance test, were determined prior to the injection as well as 1 and 3 h post-injection in 123 patients (per-protocol population). The patients were blinded to treatment. Safety was assessed up to 24 h post-injection.

RESULTS

The test treatment was superior in both alleviating the pain intensity and reducing the finger-to-floor distance at both 1 (p < 0.01 and p = 0.023 respectively) and 3 h post-injection (p < 0.01). A higher percentage of patients experienced > 30% reduction in pain intensity at 1 and 3 h with the test treatment (p = 0.037 and p < 0.01 respectively). The corresponding VAS (SD) scores for the test treatment group were at baseline, 1 and 3 h post-injection 72.03 (± 11.72), 45.37 (± 16.28) and 31.56 (± 15.08) respectively and for the reference treatment group 65.20 (± 12.16), 48.98 (± 18.76) and 44.52 (± 17.33) respectively. No adverse effects were reported with the combination treatment, whereas two patients treated with diclofenac reported dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDC treatment is an effective and well-tolerated option for the symptomatic treatment of LBP. Clinical and patient-reported assessments confirmed that a single IM injection of FDC diclofenac-thiocolchicoside was more effective than diclofenac alone in conferring rapid and sustained improvement in mobility and pain intensity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT No: 2017-004530-29 Available at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ Registered 04 Dec 2017.

Nonopioid pharmacological management of acute low back pain: A level I of evidence systematic review

Acute low back pain (LBP) imposes a significant socioeconomical burden as it is the condition that, worldwide, cause the most disability. Nonetheless, the literature regarding the best pharmacological management of acute LBP is limited, and the indications available in the literature are conflicting. This work investigates whether the pharmacological management of acute LBP can effectively reduce pain and disability, and aims to identify which drugs show the highest efficacy. This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In September 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were accessed. All the randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of myorelaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and paracetamol for acute LPB were accessed. Only studies that investigated the lumbar spine were included. Only studies reporting on patients with acute LBP with symptom duration of less than 12 weeks were included. Only patients older than 18 years and with nonspecific low back pain were included. Studies that investigated the use of opioids in acute LBP were not considered. Data from 18 studies and 3478 patients were available. Myorelaxants and NSAIDs were effective in reducing pain and disability in acute LBP at approximately one week. The combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol was associated with a greater improvement than the use of NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol alone did not induce any significant improvement. Placebo was not effective in reducing pain. Clinical Significance: Myorelaxants, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs with paracetamol could reduce pain and disability in patients with acute LBP.

The effectiveness of intradermal sterile water injection for low back pain in the emergency department: A prospective, randomized controlled study

AIM

Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal complaint among emergency department (ED) admissions. In this study, it was aimed to compare the effectiveness of systemic treatment with intradermal sterile water injection (ISWI) treatment protocol combined with systemic therapy in patients with LBP of unclear chronicity.

METHODS

A prospective randomized, unblinded, controlled clinical study was conducted on patients admitted to the ED for LBP of unclear chronicity. One hundred twelve patients were randomly assigned to two groups; Group ISWI (n = 56) administered ISWI in the LBP region of patients along with systemic intravenous dexketoprofen therapy, while the other group (n = 56) received only systemic intravenous dexketoprofen therapy. The treatment methods' effectiveness was compared by measuring the pain intensity with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at admission, 10th minutes, 20th minutes, 30th minutes, and 24 h later. Also, opioid and analgesic consumptions in 24 h after treatment and patient satisfactions were compared.

RESULTS

In the treatment of LBP, ISWI treatment was found to be more effective in relieving pain than systemic therapy alone (p < 0.001). Also, it was observed that opioid consumption in the ED and analgesic consumption within 24 h after treatments were decreased in the ISWI group (p < 0.001). The patient satisfaction in the ED was statistically increased (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

In this unblinded study, ISWI with systemic therapy improved pain outcomes more than systemic therapy alone. Further research is needed to determine whether this was due entirely to placebo effect.

Efficacy and tolerability of orally administered tramadol/dexketoprofen fixed-dose combination compared to diclofenac/thiocolchicoside in acute low back pain: experience from an Italian, single-centre, observational study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of tramadol/dexketoprofen 75/25 mg (TRAM/DKP) versus diclofenac/thiocolchicoside 75/4 mg (DIC/THIO) in patients with moderate-to-severe acute low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Single-centre, observational study in 82 adult outpatients with LBP due to disc herniation (≥4 Numerical Rating scale, NRS) who received either oral TRAM/DKP (n = 44) or intramuscular DIC/THIO (n = 38), both given every 12 h for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in pain intensity (PI) at pre-specified post-dose time points (t day1, t day3, t day7) and compared between the two treatments. Additional endpoints, all evaluated at day 7, included: the sum of PI difference (SPID), percentage of responders in terms of PI reduction versus baseline and change from baseline in Douleur Neuropathique (DN4) score. Tolerability and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups were comparable for demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Over the 5-day treatment period and up to day 7, compared to DIC/THIO, TRAM/DKP provided a significantly greater and sustained analgesia at day 3 and day 7 (p < .0001), with a higher proportion of responders at each time point [75% versus 71.1% (p = 0.687) at day 1, 93.2% versus 73.7% at day 3 (p = .016) and 95.5% versus 71.1% at day 7 (p = .003)], higher values of SPID (770.9 ± 23.5 vs. 507.1 ± 22.6; p < .0001) and significantly greater reduction in DN4 score [-62.7 ± 25.6 vs. -39.7 ± 31.2 (p < .0001)]. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Orally administered TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg can be a valuable and effective option in patients with acute LBP.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain

DESCRIPTION

In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved the joint Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for Diagnosis and Management of Low Back Pain. This CPG was intended to provide healthcare providers a framework by which to evaluate, treat, and manage patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature through September 2016, developed an algorithm, and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. A patient focus group was also convened to ensure patient values and perspectives were considered when formulating preferences and shared decision making in the guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The VA/DOD LBP CPG provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostic approach, education and self-care, non-pharmacologic and non-invasive therapy, pharmacologic therapy, dietary supplements, non-surgical invasive therapy, and team approach to treatment of low back pain.

A review of dexketoprofen trometamol in acute pain

OBJECTIVE

Dexketoprofen trometamol is a modified non-selective COX inhibitor with a rapid onset of action that is available as both oral and parenteral formulations. The aim of this narrative review was to assess the efficacy and tolerability/safety of dexketoprofen trometamol in acute pain states using the best available published scientific evidence (randomized controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses).

METHODS

Literature retrieval was performed via Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (from inception up to March 2017) using combinations of the terms "randomized controlled trials", "dexketoprofen", "celecoxib", "etoricoxib", "parecoxib" and "acute pain".

RESULTS

Single-dose dexketoprofen trometamol provides effective analgesia in the treatment of acute pain, such as postoperative pain (dental and non-dental surgery), renal colic, acute musculoskeletal disorders and dysmenorrhea, and reduces opioid consumption in the postoperative setting. It has a rapid onset of action (within 30 minutes) and is well tolerated during short-term treatment. Direct comparisons with COX-2 inhibitors are lacking; however, the efficacy and tolerability of single-dose dexketoprofen trometamol appears to be consistent with that seen with celecoxib, etoricoxib and parecoxib in the acute pain setting.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, dexketoprofen trometamol appears to provide similar analgesic efficacy to COX-2 inhibitors when used to treat acute pain, has a rapid onset of action, is well tolerated, and has an opioid-sparing effect when used as part of a multimodal regimen in the acute pain setting.

Multimodal analgesia in moderate-to-severe pain: a role for a new fixed combination of dexketoprofen and tramadol

BACKGROUND

Untreated and under-treated pain represent one of the most pervasive health problems, which is worsening as the population ages and accrues risk for pain. Multiple treatment options are available, most of which have one mechanism of action, and cannot be prescribed at unlimited doses due to the ceiling of efficacy and/or safety concerns. Another limitation of single-agent analgesia is that, in general, pain is due to multiple causes. Combining drugs from different classes, with different and complementary mechanism(s) of action, provides a better opportunity for effective analgesia at reduced doses of individual agents. Therefore, there is a potential reduction of adverse events, often dose-related. Analgesic combinations are recommended by several organizations and are used in clinical practice. Provided the two agents are combined in a fixed-dose ratio, the resulting medication may offer advantages over extemporaneous combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexketoprofen/tramadol (25 mg/75 mg) is a new oral fixed-dose combination offering a comprehensive multimodal approach to moderate-to-severe acute pain that encompasses central analgesic action, peripheral analgesic effect and anti-inflammatory activity, together with a good tolerability profile. The analgesic efficacy of dexketoprofen/tramadol combination is complemented by a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, characterized by rapid onset and long duration of action. This has been well documented in both somatic- and visceral-pain human models. This review discusses the available clinical evidence and the future possible applications of dexketoprofen/tramadol fixed-dose combination that may play an important role in the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain.

Sciatic nerve injury following analgesic drug injection in rats: A histopathological examination

OBJECTIVE:

Sciatic nerve neuropathy can be observed following intramuscular gluteal injections. The histopathological examination of sciatic nerve damage following intramuscular injection in the gluteal region for acute pain treatment is not feasible in humans due to the inability to dissect and examine the nerve tissue. To overcome this issue, we used a rat model for demonstrating damage to the sciatic nerve tissue after the application of commonly used drug injections.

METHODS:

We investigated possible damage following the intramuscular injection of diclofenac, lornoxicam, morphine, and pethidine in a rat model based on histopathological characteristics such as myelin degeneration, axon degeneration, epineurium degeneration, fibrosis, epineurium thickening, perineurium thickening, lymphocyte infiltration, vacuolization, and edema.

RESULTS:

All the analgesic drugs used in our study induced histopathological changes in the sciatic nerve. Anti-S100 positivity, showing nerve damage, was found to be the lowest in the group treated with diclofenac. Neurotoxic effects of diclofenac on the sciatic nerve were greater than those of the other drugs used in the study. Lornoxicam induced the least histopathological changes in the nerve.

CONCLUSION:

Diclofenac induced severe nerve damage not only after direct injection in the sciatic nerve but also after injection in the area around the nerve. Thus, we recommend restricting the use of intramuscular gluteal injections of diclofenac. Intramuscular use of morphine and pethidine should also be overviewed.

Postarthroscopy analgesia using intraarticular levobupivacaine and intravenous dexketoprofen trometamol

PURPOSE

The aim of this prospective study was to determine the efficacy of intraarticular levobupivacaine with and without intravenous dexketoprofen trometamol for postarthroscopy analgesia.

METHODS

Sixty patients who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery were randomly assigned to three treatment groups. When the surgical procedure was completed, patients received the following treatments: group I (n = 20) patients received 20 mL intraarticular normal saline and 2 mL intravenous dexketoprofen trometamol (50 mg); group II (n = 20) patients received 20 mL intraarticular 0.5 % levobupivacaine (100 mg) and 2 mL intravenous normal saline; and group III (n = 20) patients received 20 mL intraarticular 0.5 % levobupivacaine (100 mg) and 2 mL intravenous dexketoprofen trometamol (50 mg). The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used, and the total analgesic consumption was assessed at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h post-operatively.

RESULTS

The VAS scores at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h post-operatively were significantly increased in group I and group II compared with group III (p < 0.05). The average VAS score during the first 24 h post-operatively was significantly lower in group III than in group I and group II (p < 0.001). Total meperidine consumption was significantly lower in group III than in groups I and II (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intraarticular levobupivacaine with adjuvant intravenous dexketoprofen trometamol administration provided better pain relief and less analgesic requirement after arthroscopic knee surgery during the first 24 h than that induced by dexketoprofen alone or levobupivacaine intraarticular alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Effects of motion style acupuncture treatment in acute low back pain patients with severe disability: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, comparative effectiveness trial

Reviews of the efficacy of acupuncture as a treatment for acute low back pain (aLBP) have shown that there is insufficient evidence for its effect and that more research is needed. Motion style acupuncture treatment (MSAT) is novel in that it requires a part of the patient's body to move passively or actively while acupuncture needles are retained. A multicenter, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of MSAT in aLBP with severe disability. A total of 58 aLBP patients with severe functional disability (defined per Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ⩾60%) were recruited and assigned randomly to receive 1 session of either conventional diclofenac injection (n=29) or MSAT (n=29). The primary outcome measured improvement in LBP using the 10-point numerical rating scale of LBP, and the secondary outcome assessed disability using the Oswestry Disability Index at 30minutes and at 2, 4, and 24weeks after treatment. Analyses were by intention to treat. The numerical rating scale of the MSAT group decreased 3.12 (95% confidence interval=2.26, 3.98; P<.0001) more than that of the injection group and the Oswestry Disability Index of the MSAT group decreased 32.95% (95% confidence interval=26.88, 39.03; P<.0001) more than that of the injection group, respectively. The difference between the 2 groups maintained statistical significance at 2 and 4weeks after treatment. These results suggest that MSAT has positive effects on immediate pain relief and the functional recovery of aLBP patients with severe disability.

Intravenous paracetamol versus dexketoprofen versus morphine in acute mechanical low back pain in the emergency department: a randomised double-blind controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous, single-dose paracetamol versus dexketoprofen versus morphine in patients presenting with mechanical low back pain (LBP) to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This randomised double-blind study compared the efficacy of intravenous 1 gm paracetamol, 50 mg dexketoprofen and 0.1 mg/kg morphine in patients with acute mechanical LBP. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for pain measurement at baseline, after 15 and after 30 min.

RESULTS

A total of 874 patients were eligible for the study, and 137 of them were included in the final analysis: 46 patients from the paracetamol group, 46 patients in the dexketoprofen group and 45 patients in the morphine group. The mean age of study subjects was 31.5 ± 9.5 years, and 60.6% (n=83) of them were men. The median reduction in VAS score at the 30th minute for the paracetamol group was 65 mm (95% CI 58 to 72), 67 mm (95% CI 60 to 73) for the morphine group and 58 mm (95% CI 50 to 64) for the dexketoprophen group. Although morphine was not superior to paracetamol at 30 min (difference: 3.8 ± 4.9 (95% CI -6 to 14), the difference between morphine and dexketoprofen in reducing pain was 11.2 ± 4.7 (95% CI 2 to 21). At least one adverse effect occurred in 8.7% (n=4) of the cases in the paracetamol group, 15.5% (n=7) of the morphine group, and 8.7% (n=4) of the dexketoprophen group (p=0.482).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous paracetamol, dexketoprofen and morphine are not superior to each other for the treatment of mechanical LBP in ED.

The relationship between pain, disability, quality of life and cognitive-behavioural factors in chronic back pain

PURPOSE

This pilot study systematically examined the correlations between the outcome variables pain intensity, disability and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and between these outcomes and known psychological risk factors for chronic low back pain (CLBP), such as depression, trait anxiety, avoidance- and endurance-related pain responses at two different assessment points.

METHOD

Data from 52 CLBP inpatients treated in an orthopedic clinic were investigated at two points in time: during the first days after admission and 6 months after the termination of the inpatient treatment. Bivariate relationships between pain intensity, disability, HRQOL and psychological variables were examined with the help of Pearson product moment correlations. Furthermore, the differences that exist between correlations at baseline and follow-up were tested for significance.

RESULTS

Significant and large differences were found between the correlations with low correlations at baseline and high correlations at the follow-up. Furthermore, HRQOL showed a positive correlation with endurance-related and a negative correlation with avoidance-related pain responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Focusing on a systematic comparison of two significant assessment time points in CLBP with an acute exacerbation at baseline, the results of this study underlined the recurrent course of LBP. The results highlight that the assessment time points play an important role in CLBP.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

• Low back pain is a major public health problem with high direct and indirect back-pain-related costs. • Chronic low back pain is a disabling disease which restricts quality of life. • Psychological factors may have a larger impact on disability and quality of life than pain itself. • The recurrent course of low back pain highlights the importance of multidisciplinary pain management even during acute exacerbations of pain.

Analgesic properties of dexketoprofen trometamol

SUMMARY Dexketoprofen trometamol is the dextrorotary enantiomer of the NSAID ketoprofen formulated as a tromethamine salt. The purpose of administering 50% of the racemic mixture is to keep the same analgesic and anti-inflammatory effect while reducing the adverse events due to both enantiomers. This article describes the pharmacological properties and evaluates the analgesic effects of dexketoprofen trometamol reported in acute and chronic pain conditions. The main conclusions are that dexketoprofen trometamol appears as effective as the double dose of the racemic drug. However, the reduction of adverse effects still has to be demonstrated. In addition, the formulation as tromethamine salt appears beneficial regarding fast onset of analgesia in acute pain conditions.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Intramuscular Dexketoprofen in Postoperative Pain Management following Hernia Repair Surgery

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intramuscular dexketoprofen for postoperative pain in patients undergoing hernia surgery. Methodology. Total 202 patients received single intramuscular injection of dexketoprofen 50 mg or diclofenac 50 mg postoperatively. The pain intensity (PI) was self-evaluated by patients on VAS at baseline 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours. The efficacy parameters were number of responders, difference in PI (PID) at 8 hours, sum of analogue of pain intensity differences (SAPID), and onset and duration of analgesia. Tolerability assessment was done by global evaluation and adverse events in each group. Results. Dexketoprofen showed superior efficacy in terms of number of responders (P = .007), PID at 8 hours (P = .02), and SAPID( 0-8 hours ) (P < .0001). It also showed faster onset of action (42 minutes) and longer duration of action (6.5 hours). The adverse events were comparable in both groups. Conclusion. Single dose of dexketoprofen trometamol 50 mg given intramuscularly provided faster, better, and longer duration of analgesia in postoperative patients of hernia repair surgery than diclofenac 50 mg, with comparable safety.

Systematic review of dexketoprofen in acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.

RESULTS

Thirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain.All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Dexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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