Intramuscular diclofenac versus intravenous indomethacin in the treatment of acute renal colic

A Prospective, Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Oral Diclofenac Potassium and Intramuscular Diclofenac Sodium in Acute Pain Relief

Objectives

To compare the efficacy of oral (PO) diclofenac potassium (Cataflam®) and intramuscular (IM) diclofenac sodium (Voltaren®) in acute pain relief, with a hypothesis of equivalence between the two.

Patients and methods

In this prospective randomised single center clinical study, adult Chinese patients attending the emergency department and suffering from renal colic, acute musculoskeletal injury or arthritis were enrolled. They were randomly assigned either 75 mg of IM Voltaren® or 75 mg of PO Cataflam®. Pain was assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and evaluations were performed at baseline, 30 minutes, 1 hour and 2 hours after treatment. Blood pressure, pulse rate and respiratory rate were also recorded at similar time intervals.

Results

We recruited 46 cases in the Voltaren® group and 45 cases in the Cataflam® group. Both treatment groups showed statistically highly significant reduction (P<0.0001) in pain VAS, systolic blood pressure and pulse rate compared with the baseline. Voltaren® was statistically more effective in pain relief at 30 minutes (P=0.012) and 1 hour (P=0.010) but not at 2 hours (P=0.311) compared with Cataflam®. The changes in blood pressure, pulse rate and respiratory rate were not statistically significant between the two treatment groups at all time points.

Conclusion

IM Voltaren® was more effective in acute pain relief compared with PO Cataflam®.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and non-opioids for acute renal colic

BACKGROUND

Renal colic is acute pain caused by urinary stones. The prevalence of urinary stones is between 10% and 15% in the United States, making renal colic one of the common reasons for urgent urological care. The pain is usually severe and the first step in the management is adequate analgesia. Many different classes of medications have been used in this regard including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and narcotics.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess benefits and harms of different NSAIDs and non-opioids in the treatment of adult patients with acute renal colic and if possible to determine which medication (or class of medications) are more appropriate for this purpose. Clinically relevant outcomes such as efficacy of pain relief, time to pain relief, recurrence of pain, need for rescue medication and side effects were explored.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 27 November 2014) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised or quasi randomised studies were included. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of renal colic due to urolithiasis, at least one treatment arm included a non-narcotic analgesic compared to placebo or another non-narcotic drug, and reporting of pain outcome or medication adverse effect. Patient-rated pain by a validated tool, time to relief, need for rescue medication and pain recurrence constituted the outcomes of interest. Any adverse effects (minor or major) reported in the studies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Abstracts were reviewed by at least two authors independently. Papers meeting the inclusion criteria were fully reviewed and relevant data were recorded in a standardized Cochrane Renal Group data collection form. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. For continuous outcomes the weighted mean difference was estimated. Both fixed and random models were used for meta-analysis. We assessed the analgesic effects using four different outcome variables: patient-reported pain relief using a visual analogue scale (VAS); proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction in pain; need for rescue medication; and pain recurrence. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 50 studies (5734 participants) were included in this review and 37 studies (4483 participants) contributed to our meta-analyses. Selection bias was low in 34% of the studies or unclear in 66%; performance bias was low in 74%, high in 14% and unclear in 12%; attrition bias was low in 82% and high in 18%; selective reporting bias low in 92% of the studies; and other biases (industry funding) was high in 4%, unclear in 18% and low in 78%.Patient-reported pain (VAS) results varied widely with high heterogeneity observed. For those comparisons which could be pooled we observed the following: NSAIDs significantly reduced pain compared to antispasmodics (5 studies, 303 participants: MD -12.97, 95% CI -21.80 to - 4.14; I² = 74%) and combination therapy of NSAIDs plus antispasmodics was significantly more effective in pain control than NSAID alone (2 studies, 310 participants: MD -1.99, 95% CI -2.58 to -1.40; I² = 0%).NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing pain by 50% within the first hour (3 studies, 197 participants: RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.51; I² = 15%). Indomethacin was found to be less effective than other NSAIDs (4 studies, 412 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.60; I² = 55%). NSAIDs were significantly more effective than hyoscine in pain reduction (5 comparisons, 196 participants: RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.70; I² = 28%). The combination of NSAIDs and antispasmodics was not superior to NSAIDs only (9 comparisons, 906 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; I² = 59%). The results were mixed when NSAIDs were compared to other non-opioid medications.When the need for rescue medication was evaluated, Patients receiving NSAIDs were significantly less likely to require rescue medicine than those receiving placebo (4 comparisons, 180 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60; I² = 24%) and NSAIDs were more effective than antispasmodics (4 studies, 299 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84; I² = 65%). Combination of NSAIDs and antispasmodics was not superior to NSAIDs (7 comparisons, 589 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.57; I² = 10%). Indomethacin was less effective than other NSAIDs (4 studies, 517 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.94; I² = 14%) except for lysine acetyl salicylate (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.65).Pain recurrence was reported by only three studies which could not be pooled: a higher proportion of patients treated with 75 mg diclofenac (IM) showed pain recurrence in the first 24 hours of follow-up compared to those treated with 40 mg piroxicam (IM) (60 participants: RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81); no significant difference in pain recurrence at 72 hours was observed between piroxicam plus phloroglucinol and piroxicam plus placebo groups (253 participants: RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.15 to12.75); and there was no significant difference in pain recurrence within 72 hours of discharge between IM piroxicam and IV paracetamol (82 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54).Side effects were presented inconsistently, but no major events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although due to variability in studies (inclusion criteria, outcome variables and interventions) and the evidence is not of highest quality, we still believe that NSAIDs are an effective treatment for renal colic when compared to placebo or antispasmodics. The addition of antispasmodics to NSAIDS does not result in better pain control. Data on other types of non-opioid, non-NSAID medication was scarce.Major adverse effects are not reported in the literature for the use of NSAIDs for treatment of renal colic.

Comparison of cizolirtine citrate and metamizol sodium in the treatment of adult acute renal colic: a randomized, double-blind, clinical pilot study

BACKGROUND

Renal colic causes excruciating pain that provides a good clinical model of acute pain for the development of new analgesics.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of cizolirtine citrate and metamizol sodium in adult acute renal colic.

METHODS

This Phase II, randomized, double-blind, clinical pilot study was conducted in the emergency departments of 6 general hospitals in the Czech Republic between October 2000 and February 2001. Male and female patients aged 18 to 65 years and presenting with hematuria and moderate to severe pain due to suspected renal colic starting within the 24 hours before presentation were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive a single IV dose of cizolirtine 350 mg or metamizol 2,500 mg, administered by slow infusion over 15 minutes. Both doses were maximal for the respective drugs to attain adequate analgesia. Use of rescue medication with butorphanol was allowed 30 minutes after study drug administration. Pain intensity was assessed at various time points during the following 360 minutes using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and a verbal categoric scale. In addition, a specific verbal categoric scale was used to rank pain relief. Physical examinations, laboratory tests, and questioning for adverse events addressed drug tolerability.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients (50 men, 14 women; mean [SD] age, 44.21 [12.29] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 25.97 [3.38] kg/m(2)) were enrolled. Physical examination findings and mean VAS pain intensity scores at baseline (mean [SD], 79.42 [7.89] mm and 82.59 [10.50] mm in the cizolirtine and metamizol groups, respectively) were similar in both groups. After 30 minutes, the mean (SD) scores were 33.84 (25.15) mm and 25.41 (24.51) mm, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant, and the noninferiority of cizolirtine with respect to the comparator could not be established. However, the proportion of patients that showed satisfactory pain relief (ie, decrease of > or = 50% in VAS pain intensity score compared with baseline) at 30 minutes in the cizolirtine group was fairly high (64.5%), which means relevant analgesic activity. Both treatments were well tolerated; 6 adverse events were reported in 5 patients (7.8%), and all were considered as not treatment related.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this limited pilot study did not include an internal measure of sensitivity, relevant pain reduction was shown in the population of patients with suspected renal colic undergoing treatment with cizolirtine, suggesting the presence of analgesic activity. However, the efficacy of cizolirtine was found to be similar to that of metamizol. Treatments were well tolerated.

Intramuscular Etofenamate versus Diclofenac in the Relief of Renal Colic

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of intramuscular etofenamate and intramuscular diclofenac in the relief of acute renal colic.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicentre, randomised, single-blind study was performed in 119 patients admitted to the emergency room for renal colic. Patients were assigned to treatment with either etofenamate 1000mg or diclofenac 75mg, both administered intramuscularly. Pain was self-assessed using a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) just before drug administration and 30, 60, 120 and 240 min later.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with regard to baseline characteristics. The percentages of patients who reported an improvement in the VRS at 60 min post-administration (primary variable) were 84.5% with etofenamate and 83.3% with diclofenac (p = 0.73). At the other timepoints (30, 120 and 240 min), the proportions of patients improved were, respectively, 69.5%, 82.6% and 79.3% in the etofenamate group, and 75.0%, 81.7% and 80.0% in the diclofenac group. The VAS score showed a statistically significant improvement in both groups, but no differences between groups were found.Analgesic rescue medication was required by 11 (18.6%) patients in the etofenamate group and by 12 (20.0%) patients in the diclofenac group. Mild to moderate adverse events were reported by 3.4% of patients receiving etofenamate and by 5.0% of patients receiving diclofenac.

CONCLUSION

Etofenamate and diclofenac were similarly effective and tolerated in the relief of acute renal colic.

Renal colic: new concepts related to pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To give new insights into the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of acute renal colic caused by a stone disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Traditional intravenous pyelography is no longer the primary method of investigation in patients with renal colic. If the patient has a history of previous attacks of renal colic and stone disease the recommended diagnostic approach is to start with plain abdominal radiography and ultrasonography together with Doppler ultrasonography. Noncontrast computerized tomography is reserved for unsolved problems. If the patient has no history of stone disease or has atypical clinical presentation it is better to start with noncontrast computerized tomography. Intravenous pyelography is indispensable if an endoscopic or open intervention is required. Magnetic resonance imaging is a promising method of investigation, particularly in pregnant women. Effective pain relief is achieved by the use of opioids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs or desmopressin.

SUMMARY

The diagnostic approach to renal colic has recently been changed due to the introduction of new, noninvasive radiologic procedures such as Doppler ultrasonography, noncontrast computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.