European Pain Federation position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain management

Poorly controlled pain is a global public health issue. The personal, familial and societal costs are immeasurable. Only a minority of European patients have access to a comprehensive specialist pain clinic. More commonly the responsibility for chronic pain management and initiating opioid therapy rests with the primary care physician and other non‐specialist opioid prescribers. There is much confusing and conflicting information available to non‐specialist prescribers regarding opioid therapy and a great deal of unjustified fear is generated. Opioid therapy should only be initiated by competent clinicians as part of a multi‐faceted treatment programme in circumstances where more simple measures have failed. Throughout, all patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to yield the desired results and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects, the overall management strategy must be reviewed and revised. No responsible clinician will wish to pursue a failed treatment strategy or persist with an ineffective and burdensome treatment. In a considered attempt to empower and inform non‐specialist opioid prescribers, EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the experience of many years of clinical practice to produce these series of recommendations. Its success will be judged on the extent to which it contributes to an improved pain management experience for chronic pain patients across Europe.

Significance

This position paper provides expert recommendations for primary care physicians and other non‐ specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, particularly those who do not have ready access to specialists in pain medicine, on the safe and appropriate use of opioid medications as part of a multi‐faceted approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients.

Correction to: Dexketoprofen/tramadol 25 mg/75 mg: randomised double-blind trial in moderate-to-severe acute pain after abdominal hysterectomy

CORRECTION

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that additional file 10 contained a typing error in the table "Percentage of responders (≥50% max TOTPAR) over two, four, six and eight hours (single-dose phase) (ITT Population)". The table is to be read as follows.

Randomized clinical trial of dexketoprofen/tramadol 25 mg/75 mg in moderate-to-severe pain after total hip arthroplasty

Background. The aim was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of the dexketoprofen/tramadol 25 mg/75 mg fixed-dose combination vs dexketoprofen (25 mg) and tramadol (100 mg) in moderate-to-severe acute pain after total hip arthroplasty.

Methods. This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients experiencing pain of at least moderate intensity on the day after surgery, compared with placebo at first administration to validate the pain model. The study drug was administered orally every 8 h throughout a 5 day period. Rescue medication, metamizole 500 mg, was available during the treatment period. The evaluation of efficacy was based on patient assessments of pain intensity and pain relief. The primary end point was the mean sum of the pain intensity difference values throughout the first 8 h (SPID₈).

Results. Overall, 641 patients, mean age 62 (range 29–80) yr, were analysed; mean (sd) values of SPID₈ were 247 (157) for dexketoprofen/tramadol, 209 (155) for dexketoprofen, 205 (146) for tramadol, and 151 (159) for placebo. The primary analysis confirmed the superiority of the combination over dexketoprofen 25 mg (P=0.019; 95% confidence interval 6.4–73) and tramadol 100 mg (P=0.012; 95% confidence interval 9.5–76). The single components were superior to placebo (P<0.05), confirming model sensitivity. Most secondary analyses supported the superiority of the combination. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was low and similar among active treatment groups.

Conclusion. The efficacy results confirmed the superiority of dexketoprofen/tramadol over its single components, even at higher doses (tramadol), with a safety profile fully in line with that previously known for these agents in monotherapy.

Clinical trial registration. EudraCT 2012-004548-31 (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=eudract_number:2012-004548-31);

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01902134 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01902134?term=NCT01902134&rank=1).

Dexketoprofen/tramadol 25 mg/75 mg: randomised double-blind trial in moderate-to-severe acute pain after abdominal hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

Dexketoprofen trometamol plus tramadol hydrochloride is a new oral combination of two analgesics, which have different mechanisms of action for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain.

METHODS

Randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo and active-controlled, single and multiple-dose study to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of dexketoprofen/tramadol 25 mg/75 mg in comparison with the single agents (dexketoprofen 25 mg and tramadol 100 mg) in moderate to severe acute pain after abdominal hysterectomy. Patients received seven consecutive doses of study drug within a 3-day period, each dose separated by an 8-hour interval. A placebo arm was included during the single-dose phase to validate the pain model. Efficacy assessments included pain intensity, pain relief, patient global evaluation and use of rescue medication. The primary endpoint was the mean sum of pain intensity differences over the first 8 h (SPID8).

RESULTS

The efficacy analysis included 606 patients, with a mean age of 48 years (range 25-73). The study results confirmed the superiority of the combination over the single agents in terms of the primary endpoint (p <0.001). Secondary endpoints were generally supportive of the superiority of the combination for both single and multiple doses. Most common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were nausea (4.6%) and vomiting (2.3%). All other ADRs were experienced by less than 2% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results provided robust evidence of the superiority of dexketoprofen/tramadol 25 mg/75 mg over the single components in the management of moderate to severe acute pain, as confirmed by the single-dose efficacy, repeated-dose sustained effect and good safety profile observed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT number 2012-004545-32, registered 04 October 2012); Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01904149, registered 17 July 2013).

WITHDRAWN: Single dose dipyrone for acute postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Dipyrone (metamizole) is a non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug used in some countries to treat pain (postoperative, colic, cancer, and migraine); it is banned in others because of an association with life‐threatening blood agranulocytosis. This review updates a 2001 Cochrane review, and no relevant new studies were identified, but additional outcomes were sought.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse events of single dose dipyrone in acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

The earlier review searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Oxford Pain Relief Database to December 1999. For the update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE,EMBASE and LILACS to February 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Single dose, randomised, double‐blind, placebo or active controlled trials of dipyrone for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. We included oral, rectal, intramuscular or intravenous administration of study drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for methodological quality and data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed total pain relief over six hours (TOTPAR) was used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. Derived results were used to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals, relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over six hours. Use and time to use of rescue medication were additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies tested mainly 500 mg oral dipyrone (173 participants), 2.5 g intravenous dipyrone (101), 2.5 g intramuscular dipyrone (99); fewer than 60 participants received any other dose. All studies used active controls (ibuprofen, paracetamol, aspirin, flurbiprofen, ketoprofen, dexketoprofen, ketorolac, pethidine, tramadol, suprofen); eight used placebo controls. Over 70% of participants experienced at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours with oral dipyrone 500 mg compared to 30% with placebo in five studies (288 participants; NNT 2.4 (1.9 to 3.2)). Fewer participants needed rescue medication with dipyrone (7%) than with placebo (34%; four studies, 248 participants). There was no difference in participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief with 2.5 g intravenous dipyrone and 100 mg intravenous tramadol (70% vs 65%; two studies, 200 participants). No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very limited information, single dose dipyrone 500 mg provides good pain relief to 70% of patients. For every five individuals given dipyrone 500 mg, two would experience this level of pain relief who would not have done with placebo, and fewer would need rescue medication, over 4 to 6 hours.

WITHDRAWN: Radiotherapy for the palliation of painful bone metastases

This review is out of date and has been withdrawn. The content of the review may be of historical interest to readers.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

An observational descriptive study of the epidemiology and treatment of neuropathic pain in a UK general population

Background

This study updated our knowledge of UK primary care neuropathic pain incidence rates and prescribing practices.

Methods

Patients with a first diagnosis of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) or phantom limb pain (PLP) were identified from the General Practice Research Database (2006 – 2010) and incidence rates were calculated. Prescription records were searched for pain treatments from diagnosis of these conditions and the duration and daily dose estimated for first-line and subsequent treatment regimens. Recording of neuropathic back and post-operative pain was investigated.

Results

The study included 5,920 patients with PHN, 5,340 with PDN, and 185 with PLP. The incidence per 10,000 person-years was 3.4 (95% CI 3.4, 3.5) for PHN; and 0.11 (95% CI 0.09, 0.12) for PLP. Validation of the PDN case definition suggested that was not sensitive. Incident PHN increased over the study period. The most common first-line treatments were amitriptyline or gabapentin in the PDN and PLP cohorts, and amitriptyline or co-codamol (codeine-paracetamol) in PHN. Paracetamol, co-dydramol (paracetamol-dihydrocodeine) and capsaicin were also often prescribed in one or more condition. Most first-line treatments comprised only one therapeutic class. Use of antiepileptics licensed for neuropathic pain treatment had increased since 2002–2005. Amitriptyline was the only antidepressant prescribed commonly as a first-line treatment.

Conclusion

The UK incidence of diagnosed PHN has increased with the incidence of back-pain and post-operative pain unclear. While use of licenced antiepileptics increased, prescribing of therapy with little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain is still common and consequently treatment was often not in-line with current guidance.

Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects 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 taken alone.

METHODS

We identified 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 numbers 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 (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, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (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. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.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 in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. 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.

Minimum efficacy criteria for comparisons between treatments using individual patient meta-analysis of acute pain trials: examples of etoricoxib, paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen/paracetamol combinations after third molar extraction

We defined response in acute pain trials according to percentage of maximum possible efficacy. Minimum efficacy criteria (MEC) of 0%, or at least 15%, 30%, 50%, and 70% pain relief were used to examine stability over time using total pain relief and summed pain intensity difference (SPID), sex differences, and sensitivity. We used individual patient data from placebo-controlled third molar extraction trials: 4 with single-dose oral etoricoxib 120 mg, and 2 with paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations. With etoricoxib, numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were stable between response levels of at least 15% (MEC15) and 50% pain relief (MEC50), and similar for total pain relief and SPID. NNTs were higher (worse) at extremes of MEC, especially with SPID. Results for women and men were similar. NNTs of lower efficacy treatments (paracetamol 500 and 1000 mg) rose rapidly at higher MEC. NNTs of high efficacy treatments (ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations) showed greater separation at higher MEC. The highest degree of discrimination between treatments was with MEC50 and MEC70. Etoricoxib 120 mg (NNT for ≥50% maximum 6-hour pain relief 1.7) and ibuprofen 200/400 mg plus paracetamol 500/1000 mg (NNTs 1.5 and 1.6, respectively) produced the lowest (best) NNTs in the dental pain model. Timing of patient request for additional analgesia is an alternative analgesic efficacy outcome measure.

End-to-end military pain management

The last three years have seen significant changes in the Defence Medical Services approach to trauma pain management. This article seeks to outline these changes that have occurred at every level of the casualty's journey along the chain of evacuation, from the point of injury to rehabilitation and either continued employment in the Services or to medical discharge. Particular attention is paid to the evidence for the interventions used for both acute pain and chronic pain management. Also highlighted are possible differences in pain management techniques between civilian and military casualties.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates parts of two earlier Cochrane reviews investigating effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage pain, predominantly for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain management.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin in acute, chronic or cancer pain from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources. The date of the most recent search was January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain with assessment of pain intensity and/or pain relief, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTs), concentrating on IMMPACT (Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit, and to harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (3571 participants), studied gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 78% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. Using the IMMPACT definition of at least moderate benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 14 studies with 2831 participants, 43% improving with gabapentin and 26% with placebo; the NNT was 5.8 (4.8 to 7.2). Using the IMMPACT definition of substantial benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 13 studies with 2627 participants, 31% improving with gabapentin and 17% with placebo; the NNT was 6.8 (5.6 to 8.7). These estimates of efficacy are more conservative than those reported in a previous review. Data from few studies and participants were available for other painful conditions.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin can expect to have at least one adverse event (66%), withdraw because of an adverse event (12%), suffer dizziness (21%), somnolence (16%), peripheral oedema (8%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (4%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for comparisons with other active treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin provides pain relief of a high level in about a third of people who take if for painful neuropathic pain. Adverse events are frequent, but mostly tolerable. More conservative estimates of efficacy resulted from using better definitions of efficacy outcome at higher, clinically important, levels, combined with a considerable increase in the numbers of studies and participants available for analysis.

WITHDRAWN: Gabapentin for acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

February 2009: The authors are aware of unpublished trial data for Gabapentin which could affect the results of this review. This information together with that from trials published since 2005, will be considered when this review is updated in 2009.Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of pain since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of gabapentin for pain management in clinical practice.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised trials of gabapentin in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified by MEDLINE (1966 to Nov 2004), EMBASE (1994 to Nov 2004), SIGLE (1980 to Jan 2004) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004). Additional studies were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators. Date of most recent search: January 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials reporting the analgesic effects of gabapentin in participants with subjective pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two independent review authors, and trials were quality scored. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and drug-related study withdrawal.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen reports describing 15 studies of gabapentin were considered eligible (1468 participants). One was a study of acute pain. The remainder included the following conditions: post-herpetic neuralgia (two studies), diabetic neuropathy (seven studies), a cancer related neuropathic pain (one study) phantom limb pain (one study), Guillain Barré syndrome (one study), spinal chord injury pain (one study) and various neuropathic pains (one study).The study in acute post-operative pain (70 participants) showed no benefit for gabapentin compared to placebo for pain at rest.In chronic pain, the NNT for improvement in all trials with evaluable data is 4.3 (95% CI 3.5 to 5.7). Forty two percent of participants improved on gabapentin compared to 19% on placebo. The number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse events leading to withdrawal from a trial was not significant. Fourteen percent of participants withdrew from active arms compared to 10% in placebo arms. The NNH for minor harm was 3.7 (95% CI 2.4 to 5.4). The NNT for effective pain relief in diabetic neuropathy was 2.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 4.3) and for post herpetic neuralgia 3.9 (95% CI 3 to 5.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to show that gabapentin is effective in neuropathic pain. There is limited evidence to show that gabapentin is ineffective in acute pain.

Single dose oral mefenamic acid for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Mefenamic acid is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). It is most often used for treating pain of dysmenorrhoea in the short term (seven days or less), as well as mild to moderate pain including headache, dental pain, postoperative and postpartum pain. It is widely available in many countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of single dose oral mefenamic acid in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to December 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for methodological quality and the data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed total pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) over 4 to 6 hours was used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. These derived results were used 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 4 to 6 hours. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies with 842 participants met the inclusion criteria; 126 participants were treated with mefenamic acid 500 mg, 67 with mefenamic acid 250 mg, 197 with placebo, and 452 with lignocaine, aspirin, zomepirac or nimesulide. Participants had pain following third molar extraction, episiotomy and orthopaedic surgery. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours with a single dose of mefenamic acid 500 mg compared to placebo was 4.0 (2.7 to 7.1), and the NNT to prevent use of rescue medication over 6 hours was 6.5 (3.6 to 29). There were insufficient data to analyse other doses or active comparators, or numbers of participants experiencing any adverse events. No serious adverse events or adverse event withdrawals were reported in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral mefenamic acid 500 mg was effective at treating moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, based on limited data. Efficacy of other doses, and safety and tolerability could not be assessed.

Carbamazepine for acute and chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Carbamazepine is used to treat chronic neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of carbamazepine for acute and chronic pain management (except headaches).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of carbamazepine in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, SIGLE and Cochrane CENTRAL to June 2010, reference lists of retrieved papers, and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs reporting the analgesic effects of carbamazepine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted results and scored for quality. Numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and adverse event withdrawal. Issues of study quality, size, duration, and outcomes were examined.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen included studies (12 cross-over design; three parallel-group) with 629 participants.Carbamazepine was less effective than prednisolone in preventing postherpetic neuralgia following acute herpes zoster (1 study, 40 participants). No studies examined acute postoperative pain.Fourteen studies investigated chronic neuropathic pain: two lasted eight weeks, others were four weeks or less (mean 3 weeks, median 2 weeks). Five had low reporting quality. Ten involved fewer than 50 participants; mean and median maximum treatment group sizes were 34 and 29. Outcome reporting was inconsistent.Most placebo controlled studies indicated that carbamazepine was better than placebo. Five studies with 298 participants provided dichotomous results; 70% improved with carbamazepine and 12% with placebo. Carbamazepine at any dose, using any definition of improvement was significantly better than placebo (70% versus 12% improved; 5 studies, 298 participants); relative benefit 6.1 (3.9 to 9.7), NNT 1.7 (1.5 to 2.0). Four studies (188 participants) reporting outcomes equivalent to 50% pain reduction or more over baseline had a similar NNT.With carbamazepine, 66% of participants experienced at least one adverse event, and 27% with placebo; relative risk 2.4 (1.9 to 3.1), NNH 2.6 (2.1 to 3.5). Adverse event withdrawals occurred in12 of 323 participants (4%) with carbamazepine and 0 of 310 with placebo. Serious adverse events were not reported consistently; rashes were associated with carbamazepine. Five deaths occurred in patients on carbamazepine, with no obvious drug association.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Carbamazepine is effective in chronic neuropathic pain, with caveats. No trial was longer than four weeks, of good reporting quality, using outcomes equivalent to at least moderate clinical benefit. In these circumstances, caution is needed in interpretation, and meaningful comparison with other interventions is not possible.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (2769 participants, 4062 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12, 5.2 and 5.0 for 2-hour pain-free and 1- and 2-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain. Nausea, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced more with paracetamol than with placebo at 2 hours (NNTs of 7 to 11); more individuals were free of any functional disability at 2 hours with paracetamol (NNT 10); and fewer participants needed rescue medication over 6 hours (NNT 6).Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data. There was no significant difference between the paracetamol plus metoclopramide combination and sumatriptan for relief of "light/noise sensitivity" at 2 hours, but slightly more individuals needed rescue medication over 24 hours with the combination therapy (NNT 17).Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more "major" adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, and the addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; "major" adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.

Ibuprofen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers do not seek professional help, relying instead on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce symptoms commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 22 April 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered ibuprofen to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and number needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (4373 participants, 5223 attacks) compared ibuprofen with placebo or other active comparators; none combined ibuprofen with a self-administered antiemetic. All studies treated attacks with single doses of medication. For ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (26% versus 12% with placebo), 2-hour headache relief (57% versus 25%) and 24-hour sustained headache relief (45% versus 19%) were 7.2, 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. For ibuprofen 200 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (20% versus 10%) and 2-hour headache relief (52% versus 37%) were 9.7 and 6.3, respectively. The higher dose was significantly better for 2-hour headache relief than the lower dose. Soluble formulations of ibuprofen 400 mg were better than standard tablets for 1-hour, but not 2-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia and functional disability were reduced within 2 hours, and fewer participants used rescue medication with ibuprofen compared with placebo. Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.Ibuprofen 400 mg did not differ from rofecoxib 25 mg for 2-hour headache relief, 24-hour headache relief or use of rescue medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.

Single dose dipyrone for acute postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Dipyrone (metamizole) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used in some countries to treat pain (postoperative, colic, cancer, and migraine); it is banned in others because of an association with life-threatening blood agranulocytosis. This review updates a 2001 Cochrane review, and no relevant new studies were identified, but additional outcomes were sought.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse events of single dose dipyrone in acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The earlier review searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Oxford Pain Relief Database to December 1999. For the update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE,EMBASE and LILACS to February 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Single dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo or active controlled trials of dipyrone for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. We included oral, rectal, intramuscular or intravenous administration of study drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for methodological quality and data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed total pain relief over six hours (TOTPAR) was used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. Derived results were used to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals, relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over six hours. Use and time to use of rescue medication were additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies tested mainly 500 mg oral dipyrone (173 participants), 2.5 g intravenous dipyrone (101), 2.5 g intramuscular dipyrone (99); fewer than 60 participants received any other dose. All studies used active controls (ibuprofen, paracetamol, aspirin, flurbiprofen, ketoprofen, dexketoprofen, ketorolac, pethidine, tramadol, suprofen); eight used placebo controls.Over 70% of participants experienced at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours with oral dipyrone 500 mg compared to 30% with placebo in five studies (288 participants; NNT 2.4 (1.9 to 3.2)). Fewer participants needed rescue medication with dipyrone (7%) than with placebo (34%; four studies, 248 participants). There was no difference in participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief with 2.5 g intravenous dipyrone and 100 mg intravenous tramadol (70% vs 65%; two studies, 200 participants). No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very limited information, single dose dipyrone 500 mg provides good pain relief to 70% of patients. For every five individuals given dipyrone 500 mg, two would experience this level of pain relief who would not have done with placebo, and fewer would need rescue medication, over 4 to 6 hours.

Cervico-thoracic or lumbar sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

This review is an update on 'Sympathectomy for neuropathic pain' originally published in Issue 2, 2003. The concept that many neuropathic pain syndromes (traditionally this definition would include complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS)) are "sympathetically maintained pains" has historically led to treatments that interrupt the sympathetic nervous system. Chemical sympathectomies use alcohol or phenol injections to destroy ganglia of the sympathetic chain, while surgical ablation is performed by open removal or electrocoagulation of the sympathetic chain, or minimally invasive procedures using thermal or laser interruption.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised, double blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of chemical and surgical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain. Sympathectomy could be compared with placebo (sham) or other active treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library to May 2010. We screened references in the retrieved articles and literature reviews, and contacted experts in the field of neuropathic pain.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled studies assessing the effects of sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. No pooled analysis of data was possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study satisfied our inclusion criteria, comparing percutaneous radiofrequency thermal lumbar sympathectomy with lumbar sympathetic neurolysis using phenol in 20 participants with CRPS. There was no comparison of sympathectomy versus sham or placebo. No dichotomous pain outcomes were reported. Average baseline scores of 8-9/10 on several pain scales fell to about 4/10 initially (1 day) and remained at 3-5/10 over four months. There were no significant differences between groups, except for "unpleasant sensation", which was higher with radiofrequency ablation. One participant in the phenol group experienced postsympathectomy neuralgia, while two in the radiofrequency group and one in the phenol group complained of paresthaesia during needle positioning. All participants had soreness at the injection site.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The practice of surgical and chemical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS is based on very little high quality evidence. Sympathectomy should be used cautiously in clinical practice, in carefully selected patients, and probably only after failure of other treatment options.

Pregabalin in fibromyalgia--responder analysis from individual patient data

Background

Population mean changes are difficult to use in clinical practice. Responder analysis may be better, but needs validating for level of response and treatment duration. A consensus group has defined what constitutes minimal, moderate, and substantial benefit based on pain intensity and Patient Global Impression of Change scores.

Methods

We obtained individual patient data from four randomised double blind trials of pregabalin in fibromyalgia lasting eight to 14 weeks. We calculated response for all efficacy outcomes using any improvement (≥ 0%), minimal improvement (≥ 15%), moderate improvement (≥ 30%), substantial improvement (≥ 50%), and extensive improvement (≥ 70%), with numbers needed to treat (NNT) for pregabalin 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily compared with placebo.

Results

Information from 2,757 patients was available. Pain intensity and sleep interference showed reductions with increasing level of response, a significant difference between pregabalin and placebo, and a trend towards lower (better) NNTs at higher doses. Maximum response rates occurred at 4-6 weeks for higher levels of response, and were constant thereafter. NNTs (with 95% confidence intervals) for ≥ 50% improvement in pain intensity compared with placebo after 12 weeks were 22 (11 to 870) for pregabalin 300 mg, 16 (9.3 to 59) for pregabalin 450 mg, and 13 (8.1 to 31) for pregabalin 600 mg daily. NNTs for ≥ 50% improvement in sleep interference compared with placebo after 12 weeks were 13 (8.2 to 30) for pregabalin 300 mg, 8.4 (6.0 to 14) for pregabalin 450 mg, and 8.4 (6.1 to 14) for pregabalin 600 mg. Other outcomes had fewer respondents at higher response levels, but generally did not discriminate between pregabalin and placebo, or show any dose response. Shorter duration and use of 'any improvement' over-estimated treatment effect compared with longer duration and higher levels of response.

Conclusions

Responder analysis is useful in fibromyalgia, particularly for pain and sleep outcomes. Some fibromyalgia patients treated with pregabalin experience a moderate or substantial pain response that is consistent over time. Short trials using 'any improvement' as an outcome overestimate treatment effects.

Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions is widely accepted in some parts of the world, but not in others. Their main attraction is their potential to provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised, double-blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs in acute pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and our own in-house database to December 2009. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching on-line clinical trial registers and manufacturers web sites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, active or placebo (inert carrier)-controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adult patients with acute pain resulting from strains, sprains or sports or overuse-type injuries (twisted ankle, for instance). There had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies were included; most compared topical NSAIDs in the form of a gel, spray, or cream with a similar placebo, with 3455 participants in the overall analysis of efficacy. For all topical NSAIDs combined, compared with placebo, the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for clinical success, equivalent to 50% pain relief, was 4.5 (3.9 to 5.3) for treatment periods of 6 to 14 days. Topical diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and piroxicam were of similar efficacy, but indomethacin and benzydamine were not significantly better than placebo. Local skin reactions were generally mild and transient, and did not differ from placebo. There were very few systemic adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were insufficient data to reliably compare individual topical NSAIDs with each other or the same oral NSAID.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical NSAIDs can provide good levels of pain relief, without the systemic adverse events associated with oral NSAIDs, when used to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions.

Single dose oral gabapentin for established acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug, also used in the treatment of neuropathic pain, which is the subject of a Cochrane review, currently under revision. Its efficacy in treating established acute postoperative pain has not been demonstrated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of single dose oral gabapentin compared with placebo in established acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database. Additional studies were sought from reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews. Clinical trials databases were searched for unpublished studies; clinical trial reports of several unpublished studies have been made public following litigation in the US.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for methodological quality and data extracted by two review authors independently. Numbers of participants with at least 50% of maximum possible total pain relief (TOTPAR) or summed pain intensity difference (SPID) with gabapentin or placebo were calculated and used to derive relative benefit (RB) or risk (RR), and number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT). Numbers of participants using rescue medication, and time to its use, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Four unpublished studies met inclusion criteria; in three, participants had pain following dental surgery, and one followed major orthopaedic surgery; 177 participants were treated with a single dose of gabapentin 250 mg, 21 with gabapentin 500 mg, and 172 with placebo. At least 50% pain relief over 6 hours was achieved by 15% with gabapentin 250 mg and 5% with placebo; giving a RB of 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.0) and an NNT of 11 (6.4 to 35). Significantly fewer participants needed rescue medication within 6 hours with gabapentin 250 mg than with placebo; NNT to prevent use 5.8. About one third of participants reported adverse events with both gabapentin 250 mg and placebo. No serious adverse events occurred with gabapentin.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin 250 mg is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of established acute postoperative pain, but the NNT of 11 for at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours with gabapentin 250 mg is of limited clinical value and inferior to commonly used analgesics. Gabapentin 250 mg is not clinically useful as a stand-alone analgesic in established acute postoperative pain, though this is probably the first demonstration of analgesic effect of an antiepileptic in established acute pain.

Single dose oral diflunisal for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Diflunisal is a long-acting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) most commonly used to treat acute postoperative pain or chronic joint pain from osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. This review analyses the effectiveness and harm of different doses of diflunisal in the context of moderate to severe postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy, duration of action, and associated adverse events of single dose oral diflunisal in acute postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to January 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 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. Information on adverse events and withdrawals were collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies in dental, orthopedic and gynaecological surgery met the inclusion criteria, testing doses of diflunisal from 125 mg to 1000 mg.For diflunisal 1000 mg, the NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours was 2.1 (1.8 to 2.6) (6 studies, 391 participants); the NNT to prevent remedication within 6 hours was 1.9 (1.7 to 2.3), and within 12 hours was 2.2 (1.9 to 2.7) (6 studies, 409 participants). More participants experienced adverse events with diflunisal 100 mg than with placebo, but none were serious or led to withdrawal.For diflunisal 500 mg, the NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours was 2.6 (2.1 to 3.3) (6 studies, 357 participants); the NNT to prevent remedication within 6 hours was 2.6 (2.1 to 3.4) (6 studies, 390 participants), and within 12 hours was 2.9 (2.3 to 4.0) (5 studies, 329 participants). Adverse events did not differ significantly from placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Diflunisal has an analgesic effect similar to other NSAIDs in single dose, but benefits from providing significant analgesia for about twelve hours. This property may be useful when regular dosing is needed, or when taking several doses of a shorter acting analgesic is impractical.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

Single dose oral codeine, as a single agent, for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Codeine is an opioid metabolised to active analgesic compounds, including morphine. It is widely available by prescription, and combination drugs including low doses of codeine are commonly available without prescription.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, the time to onset of analgesia, the time to use of rescue medication and any associated adverse events of single dose oral codeine in acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed to November 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for methodological quality and data independently extracted by two review authors. Summed total pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) over 4 to 6 hours were used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief, which were used 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 4 to 6 hours. Numbers using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Data on adverse events and withdrawals were collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included (1223 participants received codeine 60 mg, 27 codeine 90 mg, and 1252 placebo). Combining all types of surgery (33 studies, 2411 participants), codeine 60 mg had an NNT of at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours of 12 (8.4 to 18) compared with placebo. At least 50% pain relief was achieved by 26% on codeine 60 mg and 17% on placebo.Following dental surgery the NNT was 21 (12 to 96) (15 studies, 1146 participants), and following other types of surgery the NNT was 6.8 (4.6 to 13) (18 studies, 1265 participants). The NNT to prevent use of rescue medication within 4 to 6 hours was 11 (6.3 to 50) (11 studies, 765 participants, mostly non-dental); the mean time to its use was 2.7 hours with codeine and 2.0 hours with placebo. More participants experienced adverse events with codeine 60 mg than placebo; the difference was not significant and none were serious. Two adverse event withdrawals occurred with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single dose codeine 60 mg provides good analgesia to few individuals, and does not compare favourably with commonly used alternatives such as paracetamol, NSAIDs and their combinations with codeine, especially after dental surgery; the large difference between dental and other surgery was unexpected. Higher doses were not evaluated.

WITHDRAWN. Anticonvulsant drugs for acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of pain since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning. Readers are referred to reviews of carbamazepine and gabapentin in T he Cochrane Library which replace the information on those drugs in this review. Other drugs remain unchanged at present in this review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs for pain management in clinical practice . Migraine and headache studies are excluded in this revision.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised trials of anticonvulsants in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified by MEDLINE (1966-1999), EMBASE (1994-1999), SIGLE (1980 to 1999) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL/CCTR) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 1999). In addition, 41 medical journals were hand searched. Additional reports were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators. Date of most recent search: September 1999.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials reporting the analgesic effects of anticonvulsant drugs in patients, with subjective pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two independent review authors, and trials were quality scored. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and drug-related study withdrawal, for individual studies and for pooled data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials of six anticonvulsants were considered eligible (1074 patients).The only placebo-controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate.Three placebo-controlled studies of carbamazepine in trigeminal neuralgia had a combined NNT (95% confidence interval (CI)) for effectiveness of 2.5 (CI 2.0 to 3.4). A single placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin in post-herpetic neuralgia had an NNT of 3.2 (CI 2.4 to 5.0). For diabetic neuropathy NNTs for effectiveness were as follows: (one RCT for each drug) carbamazepine 2.3 (CI 1.6 to 3.8), gabapentin 3.8 (CI 2.4 to 8.7) and phenytoin 2.1 (CI 1.5 to 3.6).Numbers-needed-to-harm (NNHs) were calculated where possible by combining studies for each drug entity irrespective of the condition treated. The results were, for minor harm, carbamazepine 3.7 (CI 2.4 to 7.8), gabapentin 2.5 (CI 2.0 to 3.2), phenytoin 3.2 (CI 2.1 to 6.3). NNHs for major harm were not statistically significant for any drug compared with placebo.Phenytoin had no effect in irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine little effect in post-stroke pain. Clonazepam was effective in one study of temporomandibular joint dysfunction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although anticonvulsants are used widely in chronic pain surprisingly few trials show analgesic effectiveness. Only one study identified considered cancer pain. There is no evidence that anticonvulsants are effective for acute pain. In chronic pain syndromes other than trigeminal neuralgia, anticonvulsants should be withheld until other interventions have been tried. While gabapentin is increasingly being used for neuropathic pain the evidence would suggest that it is not superior to carbamazepine.

Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D is produced in the skin after sun-light exposure and can also be obtained through food. Vitamin D deficiency has recently been linked with a range of diseases including chronic pain. Observational and circumstantial evidence suggests that there may be a role for vitamin D deficiency in the aetiology of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse events of vitamin D supplementation in chronic painful conditions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to September 2009. This was supplemented by searching the reference lists of retrieved articles, textbooks and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised double blind trials of vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo or with active comparators for the treatment of chronic pain conditions in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Pooled analysis was not undertaken due to paucity and heterogeneity of data.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies, with a total of 294 participants, were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study quality, the chronic painful conditions that were investigated, and the outcome measures reported. Only one study reported a beneficial effect, the others found no benefit of vitamin D over placebo in treating chronic pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for the use of vitamin D for chronic pain in adults is poor at present. This is due to low quality and insufficient randomised controlled trials in this area of research.

Pregabalin in fibromyalgia: meta-analysis of efficacy and safety from company clinical trial reports

OBJECTIVES

Meta-analysis of pregabalin trials in FM using company trial reports, which provide more detailed information about trials than published papers. FM is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life.

METHODS

Reports of five high-quality randomized trials (3808 patients) of pregabalin in FM were obtained from Pfizer. Four trials (2754 patients) were of classical trial design and one was an enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design. Outcomes for meta-analysis from the four trials with classical design were pooled in an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Significant benefit of pregabalin over placebo was seen for a variety of outcomes including mean pain and sleep scores, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief and most of the individual domains of short-form 36. Only a minority of patients achieve moderate or substantial pain relief. The proportions of patients with any adverse event, somnolence or dizziness were also significantly greater with pregabalin than with placebo. There was no difference with regard to serious adverse events. A dose-response relationship was apparent for at least 50% pain relief and for adverse event outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin is effective in treating FM and is relatively safe. The size of therapeutic effect is similar to that with other recent interventions such as duloxetine and the combination of tramadol and paracetamol. Enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design gives similar results to classical trial designs in FM.

Vitamin d and chronic pain in immigrant and ethnic minority patients-investigation of the relationship and comparison with native Western populations

Vitamin D deficiency has been implicated in chronic pain. Immigrant and ethnic minority populations have been shown to have lower vitamin D levels than native Western populations and often to be vitamin D deficient. This systematic review investigates the relationship between vitamin D and chronic pain in immigrant and ethnic minority populations. Included were studies reporting on 25-OH vitamin D levels in immigrant/ethnic minority populations affected by chronic pain, and/or reporting on the treatment of chronic pain with vitamin D preparations in such populations. We found that 25-OH vitamin D levels were low and often deficient in immigrant/ethnic minority populations. Vitamin D levels depended on the latitude of the study location and hence sunlight exposure. There was insufficient evidence to reach a verdict on the value of treating chronic pain in immigrant/ethnic minority patients with vitamin D preparations because the studies were few, small, and of low quality.

Zolmitriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily NSAIDs, rubefacients, capsaicin, lidocaine, and opioids) for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.

Rizatriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Eletriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Analysis of individual patient data from clinical trials: epidural morphine for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Individual patient information from clinical trials is infrequently available, but can provide insights for clinical trials and practice.

METHODS

We analysed individual patient information from five randomized trials (913 patients) of i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) plus epidural placebo, morphine sulphate (MS) 5 mg, or extended-release epidural morphine (EREM; DepoDur) at doses of 5-30 mg, to explore effects of a range of epidural morphine doses. Pain and opioid requirement on first and second postoperative days, dose-response, clinically relevant comparisons of IVPCA without epidural morphine, 5 mg MS, and 10 mg EREM, and relationship between patient rating and other measures were described.

RESULTS

There were three strong findings. Epidural morphine resulted in greater patient satisfaction, despite higher rates of adverse events. Those describing their analgesic medication as 'very good' or 'excellent' used IVPCA opioid less and had pain scores significantly below the global mean, whereas those describing their medication as 'poor' or 'fair' had pain scores significantly above the mean. Epidural morphine meant less need for postoperative IVPCA opioid than epidural placebo. The therapeutic gain with EREM was lower pain scores with less IVPCA opioid. Moderate or severe pruritus was more common with IVPCA plus epidural morphine, whatever the formulation, compared with IVPCA plus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of individual patient data from high-quality clinical trials provides important insights into characteristics of new agents not immediately apparent from original trials, and also informing clinical practice. Prophylactic epidural morphine provides a better patient experience than IVPCA alone.

Single dose oral nabumetone for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Nabumetone is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used mainly in treating pain associated with arthritis. The usual oral dose for osteoarthritis is 1000 mg daily, and higher doses are not advised in older patients. There are no known systematic reviews of its analgesic efficacy in acute postoperative pain. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral nabumetone in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish whether drugs have analgesic properties.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of single dose oral nabumetone in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (May 2009); EMBASE via Ovid (May 2009); and the Oxford Pain Relief Database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with nabumetone and placebo experiencing at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use of rescue analgesia, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral nabumetone in participants with established postoperative pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral nabumetone in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda.

Topical capsaicin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat pain from a wide range of chronic conditions including neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity to noxious stimuli, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. There is uncertainty about the efficacy and tolerability of capsaicin for treating painful chronic neuropathies.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Oxford Pain Relief Database, searched in May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled studies of at least six weeks' duration, using topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. Information was extracted on numbers of participants with pain relief (clinical improvement) after at least six weeks, and with local skin reactions, and used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) and harm (NNH). Details of definition of pain relief and specific adverse events were sought.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (389 participants in total) compared regular application of low dose (0.075%) capsaicin cream with placebo cream; the NNT for any pain relief over six to eight weeks was 6.6 (4.1 to 17). Two studies (709 participants in total) compared a single application of high dose (8%) capsaicin patch with placebo patch; the NNT for >/= 30% pain relief over twelve weeks was 12 (6.4 to 70). Local skin reactions were more common with capsaicin, usually tolerable, and attenuated with time; the NNH for repeated low dose application was 2.5 (2.1 to 3.1). There were insufficient data to analyse either data set by condition or outcome definition. All studies satisfied minimum criteria for quality and validity, but maintenance of blinding remains a potential problem.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Capsaicin, either as repeated application of a low dose (0.075%) cream, or a single application of a high dose (8%) patch may provide a degree of pain relief to some patients with painful neuropathic conditions. Local skin irritation, which is often mild and transient but may lead to withdrawal, is common. Systemic adverse effects are rare. Estimates of benefit and harm are not robust due to limited amounts of data for different neuropathic conditions and inconsistent outcome definition.

Single dose oral fenbufen for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Fenbufen is a non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), used to treat acute and chronic painful conditions. There is no known systematic review of its use in acute postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy, duration of action, and associated adverse events of single dose oral fenbufen in acute postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief database for studies to June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 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. Information on adverse events and withdrawals were collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified only one study with (90 participants in total, 31 taking fenbufen). The study compared oral fenbufen 800 mg, fenbufen 400 mg, and placebo in participants with established postoperative pain. Fenbufen at both doses had apparent analgesic efficacy, but the numbers of participants was too small to allow sensible analysis. Gastrointestinal adverse events were noted in 4 of 15 participants taking fenbufen 800 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence of efficacy for oral fenbufen in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified at present. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes which are effective, there is no urgent research agenda for this particular drug.

Single dose oral sulindac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Sulindac 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. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 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 of single dose oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies up to June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with meloxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral sulindac in patients with established postoperative pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda.

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

BACKGROUND

Ketoprofen is a non-selective non-steroidal 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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy, duration of action, and associated adverse events of single dose oral ketoprofen and dexketoprofen in acute postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to August 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 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. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies compared ketoprofen (968 participants) at mainly 25 mg and 50 mg with placebo (520 participants). Seven studies compared dexketoprofen (681 participants) at mainly 10 mg to 25 mg with placebo (289 participants). Studies were of adequate reporting quality, and participants had pain following dental, orthopaedic, obstetric, gynaecological and general surgery. There was considerable clinical heterogeneity between studies in dental and other types of surgery, particularly bunionectomy, which limited analysis.Ketoprofen at doses between 12.5 mg and 100 mg produced NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours of 2.4 to 3.3. For dental studies only there was a trend to more efficacy at higher doses, with NNT decreasing from 2.4 at 12.5 mg to 1.6 at 100 mg. Dexketoprofen at doses of 10/12.5 mg and 20/25 mg produced NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours of 3.2 and 3.6, with no obvious dose response. Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication with ketoprofen and dexketoprofen than placebo. The median time to remedication was about 5 hours with ketoprofen and 4 hours with dexketoprofen. The expected equivalent efficacy with a half dose of dexketoprofen compared to ketoprofen was not demonstrated.Adverse events were uncommon with both drugs, and not significantly different from placebo.

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 3.3 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 at 50 mg dose). Duration of action is about 5 hours. Dexketoprofen is also effective with NNTs of 3.2 to 3.6 in the dose range 10 mg to 25 mg. Both drugs were well tolerated in single doses.

Single dose oral meloxicam for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used mainly in treating pain associated with arthritis. The usual oral dose for osteoarthritis is 15 mg daily, but lower doses of 7.5 mg are advised in older patients. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 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 of single dose oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (June 2009); EMBASE (June 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with meloxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral meloxicam in patients with established postoperative pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda.

Single dose oral tiaprofenic acid for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Tiaprofenic acid is a a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). It is widely available around the world, with indications for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, periarticular disorders, and strains and sprains. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral tiaprofenic acid in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 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 of single dose oral tiaprofenic acid in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with tiaprofenic acid experiencing at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Not one of eleven studies identified by the searches and examined in detail studied oral tiaprofenic acid against placebo in patients with established postoperative pain and therefore no results are available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence of efficacy for oral tiaprofenic acid in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified at present. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes which are effective, there is no urgent research agenda for this particular drug.

Single dose oral rofecoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Editor's note: The anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market at the end of September 2004 after it was shown that long-term use (greater than 18 months) could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke in a study of secondary prevention of adenoma recurrence. Further information is available at www.vioxx.com.Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor previously licensed for treating acute and chronic pain; it was associated with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events than conventional NSAIDs. An earlier Cochrane review (Barden 2005) showed that rofecoxib is at least as effective as conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of rofecoxib in single oral doses for moderate and severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 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. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty new studies and seven from the earlier review met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-four studies were in dental surgery and three in other types of surgery. In total, 2636 participants were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, 20 with rofecoxib 500 mg, and 1251 with placebo. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours with rofecoxib 50 mg was 2.2 (2.0 to 2.3) in all studies combined, 1.9 (1.8 to 2.0) in dental studies, and 6.8 (4.6 to 13) in other types of surgery. The median time to use of rescue medication was 14 hours for rofecoxib 50 mg and 2 hours for placebo. Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication following rofecoxib 50 mg than with placebo. Adverse events did not differ from placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib 50 mg (two to four times the standard daily dose for chronic pain) is an effective single dose oral analgesic for acute postoperative pain in adults, with a relatively long duration of action.

Single dose oral lornoxicam for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Lornoxicam is one of the oxicam class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), producing analgesic and antipyretic effects in part through the non-selective inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase-1 and -2. It is prescribed for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, acute lumbar-sciatica conditions and for postoperative pain management. Lornoxicam is available in 31 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Far East and South America, and is becoming more widely available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, the time to onset of analgesia, the time to use of rescue medication and any associated adverse events of single dose oral lornoxicam in acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed to June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for methodological quality and the data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed total pain relief over 6 hours (TOTPAR 6) was used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. These derived results were used to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies, with 628 participants, met the inclusion criteria; 434 participants were treated with various doses (2 mg to 32 mg) of lornoxicam, 118 with placebo, and 76 with other active therapies. All the participants had pain following third molar extraction, and study duration was 8 to 24 hours. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours after a single dose of lornoxicam 8 mg was 2.9 (2.3 to 4.0). There were insufficient data to analyse other doses or use of rescue medication. No serious adverse events or withdrawals were reported by any of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral lornoxicam is effective at treating moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, based on limited data. Adverse events did not differ significantly from placebo.

Single dose oral etodolac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Etodolac is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, with evidence of efficacy in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Its analgesic efficacy in postoperative pain has not been clearly established. There are no systematic reviews on Etodolac's use in this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of etodolac in single oral doses for moderate and severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered etodolac (any formulation) in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk (RR) 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. Information on adverse events and withdrawals were collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (1459 participants) compared etodolac and placebo. Studies were of adequate reporting quality, and the majority of participants had pain following dental extractions. The dose of etodolac used was 25 mg to 1200 mg, with most of the information for 100 mg and 200 mg. For at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours compared with placebo the NNT for etodolac 100 mg (498 participants) was 4.8 (3.5 to 7.8) and for etodolac 200 mg (670 participants) it was 3.3 (2.7 to 4.2). Very limited information with the extended release formulation did not suggest improved benefit for this outcome.The proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 41% with 100 mg and 44% with 200 mg. Remedication was needed by about 60% with etodolac 200 mg or 400 mg over 6 to 8 hours, compared with almost 80% with placebo.Adverse events were uncommon, and not significantly different form placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etodolac 200 mg may be a useful analgesic in postoperative pain, with efficacy similar to paracetamol 1000 mg and celecoxib 200 mg. Higher doses may provide analgesia equivalent to more commonly used drugs, such as ibuprofen 400 mg, naproxen 500 mg and diclofenac 50 mg.

Topical rubefacients for acute and chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Rubefacients (containing salicylates or nicotinamides) cause irritation of the skin, and are believed to relieve various musculoskeletal pains. They are available on prescription, and are common components in over-the-counter remedies. A non-Cochrane review in 2004 found limited evidence for efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To review current evidence for efficacy and safety of topically applied rubefacients in acute and chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, and reference lists of articles were searched; last search December 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled clinical trials of topical rubefacient for musculoskeletal pain in adults, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, and reporting outcomes at close to 7 (minimum 3, maximum 10) days for acute conditions and 14 (minimum 7) days or longer for chronic conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data. Relative benefit or risk and number needed to treat to benefit or harm (NNT or NNH) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Acute and chronic conditions were analysed separately.

MAIN RESULTS

Six placebo and one active controlled studies (560 and 137 participants) in acute pain, and seven placebo and two active controlled studies (489 and 90 participants) in chronic pain were included. All used topical salicylates. The evidence in acute conditions was not robust; using only better quality, valid studies, there was no difference between topical rubefacient and topical control, though overall, including lower quality studies, the NNT for clinical success compared with placebo was 3.2 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.9). In chronic conditions the NNT was 6.2 (95% CI: 4.0 to 13) compared with topical placebo. Adverse events and withdrawals occurred more often with rubefacients than placebo, but analyses were sensitive to inclusion of individual studies, so not robust. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions against active controls.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for acute injuries, and suggests that in chronic conditions their efficacy compares poorly with topical non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Topical salicylates seem to be relatively well tolerated in the short-term, based on limited data. There is no evidence at all for topical rubefacients with other components.