Amitriptyline for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of amitriptyline for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review. Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. It is usually used at doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of fibromyalgia, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews and other reviews, and two clinical trial registries. We also used our own hand searched database for older studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), and for harm we calculated the number needed to treat to harm (NNH) for adverse events and withdrawals. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies from the earlier review and two new studies (nine studies, 649 participants) of 6 to 24 weeks' duration, enrolling between 22 and 208 participants; none had 50 or more participants in each treatment arm. Two studies used a cross-over design. The daily dose of amitriptyline was 25 mg to 50 mg, and some studies had an initial titration period. There was no first or second tier evidence for amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Using third tier evidence the risk ratio (RR) for at least 50% pain relief, or equivalent, with amitriptyline compared with placebo was 3.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 4.9), with an NNT) of 4.1 (2.9 to 6.7) (very low quality evidence). There were no consistent differences between amitriptyline and placebo or other active comparators for relief of symptoms such as fatigue, poor sleep, quality of life, or tender points. More participants experienced at least one adverse event with amitriptyline (78%) than with placebo (47%). The RR was 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8) and the NNH was 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were more common with placebo (12% versus 5%; RR 0.42 (0.19 to 0.95)) (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for fibromyalgia for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against years of successful treatment in many patients with fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline will be one option in the treatment of fibromyalgia, while recognising that only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in fibromyalgia to establish efficacy statistically, or measure the size of the effect.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia in adults ‐ an overview of Cochrane Reviews

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

To provide an overview of the therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. The major comparison of interest will be with placebo.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.

Gabapentin for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

CLINICAL QUESTION

Is gabapentin associated with pain relief in people with chronic neuropathic pain?

BOTTOM LINE

Oral gabapentin (1200-3600 mg/d for 4-12 weeks) for patients with moderate or severe neuropathic pain from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is associated with pain reduction of at least 50% in 14% to 17% more patients than placebo.

Interventions for the reduction of prescribed opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long-term, high-dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults compared to controls.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta-analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta-analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post-treatment and follow-up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post-treatment and follow-up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between-group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study-related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between-group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.

Tramadol for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review of tramadol for neuropathic pain, published in 2006; updating was to bring the review in line with current standards. Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Peripheral neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the peripheral nervous system.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of tramadol compared with placebo or other active interventions for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing tramadol (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 438 participants with suitably characterised neuropathic pain. In each, tramadol was started at a dose of about 100 mg daily and increased over one to two weeks to a maximum of 400 mg daily or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months due to cancer, cancer treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injury, or polyneuropathy. The mean age was 50 to 67 years with approximately equal numbers of men and women. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes. Study duration for treatments was four to six weeks, and two studies had a cross-over design.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest, and there were limited data for pain outcomes. At least 50% pain intensity reduction was reported in three studies (265 participants, 110 events). Using a random-effects analysis, 70/132 (53%) had at least 50% pain relief with tramadol, and 40/133 (30%) with placebo; the risk ratio (RR) was 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.6). The NNT calculated from these data was 4.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 8.8). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low quality because of the small size of studies and of the pooled data set, because there were only 110 actual events, the analysis included different types of neuropathic pain, the studies all had at least one high risk of potential bias, and because of the limited duration of the studies.Participants experienced more adverse events with tramadol than placebo. Report of any adverse event was higher with tramadol (58%) than placebo (34%) (4 studies, 266 participants, 123 events; RR 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1); NNH 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 8.3)). Adverse event withdrawal was higher with tramadol (16%) than placebo (3%) (6 studies, 485 participants, 45 events; RR 4.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 8.4); NNH 8.2 (95% CI 5.8 to 14)). Only four serious adverse events were reported, without obvious attribution to treatment, and no deaths were reported. We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two or three levels to low or very low quality because of small study size, because there were few actual events, and because of the limited duration of the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only modest information about the use of tramadol in neuropathic pain, coming from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally increase the apparent benefits of tramadol. The evidence of benefit from tramadol was of low or very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood is very high that the effect will be substantially different from the estimate in this systematic review.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing morphine (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.Overall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.There was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.All-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is an opioid analgesic licensed for use in moderate to severe pain. It is considered as a low risk for abuse, so control regulations are not as stringent as for 'strong' opioids such as morphine. It has a potential role as a step 2 option of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and adverse effects of tramadol with or without paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer-related pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using a wide range of search terms: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched three clinical trials registry databases. The date of the last search was 2 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies that were randomised, with placebo or active controls, or both, and included a minimum of 10 participants per treatment arm. We were interested particularly in blinded studies, but also included open studies.We excluded non-randomised studies, studies of experimental pain, case reports, and clinical observations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and checked for agreement before entry into Review Manager 5. We included information about the number of participants treated and demographic details, type of cancer, drug and dosing regimen, study design (placebo or active control) and methods, study duration and follow-up, analgesic outcome measures and results, withdrawals, and adverse events. We collated multiple reports of the same study, so that each study, rather than each report, was the unit of interest in the review. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.The main outcomes of interest for benefit were pain reduction of 30% or greater and 50% or greater from baseline, participants with pain no worse than mild, and participants feeling much improved or very much improved.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (12 reports) with 958 adult participants. All the studies enrolled participants with chronic malignant tumour-related pain who were experiencing pain intensities described as moderate to severe, with most experiencing at least 4/10 with current treatment. The mean ages were 59 to 70 years, with participants aged between 24 and 87 years. Study length ranged from one day to six months. Five studies used a cross-over design. Tramadol doses ranged from 50 mg as single dose to 600 mg per day; doses of 300 mg per day to 400 mg per day were most common.Nine studies were at high risk of bias for one to four criteria (only one high risk of bias for size). We judged all the results to be very low quality evidence because of widespread lack of blinding of outcome assessment, inadequately described sequence generation, allocation concealment, and small numbers of participants and events. Important outcomes were poorly reported. There were eight different active comparators and one comparison with placebo. There was little information available for any comparison and no firm conclusions could be drawn for any outcome.Single comparisons of oral tramadol with codeine plus paracetamol, of dihydrocodeine, and of rectal versus oral tramadol provided no data for key outcomes. One study used tramadol combined with paracetamol; four participants received this intervention. One study compared tramadol with flupirtine - a drug that is no longer available. One study compared tramadol with placebo and a combination of cobrotoxin, tramadol, and ibuprofen, but the dosing schedule poorly explained.Two studies (191 participants) compared tramadol with buprenorphine. One study (131 participants) reported a similar proportion of no or mild pain at 14 days.Three studies (300 participants) compared tramadol with morphine. Only one study, combining tramadol, tramadol plus paracetamol, and paracetamol plus codeine as a single weak-opioid group reported results. Weak opioid produced reduction in pain of at least 30% from baseline in 55/117 (47%) participants, compared with 91/110 (82%) participants with morphine. Weak opioid produced reduction in pain of at least 50% in 49/117 (42%) participants, compared with 83/110 (75%) participants with morphine.There was no useful information for any other outcome of benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited, very low quality, evidence from randomised controlled trials that tramadol produced pain relief in some adults with pain due to cancer and no evidence at all for children. There is very low quality evidence that it is not as effective as morphine. This review does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is very high. The place of tramadol in managing cancer pain and its role as step 2 of the WHO analgesic ladder is unclear.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.

Methadone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated review originally published in 2004 and first updated in 2007. This version includes substantial changes to bring it in line with current methodological requirements. Methadone is a synthetic opioid that presents some challenges in dose titration and is recognised to cause potentially fatal arrhythmias in some patients. It does have a place in therapy for people who cannot tolerate other opioids but should be initiated only by experienced practitioners. This review is one of a suite of reviews on opioids for cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of methadone as an analgesic in adults and children with cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov, to May 2016, without language restriction. We also checked reference lists in relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials comparing methadone (any formulation and by any route) with active or placebo comparators in people with cancer pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All authors agreed on studies for inclusion. We retrieved full texts whenever there was any uncertainty about eligibility. One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis. We extracted information on the effect of methadone on pain intensity or pain relief, the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain'. We looked for data on withdrawal and adverse events. We looked specifically for information about adverse events relating to appetite, thirst, and somnolence. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We revisited decisions made in the earlier version of this review and excluded five studies that were previously included. We identified one new study for this update. This review includes six studies with 388 participants. We did not identify any studies in children.The included studies differed so much in their methods and comparisons that no synthesis of results was feasible. Only one study (103 participants) specifically reported the number of participants with a given level of pain relief, in this case a reduction of at least 20% - similar in both the methadone and morphine groups. Using an outcome of 'no worse than mild pain', methadone was similar to morphine in effectiveness, and most participants who could tolerate methadone achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Adverse event withdrawals with methadone were uncommon (12/202) and similar in other groups. Deaths were uncommon except in one study where the majority of participants died, irrespective of treatment group. For specific adverse events, somnolence was more common with methadone than with morphine, while dry mouth was more common with morphine than with methadone. None of the studies reported effects on appetite.We judged the quality of evidence to be low, downgraded due to risk of bias and sparse data. For specific adverse events, we considered the quality of evidence to be very low, downgraded due to risk of bias, sparse data, and indirectness, as surrogates for appetite, thirst and somnolence were used.There were no data on the use of methadone in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-quality evidence, methadone is a drug that has similar analgesic benefits to morphine and has a role in the management of cancer pain in adults. Other opioids such as morphine and fentanyl are easier to manage but may be more expensive than methadone in many economies.

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

Aspirin for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache per month), frequent episodic TTH (two to 14 headache days per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days per month or more). Aspirin is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of aspirin for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache (TTH) in adults compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database from inception to September 2016, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral aspirin for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. For various outcomes (predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS)), we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT), one additional harmful outcome (NNH), or to prevent one event (NNTp) for oral aspirin compared to placebo or an active intervention.We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies enrolling adults with frequent episodic TTH; 1812 participants took medication, of which 767 were included in comparisons of aspirin 1000 mg with placebo, and 405 in comparisons of aspirin 500 mg or 650 mg with placebo. Not all of these participants provided data for outcomes of interest in this review. Four studies specified using IHS diagnostic criteria; one predated commonly recognised criteria, but described comparable characteristics and excluded migraine. All participants treated headaches of at least moderate pain intensity.None of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged one study to be at high risk of bias due to small size.There were no data for aspirin at any dose for the IHS preferred outcome of being pain free at two hours, or for being pain free at any other time, and only one study provided data equivalent to having no or mild pain at two hours (very low quality evidence). Use of rescue medication was lower with aspirin 1000 mg than with placebo (2 studies, 397 participants); 14% of participants used rescue medication with aspirin 1000 mg compared with 31% with placebo (NNTp 6.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1 to 12) (low quality evidence). Two studies (397 participants) reported a Patient Global Evaluation at the end of the study; we combined the top two categories for both studies to determine the number of participants who were 'satisfied' with treatment. Aspirin 1000 mg produced more satisfied participants (55%) than did placebo (37%) (NNT 5.7, 95% CI 3.7 to 12) (very low quality evidence).Adverse events were not different between aspirin 1000 mg and placebo (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), or aspirin 500 mg or 650 mg and placebo (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8 to 2.0) (low quality evidence). Studies reported no serious adverse events.The quality of the evidence using GRADE comparing aspirin doses between 500 mg and 1000 mg with placebo was low or very low. Evidence was downgraded because of the small number of studies and events, and because the most important measures of efficacy were not reported.There were insufficient data to compare aspirin with any active comparator (paracetamol alone, paracetamol plus codeine, peppermint oil, or metamizole) at any of the doses tested.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of aspirin between 500 mg and 1000 mg provided some benefit in terms of less frequent use of rescue medication and more participants satisfied with treatment compared with placebo in adults with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity. There was no difference between a single dose of aspirin and placebo for the number of people experiencing adverse events. The amount and quality of the evidence was very limited and should be interpreted with caution.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol, either alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, is commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. This review sought evidence for efficacy and harm from randomised double-blind studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol, alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and have no reliable indication of the likely effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that paracetamol alone, or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including fentanyl, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.Transdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.In the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.There was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane review on 'Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults' (Moore 2009), and considers only fibromyalgia pain.Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic pain conditions, including fibromyalgia. Pain response with pregabalin is associated with major benefits for other symptoms, and improved quality of life and function in people with chronic painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults, compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to May 2009 for the original review and to 16 March 2016 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, and reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified two new published studies with classic design, and one new published study with an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design.We included eight studies. Five (3283 participants) had a classic design in which participants were randomised at the start of the study to pregabalin (150, 300, 450, or 600 mg daily) or placebo, with assessment after 8 to 13 weeks of stable treatment. No studies included active comparators. Studies had low risk of bias, except that the last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment (450 mg: RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1, 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence)). Substantial benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 14% of participants with placebo, but about 9% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (22% to 24%) (high quality evidence). Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment) (450 mg: RR 1.5, 95% CI (1.3 to 1.7), 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence). Moderate benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 28% of participants with placebo, but about 11% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (39% to 43%) (high quality evidence). A similar magnitude of effect was found using PGIC of 'very much improved' and 'much or very much improved'. NNTs for these outcomes ranged between 7 and 14 (high quality evidence).A small study (177 participants) compared nightly with twice-daily pregabalin, and concluded there was no difference in effect.Two studies (1492 participants began initial dose titration, 687 participants randomised) had an EERW design in which those with good pain relief after titration were randomised, double blind, to continuing the effective dose (300 to 600 mg pregabalin daily) or a short down-titration to placebo for 13 or 26 weeks. We calculated the outcome of maintained therapeutic response (MTR) without withdrawal, equivalent to a moderate benefit. Of those randomised, 40% had MTR with pregabalin and 20% with placebo (high quality evidence). The NNT was 5, but normalised to the starting population tested it was 12. About 10% of the initial population would have achieved the MTR outcome, similar to the result from studies of classic design. MTR had no imputation concerns.The majority (70% to 90%) of participants in all treatment groups experienced adverse events. Specific adverse events were more common with pregabalin than placebo, in particular dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral oedema, with number needed to harm of 3.7, 7.4, 18, and 19 respectively for all doses combined (high quality evidence). Serious adverse events did not differ between active treatment groups and placebo (very low quality evidence). Withdrawals for any reason were more common with pregabalin than placebo only with the 600 mg dose in studies of classic design. Withdrawals due to adverse events were about 10% higher with pregabalin than placebo, but withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were about 6% lower (high quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin 300 to 600 mg produces a major reduction in pain intensity over 12 to 26 weeks with tolerable adverse events for a small proportion of people (about 10% more than placebo) with moderate or severe pain due to fibromyalgia. The degree of pain relief is known to be accompanied by improvements in other symptoms, quality of life, and function. These results are similar to other effective medicines in fibromyalgia (milnacipran, duloxetine).

Ketoprofen for episodic tension-type headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache day per month), frequent episodic TTH (2 to 14 headache days per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days a month or more). Ketoprofen is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of headaches in frequent episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ketoprofen for treatment of episodic TTH in adults compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database up to May 2016, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral ketoprofen for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used the numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for oral ketoprofen compared to placebo or an active intervention for a range of outcomes, predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS).We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies, all of which enrolled adults with frequent episodic TTH. They all specified using the IHS diagnostic criteria and reported mean baseline pain of at least moderate intensity. While 1253 people with TTH participated in these studies, the numbers available for any analysis were lower than this because outcomes were inconsistently reported and because many participants received active comparators.None of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged one study to be at high risk of bias due to small size.Useful information was available only for ketoprofen 25 mg. For the IHS preferred outcome of being pain-free at two hours the NNT for ketoprofen 25 mg compared with placebo was 9.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.8 to 72) in two studies (272 participants; low quality evidence). The NNT was 3.7 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.3) for pain-free or mild pain at two hours in two studies (272 participants; moderate quality evidence). Fewer people needed rescue medication with ketoprofen 25 mg than with placebo, with a number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNTp) of 6.2 (95% CI 4.3 to 11) in three studies (605 participants; moderate quality evidence). The number of participants reporting any adverse event was higher with ketoprofen 25 mg than placebo (NNH 15, (95% CI 8.7 to 45)) in three studies (651 participants with 66 events; low quality evidence). Most events were of mild to moderate intensity.Ketoprofen 25 mg was not different from paracetamol 1000 mg in two studies with 276 participants for any efficacy outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence); the RR for pain-free at two hours was 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.0). The number of participants reporting any adverse event was higher with ketoprofen 25 mg than with paracetamol (NNH 17, 95% CI 8.9 to 130)) in two studies (582 participants, 68 events; low quality evidence).Studies reported no serious adverse events.We judged the quality of the evidence comparing ketoprofen 25 mg with placebo or paracetamol 1000 mg as moderate to very low. Where evidence was downgraded it was because of the small number of studies and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ketoprofen 25 mg provided a small benefit compared with placebo in terms of being pain-free at two hours or having mild or no pain at two hours for people with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity. Its use was associated with more people experiencing adverse events. Ketoprofen 25 mg was not superior to paracetamol 1000 mg for any efficacy outcome.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Oxycodone for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Opioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache per month), frequent episodic TTH (two to 14 headaches per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days a month or more). Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of headaches in frequent episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for the acute treatment of frequent episodic TTH in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database to October 2015, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral paracetamol for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used the numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for oral paracetamol compared to placebo or an active intervention for a range of outcomes, predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS).We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies, all of which enrolled adults with frequent episodic TTH. Twelve studies used the IHS diagnostic criteria or similar, six used the older classification of the Ad Hoc Committee, and five did not describe specific diagnostic criteria but generally excluded participants with migraines. Participants had moderate or severe pain at the start of treatment. While 8079 people with TTH participated in these studies, the numbers available for any analysis were lower than this because outcomes were inconsistently reported and because many participants received active comparators.None of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged five studies to be at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome reporting, and seven due to small size.For the IHS preferred outcome of being pain free at two hours the NNT for paracetamol 1000 mg compared with placebo was 22 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15 to 40) in eight studies (5890 participants; high quality evidence), with no significant difference from placebo at one hour. The NNT was 10 (7.9 to 14) for pain-free or mild pain at two hours in five studies (5238 participants; high quality evidence). The use of rescue medication was lower with paracetamol 1000 mg than with placebo, with an NNTp to prevent an event of 7.8 (6.0 to 11) in six studies (1856 participants; moderate quality evidence). On limited data, the efficacy of paracetamol 500 mg to 650 mg was not superior to placebo, and paracetamol 1000 mg was not different from either ketoprofen 25 mg or ibuprofen 400 mg (low quality evidence).Adverse events were not different between paracetamol 1000 mg and placebo (RR 1.1 (0.94 to 1.3); 5605 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). Studies reported no serious adverse events.The quality of the evidence using GRADE comparing paracetamol 1000 mg with placebo was moderate to high. Where evidence was downgraded it was because a minority of studies reported the outcome. For comparisons of paracetamol 500 mg to 650 mg with placebo, and of paracetamol 1000 mg with active comparators, we downgraded the evidence to low quality or very low quality because of the small number of studies and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol 1000 mg provided a small benefit in terms of being pain free at two hours for people with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity.

Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat chronic musculoskeletal conditions has become widely accepted because they can provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. This review is an update of 'Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults', originally published in Issue 9, 2012.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and our own in-house database; the date of the last search was February 2016. We also searched the references lists of included studies and reviews, and sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' web sites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, active or inert carrier (placebo) controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain of moderate or severe intensity. Studies had to meet stringent quality criteria and 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 studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to carrier or other active treatment. We were particularly interested to compare different formulations (gel, cream, plaster) of individual NSAIDs. The primary outcome was 'clinical success', defined as at least a 50% reduction in pain, or an equivalent measure such as a 'very good' or 'excellent' global assessment of treatment, or 'none' or 'slight' pain on rest or movement, measured on a categorical scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new studies for this update, which now has information from 10,631 participants in 39 studies, a 38% increase in participants from the earlier review; 33 studies compared a topical NSAID with carrier. All studies examined topical NSAIDs for treatment of osteoarthritis, and for pooled analyses studies were generally of moderate or high methodological quality, although we considered some at risk of bias from short duration and small size.In studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen were significantly more effective than carrier for reducing pain; about 60% of participants had much reduced pain. With topical diclofenac, the NNT for clinical success in six trials (2343 participants) was 9.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1 to 16) (moderate quality evidence). With topical ketoprofen, the NNT for clinical success in four trials (2573 participants) was 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3) (moderate quality evidence). There was too little information for analysis of other individual topical NSAIDs compared with carrier. Few trials compared a topical NSAID to an oral NSAID, but overall they showed similar efficacy (low quality evidence). These efficacy results were almost completely derived from people with knee osteoarthritis.There was an increase in local adverse events (mostly mild skin reactions) with topical diclofenac compared with carrier or oral NSAIDs, but no increase with topical ketoprofen (moderate quality evidence). Reporting of systemic adverse events (such as gastrointestinal upsets) was poor, but where reported there was no difference between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were infrequent and not different between topical NSAID and carrier (very low quality evidence).Clinical success with carrier occurred commonly - in around half the participants in studies lasting 6 to 12 weeks. Both direct and indirect comparison of clinical success with oral placebo indicates that response rates with carrier (topical placebo) are about twice those seen with oral placebo.A substantial amount of data from completed, unpublished studies was unavailable (up to 6000 participants). To the best of our knowledge, much of this probably relates to formulations that have never been marketed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical diclofenac and topical ketoprofen can provide good levels of pain relief beyond carrier in osteoarthritis for a minority of people, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. There is emerging evidence that at least some of the substantial placebo effects seen in longer duration studies derive from effects imparted by the NSAID carrier itself, and that NSAIDs add to that.

Single dose dipyrone (metamizole) for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Dipyrone (metamizole) is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used in some countries to treat pain (postoperative, colic, cancer, and migraine); it is banned in other countries because of an association with life-threatening blood disorders. This review replaces a 2010 Cochrane review that has been withdrawn.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of single dose dipyrone for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS to 11 August 2015; the Oxford Pain Relief Database; two clinical trial registries; and the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose dipyrone for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. We accepted oral, rectal, intramuscular, and intravenous routes of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used summed total pain relief or pain intensity difference (TOTPAR or SPID) over four to six hours to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. From derived results, we calculated the risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared to placebo. We looked at use of rescue medication and time to use of rescue medication as additional measures of efficacy. We also looked for information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 809 participants, comparing oral dipyrone 500 mg (143 participants), oral dipyrone 1000 mg (57 participants), and intramuscular dipyrone 2000 mg (35 participants) with placebo (236 participants). In addition to placebo, all studies used active controls (ibuprofen, paracetamol, aspirin, flurbiprofen, ketoprofen; 338 participants). Seven studies used the oral route of administration, and one study used the intramuscular route. The mean age ranged from 23 to 62 years. Six studies included both men and women, and two studies included only women. All the studies were small, but were otherwise of moderate to good quality.Over 70% of participants experienced our primary outcome of at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours with oral dipyrone 500 mg compared to 30% with placebo (five studies, 288 participants; NNT 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.1)) (moderate quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess other doses or routes of administration of dipyrone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication within four to six hours with dipyrone 500 mg than with placebo (7% with dipyrone versus 34% with placebo; four studies, 248 participants) (low quality evidence).The data on numbers of participants experiencing any adverse event was inconsistently reported and no analysis was possible. No serious adverse events or adverse event withdrawals were reported (very low quality evidence).There were too few data to compare dipyrone directly with other active treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very limited information, a single dose of dipyrone 500 mg provides good pain relief to about 70% of people treated, compared to about 30% with placebo. For every five people given dipyrone 500 mg, two people would experience this level of pain relief over four to six hours who would not have done with placebo, and fewer people would need rescue medication.We were unable to compare dipyrone directly with other active treatments, or to assess the effects of different doses or routes of administration, or the number of participants experiencing adverse events, because of insufficient data and inadequate reporting.

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in October 2013 on 'Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine attacks in adults'.Migraine is a common disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services, and society. It affects two to three times more women than men, and is most common in the age range 30 to 50 years. Effective abortive treatments include the triptan and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory classes of drugs. These drugs have different mechanisms of action and combining them may provide better relief. Sumatriptan plus naproxen is now available in combination form for the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen, administered together as separate tablets or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via The Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) to 28 October 2015, MEDLINE (via Ovid) from 1946 to 28 October 2015, and EMBASE (via Ovid) from 1974 to 28 October 2015, and two online databases (www.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we identified one new study (43 participants), but it did not contribute any data for analysis. The review included 13 studies using sumatriptan 85 mg or 50 mg plus naproxen 500 mg to treat attacks of mild, moderate, or severe pain intensity. Twelve studies contributed data for analyses: 3663 participants received combination treatment, 3682 placebo, 964 sumatriptan, and 982 naproxen. We judged only one small study to be at high risk of bias for any of the criteria evaluated; it did not contribute to any analyses.Overall, the combination was better than placebo for the primary outcomes of pain-free and headache relief at two hours. The NNT for pain-free at two hours was 3.1 (95% confidence interval 2.9 to 3.5) when the baseline pain was mild (50% response with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 18% with placebo), and 4.9 (4.3 to 5.7) when baseline pain was moderate or severe (28% with sumatriptan plus naproxen compared with 8% with placebo) (high quality evidence). Using 50 mg of sumatriptan, rather than 85 mg, in the combination did not significantly change the result. Treating early, when pain was still mild, was significantly better than treating once pain was moderate or severe for pain-free responses at two hours and during the 24 hours post dose. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal; they were more common with the combination than with placebo (moderate quality evidence).Where the data allowed direct comparison, combination treatment was superior to either monotherapy, but adverse events were less frequent with naproxen than with sumatriptan (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review were not changed. Combination treatment was effective in the acute treatment of migraine headaches. The effect was greater than for the same dose of either sumatriptan or naproxen alone, but additional benefits over sumatriptan alone were not large. More participants achieved good relief when medication was taken early in the attack, when pain was still mild. Adverse events were more common with the combination and sumatriptan alone than with placebo or naproxen alone.

Topical Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain

CLINICAL QUESTION

Are topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) associated with reduced pain intensity in acute musculoskeletal conditions, but without increased adverse events?

BOTTOM LINE

When treating musculoskeletal conditions such as sprains, strains, and contusions, topical NSAIDs are associated with greater pain relief, but are not associated with an increase in adverse events compared with placebo.

Non-prescription (OTC) oral analgesics for acute pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose. They can be used for a range of different types of pain, but this overview reports on how well they work for acute pain (pain of short duration, usually with rapid onset). Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To examine published Cochrane reviews for information about the efficacy of pain medicines available without prescription using data from acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

We identified OTC analgesics available in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA by examining online pharmacy websites. We also included some analgesics (diclofenac potassium, dexketoprofen, dipyrone) of importance in parts of the world, but not currently available in these jurisdictions.We identified systematic reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. From individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also calculated the success rate to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief. We also examined the number of participants experiencing any adverse event, and whether the incidence was different from placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We found information on 21 different OTC analgesic drugs, doses, and formulations, using information from 10 Cochrane reviews, supplemented by information from one non-Cochrane review with additional information on ibuprofen formulations (high quality evidence). The lowest (best) NNT values were for combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol, with NNT values below 2. Analgesics with values close to 2 included fast acting formulations of ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg. Combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol had success rates of almost 70%, with dipyrone 500 mg, fast acting ibuprofen formulations 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg having success rates above 50%. Paracetamol and aspirin at various doses had NNT values of 3 or above, and success rates of 11% to 43%. We found no information on many of the commonly available low dose codeine combinations.The proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event were generally not different from placebo, except for aspirin 1000 mg and (barely) ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg. For ibuprofen plus paracetamol, adverse event rates were lower than with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a body of reliable evidence about the efficacy of some of the most commonly available drugs and doses widely available without prescription. The postoperative pain model is predominantly pain after third molar extraction, which is used as the industry model for everyday pain. The proportion of people with acute pain who get good pain relief with any of them ranges from around 70% at best to less than 20% at worst; low doses of some drugs in fast acting formulations were among the best. Adverse events were generally no different from placebo. Consumers can make an informed choice based on this knowledge, together with availability and price. Headache and migraine were not included in this overview.

Milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of milnacipran for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review.Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine (noradrenaline) reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia in some countries, including Canada, Russia, and the United States.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of milnacipran for pain in fibromyalgia in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 18 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two clinical trial registries. For the earlier review, we also contacted the manufacturer.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two review authors examined issues of study quality independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new study with 100 participants for the pooled analysis. We identified two additional reports of a study using an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design that included participants from earlier randomised controlled trials and an open-label study. Because this study used the same participants already included in our main analysis, and a different design, we dealt with it separately.The main analysis included six studies (five from the earlier review; 4238 participants in total), all of which were placebo-controlled, and used titration to a target dose of milnacipran 100 or 200 mg, with assessment after 8 to 24 weeks of stable treatment. There were no studies with active comparators. Study quality was generally good, although the imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Both doses of milnacipran provided moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) to about 40% of participants treated, compared to 30% with placebo, giving a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) of 6 to 10 (high quality evidence). Using a stricter definition for responder and a more conservative method of analysis gave lower levels of response (while maintaining a 10% difference between milnacipran and placebo) and increased the NNT to 11 (high quality evidence). One EERW study was broadly supportive.Adverse events were common in both milnacipran (86%) and placebo (78%) groups (high quality evidence), but serious adverse events did not differ between groups (less than 2%) (low quality evidence). Nausea, constipation, and headache were the most common events showing the greatest difference between groups (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) of 5.7 for nausea, 13 for constipation, and 29 for headache) (moderate quality evidence).Withdrawals for any reason were more common with milnacipran than placebo, and more common with 200 mg (NNH 9) than 100 mg (NNH 23), compared with placebo. This was largely driven by adverse event withdrawals, where the NNH compared with placebo was 14 for 100 mg and 7.0 for 200 mg (high quality evidence). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less common with milnacipran than placebo but did not differ between doses (number needed to treat to prevent an additional unwanted outcome (NNTp) of 41) (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence available indicates that milnacipran 100 mg or 200 mg is effective for a minority in the treatment of pain due to fibromyalgia, providing moderate levels of pain relief (at least 30%) to about 40% of participants, compared with about 30% with placebo. There were insufficient data to assess substantial levels of pain relief (at least 50%), and the use of last observation carried forward imputation may overestimate drug efficacy. Using stricter criteria for 'responder' and a more conservative method of analysis gave lower response rates (about 26% with milnacipran versus 17% with placebo). Milnacipran was associated with increased adverse events and adverse event withdrawals, which were significantly greater for the higher dose.

Adverse events associated with single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011; that overview considered both efficacy and adverse events. This overview considers adverse events, with efficacy dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the adverse events associated with individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of adverse event rates associated with single-dose oral analgesics, compared with placebo, for acute postoperative pain in adults.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group. We extracted information related to participants experiencing any adverse event, and reports of serious adverse events, and deaths from the individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

Information was available from 39 Cochrane reviews for 41 different analgesics or analgesic combinations (51 drug/dose/formulations) tested in single oral doses in participants with moderate or severe postoperative pain. This involved around 350 unique studies involving about 35,000 participants. Most studies involved younger participants with pain following removal of molar teeth.For most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and combinations not containing opioids, there were few examples where participants experienced significantly more or fewer adverse events than with placebo. For aspirin 1000 mg and diflunisal 1000 mg, opioids, or fixed-dose combination drugs containing opioids, participants typically experienced significantly more adverse events than with placebo. Studies of combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol reported significantly fewer adverse events.Serious adverse events were rare, occurring a rate of about 1 in 3200 participants.Most reviews did not report specific adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite ongoing problems with the measurement, recording, and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and in systematic reviews, the large amount of information available for single oral doses of analgesics provides evidence that adverse events rates are generally similar with active drug and placebo in these circumstances, except at higher doses of some drugs, and in combinations including opioids.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews, we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable.

MAIN RESULTS

The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.

Oral tapentadol for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of people with advanced cancer will experience moderate to severe pain. Tapentadol is a novel, centrally acting analgesic medicine acting at the μ-opioid receptor and inhibiting noradrenaline reuptake. The efficacy of tapentadol is stated to be comparable to morphine and oxycodone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of tapentadol for the relief of cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2005 to July 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and review articles, and two clinical trial registries. Searches started from 2005 because this covered the period during which clinical trials were conducted. We contacted the manufacturer of tapentadol in the UK to find additional trials not identified by electronic searches. We did not restrict searches by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tapentadol compared with placebo or active controls in adults with moderate to severe cancer pain. Pain had to be measured using a validated assessment tool, and studies had to include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. We extracted available data on study design, participant details, interventions, and outcomes, including analgesic outcome measures, withdrawals, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with 1029 participants. All the studies used a parallel-group design, and included an initial titration phase to determine the maximum effective and tolerated dose, followed by a maintenance phase. Tapentadol medication was taken twice daily and doses ranged from 50 to 500 mg per day. Rescue medication (morphine or oxycodone immediate-release) was available to participants in all studies.Overall, 440 participants were randomised in classically designed RCTs, and 589 participants were enrolled in enriched-enrolment, randomised-withdrawal (EERW) trials. A total of 476 participants were randomised to titration with tapentadol and 338 participants took tapentadol throughout the maintenance phase of their trial.All studies used numerical rating scores, Patient Global Impression of Change scores, and use of rescue medication as measures of efficacy, and all reported on adverse events and withdrawals.All studies enrolled fewer than 200 participants per treatment arm and were therefore at risk of overestimating efficacy. One study was terminated early due to problems with supply of rescue medication, with fewer than 20 participants enrolled per treatment arm in the maintenance phase of the trial. We judged another study at high risk of bias due to an open-label design.There were insufficient data for pooling and statistical analysis. Response rates for pain intensity were comparable across treatment groups in each study. In one EERW study, response rates were high across both treatment and placebo arms during the maintenance phase (62% tapentadol, 69% morphine, 50% placebo). For pain relief, tapentadol is no more and no less effective than oxycodone or morphine (low quality evidence).Treatment emergent adverse event rates were high, approximately 50% to 90%. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, constipation) (low quality evidence). There was no advantage of tapentadol over morphine or oxycodone in terms of serious adverse events. The number of people experiencing effects on consciousness, appetite, or thirst was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information from RCTs on the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol was limited. The available studies were of moderate or small size and used different designs, which prevented pooling of data. Pain relief and adverse events were comparable between the tapentadol and morphine and oxycodone groups.

Ibuprofen for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about one person in five worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache per month), frequent episodic TTH (1 to 14 headaches per month), and chronic TTH (15 headaches a month or more). Ibuprofen is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of headaches in frequent episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of oral ibuprofen for treatment of acute episodic TTH in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and our own in-house database to January 2015. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching on-line clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral ibuprofen for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) of oral ibuprofen compared to placebo for a range of outcomes, predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies, all of which enrolled adult participants with frequent episodic TTH. Nine used the IHS diagnostic criteria, but two used the older classification of the Ad Hoc Committee, and one did not describe diagnostic criteria but excluded participants with migraines. While 3094 people with TTH participated in these studies, the numbers available for any form of analysis were lower than this; placebo was taken by 733, standard ibuprofen 200 mg by 127, standard ibuprofen 400 mg by 892, and fast-acting ibuprofen 400 mg by 230. Participants had moderate or severe pain at the start of treatment. Other participants were either in studies not reporting outcomes we could analyse, or were given one of several active comparators in single studies.For the IHS-preferred outcome of being pain free at 2 hours the NNT for ibuprofen 400 mg (all formulations) compared with placebo was 14 (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.4 to 47) in four studies, with no significant difference from placebo at 1 hour (moderate quality evidence). The NNT was 5.9 (4.2 to 9.5) for the global evaluation of 'very good' or 'excellent' in three studies (moderate quality evidence). No study reported the number of participants experiencing no worse than mild pain at 1 or 2 hours. The use of rescue medication was lower with ibuprofen 400 mg than with placebo, with the number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNTp) of 8.9 (5.6 to 21) in two studies (low quality evidence).Adverse events were not different between ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo; RR 1.1 (0.64 to 1.7) (high-quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen 400 mg provides an important benefit in terms of being pain free at 2 hours for a small number of people with frequent episodic tension-type headache who have an acute headache with moderate or severe initial pain. There is no information about the lesser benefit of no worse than mild pain at 2 hours.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Single dose oral diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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