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

The Lure of Beauty: People Select Representations of Statistical Information Largely Based on Attractiveness, Not Comprehensibility

OBJECTIVE

People differ in whether they understand graphical or numerical representations of statistical information better. However, assessing these skills is often not feasible when deciding which representation to select or use. This study investigates whether people choose the representation they understand better, whether this choice can improve risk comprehension, and whether results are influenced by participants' skills (graph literacy and numeracy).

METHODS

In an experiment, 160 participants received information about the benefits and side effects of painkillers using either a numerical or a graphical representation. In the "no choice" condition, the representation was randomly assigned to each participant. In the "choice" condition, participants could select the representation they would like to receive. The study assessed gist and verbatim knowledge (immediate comprehension and recall), accessibility of the information, attractiveness of the representation, as well as graph literacy and numeracy.

RESULTS

In the "choice" condition, most (62.5%) chose the graphical format, yet there was no difference in graph literacy or numeracy (nor age or gender) between people who chose the graphical or the numerical format. Whereas choice slightly increased verbatim knowledge, it did not improve gist or overall knowledge compared with random assignment. However, participants who chose a representation rated the representation as more attractive, and those who chose graphs rated them as more accessible than those without a choice.

LIMITATIONS

The sample consisted of highly educated undergraduate students with higher graph literacy than the general population. The task was inconsequential for participants in terms of their health.

CONCLUSIONS

When people can choose between representations, they fail to identify what they comprehend better but largely base that choice on how attractive the representation is for them.

HIGHLIGHTS

People differ systematically in whether they understand graphical or numerical representations of statistical information better. However, assessing these underlying skills to get the right representation to the right people is not feasible in practice. A simple and efficient method to achieve this could be to let people choose among representations themselves.However, our study showed that allowing participants to choose a representation (numerical v. graphical) did not improve overall or gist knowledge compared with determining the representation randomly, even though it did slightly improve verbatim knowledge.Rather, participants largely chose the representation they found more attractive. Most preferred the graphical representation, including those with low graph literacy.It would therefore be important to develop graphical representations that are not only attractive but also comprehensible even for people with low graph literacy.

The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study (OARS)-a comparison of opioid vs. non-opioid combination analgesics for management of post-surgical pain: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Background

Everyday people die unnecessarily from opioid overdose-related addiction. Dentists are among the leading prescribers of opioid analgesics. Opioid-seeking behaviors have been linked to receipt of initial opioid prescriptions following the common dental procedure of third molar extraction. With each opioid prescription, a patient’s risk for opioid misuse or abuse increases. With an estimated 56 million tablets of 5 mg hydrocodone annually prescribed after third molar extractions in the USA, 3.5 million young adults may be unnecessarily exposed to opioids by dentists who are inadvertently increasing their patient’s risk for addiction.

Methods

A double-blind, stratified randomized, multi-center clinical trial has been designed to evaluate whether a combination of over-the-counter non-opioid-containing analgesics is not inferior to the most prescribed opioid analgesic. The impacted 3rd molar extraction model is being used due to the predictable severity of the post-operative pain and generalizability of results. Within each site/clinic and gender type (male/female), patients are randomized to receive either OPIOID (hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/300 mg) or NON-OPIOID (ibuprofen/acetaminophen 400/500 mg). Outcome data include pain levels, adverse events, overall patient satisfaction, ability to sleep, and ability to perform daily functions. To develop clinical guidelines and a clinical decision-making tool, pain management, extraction difficulty, and the number of tablets taken are being collected, enabling an experimental decision-making tool to be developed.

Discussion

The proposed methods address the shortcomings of other analgesic studies. Although prior studies have tested short-term effects of single doses of pain medications, patients and their dentists are interested in managing pain for the entire post-operative period, not just the first 12 h. After surgery, patients expect to be able to perform normal daily functions without feeling nauseous or dizzy and they desire a restful sleep at night. Parents of young people are concerned with the risks of opioid use and misuse, related either to treatments received or to subsequent use of leftover pills. Upon successful completion of this clinical trial, dentists, patients, and their families will be better able to make informed decisions regarding post-operative pain management.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04452344. Registered on June 20, 2020

Pharmacological Treatment for Acute Traumatic Musculoskeletal Pain in Athletes

Pain management is a crucial issue for athletes who train and compete at the highest performance levels. There are still evidence gaps for the use of analgesics for sports injuries despite the growing interest in training and competition settings. However, high-quality research is needed to determine the most appropriate and optimal timing and formulations in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and opioid management, particularly given the strictness of anti-doping regulations. Indeed, the role of pharmacological therapy in reducing acute traumatic pain in athletes should still be addressed to minimize the timing of return to sport. Therefore, the aim of this comprehensive review was to summarize the current evidence about pain management in the setting of acute injury in elite athletes, providing the most informed strategy for pain relief and performance recovery.

Single-dose intravenous ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous (IV) ibuprofen, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 10 June 2021. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a 4- and 6-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants reporting or experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and specific NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. We were not able to carry out any planned meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria, involving 201 total participants, mostly female (mean age 42 years), undergoing primary, unilateral, distal, first metatarsal bunionectomy (with osteotomy and internal fixation). Ibuprofen 300 mg, placebo or acetaminophen 1000 mg was administered intravenously to participants reporting moderate pain intensity the day after surgery. Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we did not perform any quantitative analyses. The study was at low risk of bias for most domains. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision. Ibuprofen versus placebo Findings of the single study found that at both the 4-hour and 6-hour assessment period, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 32% (24/76) for those assigned to ibuprofen and 22% (11/50) for those assigned to placebo. These findings produced a risk ratio (RR) of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 2.66 versus placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over the 4-hour and 6-hour period (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 71 minutes for placebo (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study (1 study, 126 participants), 58/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 39/50 (78%) assigned to placebo reported or experienced any adverse event (AE), (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). No serious AEs (SAEs) were experienced (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus active comparators Ibuprofen (300 mg) was similar to the active comparator, IV acetaminophen (1000 mg) at 4 hours and 6 hours (1 study, 126 participants). For those assigned to active control (acetaminophen), the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 35% (26/75) at 4 hours and 31% (23/75) at 6 hours. At 4 hours, these findings produced a RR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). At 6 hours, these findings produced a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 125 minutes for the active comparator, acetaminophen (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study, 8/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 45/75 (60%) assigned to active control (acetaminophen) reported or experienced any AE, (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59; very low-certainty evidence). No SAEs were experienced (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that IV ibuprofen is effective and safe for acute postoperative pain in adults.

The Expanding Role of the COX Inhibitor/Opioid Receptor Agonist Combination in the Management of Pain

Pain management in both outpatient and inpatient settings demands a multidisciplinary approach entailing medical, physical and psychological therapies. Among these, multimodal analgesic regimens stand out as a promising treatment options. Cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitor/opioid receptor agonist combinations hold great potential as effective pillars in the multimodal pain management by providing adequate analgesia with fewer safety risks due to COX inhibitors’ opioid-sparing effect. Thus, these combinations, either freely or in fixed-dose formulation, offer a feasible option for the prescribing clinicians who seek to maximise therapeutic effect while simultaneously minimise adverse effects. The selection of the appropriate non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and opioid agent at optimal doses is essential. It should be tailored to the patients’ analgesic necessities, and his/her gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk, and potential concurrent aspirin use. Moreover, it should allow for addiction risk and the potential opioid-induced bowel dysfunction and constipation. To ensure an optimal match between the characteristics of the patient and the properties of the chosen medication, and to guide adequate and well-tolerated treatment decisions, it is of paramount importance to expand clinicians’ knowledge of the currently available COX inhibitor/opioid receptor agonist combinations. This invited narrative review deals with the literature evidence covering the components of multimodal opioid-sparing analgesic regimens. Also, it provides insights into the clinically relevant choice criteria to ensure a patient-tailored analgesia.

Managing postoperative pain in adult outpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing codeine with NSAIDs

BACKGROUND

Analgesics that contain codeine are commonly prescribed for postoperative pain, but it is unclear how they compare with nonopioid alternatives. We sought to compare the effectiveness of codeine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for adults who underwent outpatient surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing codeine and NSAIDs for postoperative pain in outpatient surgery. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to October 2019 for eligible studies. Our primary outcome was the patient pain score, converted to a standard 10-point intensity scale. Our secondary outcomes were patient-reported global assessments and adverse effects. We used random-effects models and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Forty studies, including 102 trial arms and 5116 patients, met inclusion criteria. The studies had low risk of bias and low-to-moderate heterogeneity. Compared with codeine, NSAIDs were associated with better pain scores at 6 hours (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.93 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 1.15) and at 12 hours (WMD 0.79, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19). Stronger NSAID superiority at 6 hours was observed among trials where acetaminophen was coadministered at equivalent doses between groups (WMD 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.48). NSAIDs were associated with better global assessments at 6 hours (WMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.72) and at 24 hours (WMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.40), and were associated with fewer adverse effects, including bleeding events.

INTERPRETATION

We found that adult outpatients report better pain scores, better global assessments and fewer adverse effects when their postoperative pain is treated with NSAIDs than with codeine. Clinicians across all specialties can use this information to improve both pain management and opioid stewardship.

Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs  Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.   Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Intravenous versus oral paracetamol for postoperative analgesia: A systematic review

Paracetamol is a widely used analgesic agent that can be given by several different routes of administration. In the surgical setting, intravenous infusions of paracetamol are used, but an alternative is using oral paracetamol as a premedication. This systematic review is the first to compare the relative efficacy of intravenous and oral paracetamol at providing postoperative analgesia. Nine relevant studies were identified. Intravenous paracetamol resulted in a postoperative pain score of 0.5 points lower than in those receiving oral paracetamol premedication. Patients receiving intravenous paracetamol also had a small reduction in postoperative opioid requirements, but the time at which rescue analgesia was required did not differ. These results suggest that intravenous paracetamol may offer a small advantage over oral paracetamol premedication at providing postoperative analgesia.

Designing Effective Warnings about Addiction on the Patient Information Leaflet of Over-the-Counter Codeine Sold in England to University Students

(1) Background: The harm of misusing over-the-counter (OTC) codeine-containing medicines among university students in England is being increasingly recognized. Based on English university students, this paper aims to study the importance of information design on information communication, explore methods for effective warning design, and investigate university students’ perception of OTC codeine. (2) Methods: The effective warning design is addressed through case studies, answering correctness by the heat map generated from the eye-tracking experiment (ETE), and the total time spent on the tasks. User perceptions are made though online surveys. (3) Results: Information design significantly affects the way user processes information. Therefore, two emphasized warnings displayed in the headline, and the “possible side effect (PSE)” sections and warning signs of addiction presented under the PSE are suggested as effective ways to display warnings. For students’ perception of OTC codeine, 80% of university students are unfamiliar with the substance. After reading the patient information leaflets (PILs), 47% recommended tight regulation on codeine. (4) Conclusions: The misuse of OTC codeine could be a potential problem among English university students. The design of the PIL significantly influences the chance of unintentional medicine misuse. The display of warnings on the PILs of OTC codeine should be redesigned for better understanding.

Comparison between isolated and associated with codeine acetaminophen in pain control of acute apical abscess: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the acetaminophen administration efficacy or its combination with codeine for pain control in acute apical abscesses cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine patients who sought emergency treatment in the Faculty of Dentistry of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul were included, all of them with acute apical abscess diagnosis. These patients were divided into two groups: acetaminophen group-prescription of acetaminophen (1000 mg) and acetaminophen-codeine group-prescription of acetaminophen (1000 mg) + codeine (30 mg), both with oral intake every 6 h for 3 days. The pain scores were recorded by the patients on their own at 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after finishing clinical assistance, by filling a pain evolution journal, containing a visual analogue scale (VAS). Student t test was conducted to investigate different mean ages between groups 1 and 2. A comparison of weight and means of initial pain scores between groups was carried out using the Mann-Whitney U test. Chi-square test was performed to compare gender, affected tooth, education, initial swelling, and frequency of adverse effect between test and control groups. Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare groups in the same period. Friedman's test was used to compare results from the same group over time.

RESULTS

Both groups showed score reduction over time (P < 0.05). Paracetamol-codeine group showed significant pain score reduction at 48 h registers when compared to baseline and at 6 h scores (P < 0.05). Further, pain scores at 72 h were significantly lower, when compared to the baseline, at 6 h, and at 12 h scores (P < 0.05). Acetaminophen group showed significant pain score reduction observed at 72 h, when compared to the baseline and at 6 h scores (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in pain score reduction over time between groups (P > 0.05). There was no difference between the groups regarding the frequency of adverse reactions (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both medications were effective for pain control in acute apical abscess cases. The findings might have inferred in pain control of acute apical abscess associated pain in patients who used an antibiotic drug. External validity of the findings for acute apical abscess cases with no need for an antibiotic prescription is uncertain.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper suggests acetaminophen 1000 mg can be used for pain control in the treatment of acute apical abscess associated with systemic manifestation.

Single‐dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults

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

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single‐dose IV ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate‐to‐severe postoperative pain in adults.

Opioid Prescribing: A Retrospective Analysis of Opioid Prescription Requests in a Large, Multicenter Ambulatory Care Organization

Background: To date, Atrius Health has not assessed how often patients request additional pain medication after receiving an initial opioid for acute pain management. This assessment was requested to help justify prescribing patterns for opioids in the primary care setting. Objective: To assess the amount of requests for additional opioid prescriptions in patients who received a short-acting opioid for acute pain management. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of a multicenter large ambulatory care organization in the Greater Boston Area. Atrius Health patients who received an initial prescription for a short-acting oral opioid indicated for acute pain management between May 1, 2016, and October 1, 2016, were included in the study. Results: The overall percentage of patients requesting additional medication for acute pain management was 13% (46/350). Of the 46 patients who requested additional medication, 15 patients received a second opioid prescription (33%, 15/46). For those patients who requested additional pain medication, there were no trends between the day supply that was prescribed and a patient receiving a second opioid prescription from a health care provider. Patients who received a 4- to 5-day supply of opioids were not more likely to call back requesting additional pain medication than patients who received a 1- to 3-day supply of opioids (odd ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval = 0.17-1.00). Conclusion: At Atrius Health, roughly 13% of patients are requesting additional pain medications after being prescribed a short-acting opioid for acute pain management. Other primary care and urgent care health systems may consider reducing the day supply of opioids prescribed for acute pain management.

Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.Primary outcomeThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.For time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).For the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).The numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.Overall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.There were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Enhanced recovery pathways in thoracic surgery from Italian VATS Group: perioperative analgesia protocols

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is a minimally invasive technique that allows a faster recovery after thoracic surgery. Although enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles seem reasonably applicable to thoracic surgery, there is little literature on the application of such a strategy in this context. In regard to pain management, ERAS pathways promote the adoption of a multimodal strategy, tailored to the patients. This approach is based on combining systemic and loco-regional analgesia to favour opioid-sparing strategies. Thoracic paravertebral block is considered the first-line loco-regional technique for VATS. Other techniques include intercostal nerve block and serratus anterior plane block. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol are essential part of the multimodal treatment of pain. Also, adjuvant drugs can be useful as opioid-sparing agents. Nevertheless, the treatment of postoperative pain must take into account opioid agents too, if necessary. All above is useful for careful planning and execution of a multimodal analgesic treatment to enhance the recovery of patients. This article summarizes the most recent evidences from literature and authors' experiences on perioperative multimodal analgesia principles for implementing an ERAS program after VATS lobectomy.

Comparison of two combinations of opioid and non-opioid analgesics for acute periradicular abscess: a randomized clinical trial

Acute periradicular abscess is a condition characterized by the formation and propagation of pus in the periapical tissues and generally associated with debilitating pain.

Efficacy of Preoperative Administration of Paracetamol-Codeine on Pain following Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Split-Mouth, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Objectives. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of preoperative administration of single-dose of paracetamol-codeine, in the relieving of acute postoperative pain after the surgical removal of an impacted mandibular third molar. Materials and Methods. The study cohort consisted of 32 Caucasian outpatients, giving a total of 64 bilateral symmetrical impacted mandibles. Patients were randomized in two experimental groups to receive a preoperative oral dose of paracetamol-codeine (analgesic group) or a placebo (placebo group) at the first and second surgeries. Study participants were asked to record pain intensity scores during the operation and the next 2 days, the time of the first request for rescue analgesic, and the total number of postoperative-supplement paracetamol-codeine tablets. Results. The pain intensity score on the first day was significantly lower in the analgesic group than in the placebo group (p < 0.001). The time to using rescue therapy was significantly longer in the analgesic group than in the placebo group (p = 0.004). The number of paracetamol-codeine tablets used postoperatively did not differ between the analgesic and placebo groups (p = 0.104). Conclusions. Preoperative paracetamol-codeine is effective in providing immediate postoperative pain control after third molar surgery and in delaying the initial onset of pain. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (Registration Number): NCT03049878.

Single dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

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

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single dose of intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

Over-the-Counter Codeine-from Therapeutic Use to Dependence, and the Grey Areas in Between

Codeine is a widely used analgesic, that is available for sale in pharmacies over the counter (OTC) in a number of countries including the UK, South Africa, Ireland, France and Australia. In these countries with OTC codeine sales there has been emerging concerns about misuse of and dependence on codeine containing combination analgesics, with increasing numbers of people presenting for help with codeine dependence at primary care and addiction treatment services. This has led to many countries reviewing availability of codeine in OTC available preparations, and considering possible measures to reduce harms from misuse of OTC codeine containing combination analgesics.

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.

Critical Analysis of Cardiovascular and Central Nervous System Fixed Dose Combinations Available in Indian Market

INTRODUCTION

Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are being increasingly used to improve compliance and achieve greater benefits of the two or more active ingredients given together than the corresponding individual drug components given separately.

AIM

To analyse the rationality of Cardiovascular (CV) and Central Nervous System (CNS) FDCs available in Indian market.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CVS and CNS FDCs, enlisted in Indian Drug Review, 2014, were analysed by a pretested validated eight point criteria tool. Each FDC was assessed for number of active pharmacological ingredients, approval by regulatory authority, listing in WHO Essential Medicine List. While efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic interactions and advantages of each FDC were analysed by literature search. The total score of the tool was 12 and score ≥7 was considered rational. FDCs were divided in four groups as per rationality and DCGI approval. ANOVA was used for statistical analysis and p<0.05 was considering statistically significant.

RESULTS

Out of 152 FDCs, 107 were CV and 45 belonged to CNS group and 40 had documented evidence of efficacy and safety. Majority of FDCs showed advantage of being convenient by reducing pill count and only 32 showed reducing adverse drug reactions. Out of 107 CV FDCs, 46 were rational and 61 were irrational with a mean rationality score of 6.72±2.82 (CI- 95 %, 3.90 - 9.54). While out of 45 CNS FDCs, 8 were rational and 37 were irrational with a mean rationality score of 6.22±2.08 (CI - 95 %, 4.14 - 8.30). A significant difference in mean rationality score of group A (DCGI approved + rational) was observed as compared to group B (DCGI approved + irrational) and group C (DCGI unapproved + rational) as compared to group D (DCGI unapproved + irrational) (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The absence of watertight pre-requisite, critical analysis of the scientific validity of the formulations and 'convenience' category has resulted into proliferation of irrational FDCs. This calls for strict regulatory approval process to avoid miserable FDC scenario in the country.

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.

A randomised controlled trial of paracetamol and ibuprofen with or without codeine or oxycodone as initial analgesia for adults with moderate pain from limb injury

OBJECTIVE

Compare pain relief from non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone analgesic regimens in adults with moderate pain from limb injury.

METHOD

Double-blind, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Three regimens of six tablets, each included 2 × 500 mg paracetamol and 2 × 200 mg ibuprofen with 2 × 100 mg thiamine (non-opioid), 2 × 30 mg codeine (codeine) or 2 × 5 mg oxycodone tablets (oxycodone).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

difference in mean visual analogue scale (VAS) change between groups at 30 min, with a limit of inferiority of 13. Secondary outcomes included mean change in VAS rating from baseline to 30 min for each group, patient satisfaction, need for additional analgesia and adverse events. Pain ratings taken at 60 and 90 min for patients still in ED are described.

RESULTS

Of 182 patients randomised, non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone numbers were 61, 62 and 59. Differences (95% CI) between groups at 30 min were as follows: non-opioid versus codeine -2.6 (-8.8 to 3.6); non-opioid versus oxycodone -2.7 (-9.3 to 3.9); codeine versus oxycodone 0.1 (-6.6 to 6.4). Mean VAS reductions for non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone were -13.5, -16.1 and -16.2 mm, respectively. Satisfaction with analgesia was reported by 77.6% (64.7-87.5), 81.0% (67.2-89.0) and 73.6% (59.7-84.7) and adverse events by 3.3% (0.4-11.3), 1.6% (0.4-8.7) and 16.9% (8.4-29.0), respectively. Mean VAS reductions at 60 and 90 min were as follows: -23.2 and -18.7 mm for non-opioid; -30.7 and -33.3 mm for codeine; and -26.1 and -31.7 mm for oxycodone.

CONCLUSION

At 30 min, analgesic effects of non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone groups were non-inferior.

Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment

BACKGROUND

Fear of dental pain is a major barrier to treatment for children who need dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort and intraoperative pain. We reviewed the available evidence to determine whether further research is warranted and to inform the development of prescribing guidelines. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for intraoperative or postoperative pain relief (or both) in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment without general anaesthesia or sedation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 January 2016), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 January 2016), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 5 January 2016) and the ISI Web of Science (1945 to 5 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 5 January 2016. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We handsearched several specialist journals dating from 2000 to 2011.We checked the reference lists of all eligible trials for additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field for any unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents up to 17 years of age. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts of the articles obtained from the searches for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials in the review, with 190 participants in total. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion from the updated search in January 2016.Three trials were related to dental treatment, i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. We did not judge any of the included trials to be at low risk of bias.Three of the included trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). Meta-analysis of the two trials gave arisk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; two trials, 100 participants; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in the placebo group versus 42% in the paracetamol group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, and the other was at high risk. The quality of the evidence is low. One study did not have any adverse events; the other two trials did not mention adverse events.Four of the included trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. We pooled the data from the other two trials, which included participants who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant mean difference in severity of postoperative pain of -13.44 (95% CI -23.01 to -3.88; two trials, 85 participants; P = 0.006) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100), which indicated a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence is low. Only one of the trials reported adverse events (one participant from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the available evidence, we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in using preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement. The quality of the evidence is low. Further randomised clinical trials should be completed with appropriate sample sizes and well defined outcome measures.

Medical professionals' perspectives on prescribed and over-the-counter medicines containing codeine: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To explore prescribing practitioners' perspectives on prescribed codeine use, their ability to identify dependence and their options for treatment in the UK.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional design using a questionnaire containing closed-ended and open-ended items.

SETTING

A nationally representative sample of prescribing professionals working in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

300 prescribing professionals working in primary care and pain settings.

RESULTS

Participants stated that they regularly reviewed patients prescribed codeine, understood the risks of dependence and recognised the potential for codeine to be used recreationally. Over half the participants felt patients were unaware of the adverse health consequences of high doses of combination codeine medicines. One-quarter of participants experienced patient resentment when asking about medicines containing codeine. Just under 40% of participants agreed that it was difficult to identify problematic use of codeine without being informed by the patient and did not feel confident in identification of codeine dependence. Less than 45% of all participants agreed that codeine dependence could be managed effectively in general practice. Slow or gradual withdrawal was the most popular suggested treatment in managing dependence. Education and counselling was also emphasised in managing codeine-dependent patients in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication with patients should involve assessment of patient understanding of their medication, including the risk of dependence. There is a need to develop extra supports for professionals including patient screening tools for identifying codeine dependence. The support structure for managing codeine-dependent patients in primary care requires further examination.

Using an Electronic Decision Support Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Polypharmacy and Optimize Medicines: Rationale and Methods

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and inappropriate continuation of medicines can lead to a significant risk of adverse drug events and drug interactions with patient harm and escalating health care costs as a result. Thorough review of patients' medications focusing on the need for each drug can reduce the potential for harm. Limitations in performing effective medicine reviews in practice include consultation time constraints and funding for pharmacy services. We will aim to overcome these problems by designing an automatic electronic decision support tool (the medicines optimization/review and evaluation (MORE) module) that is embedded in general practice electronic records systems. The tool will focus on medicines optimization and reducing polypharmacy to aid prescribers in reviewing medicines and improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are: (1) to develop an electronic decision support tool to assist prescribers in performing clinical medication reviews with a particular focus on patients experiencing multimorbidity and polypharmacy, and (2) evaluate and assess the use of the electronic decision support tool, providing pilot data on its usefulness in supporting prescribers during consultations with patients.

METHODS

The first three study phases involve development of clinical rules outlining clinical interventions and the creation and validation of the MORE decision support tool. Phase four is a community-based, single-blind, prospective, 6-month controlled trial involving two interventions and two control general practices, matched for practice demographics. We will be measuring the number of times prescribers engage with the tool, total number of interventions suggested by the tool, and total number of times prescribers change medicines in response to recommendations. There will also be prospective follow-up of patients in the intervention group to examine whether changes to medications are upheld, and to determine the number of hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 6 months of a medicine intervention. Comparisons between control and intervention practices will measure the changes in proportions of patients with polypharmacy and inappropriately prescribed medicines before and after the introduction of the electronic decision support tool, proportions of patients receiving appropriate treatment in each practice, and changed, maintained, or improved health status, hospitalizations, and deaths in the study year. Initiation rates of inappropriately prescribed medicines will be measured as a secondary outcome. As well as external assessment of the extent of use and application of the tool, prescribers will receive monthly practice progress reports detailing the proportion of their patients experiencing polypharmacy and taking inappropriately prescribed medicines identified for review.

RESULTS

Phase one has now been completed and the decision support tool is under development. Final data analysis is expected to be available in December 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will establish whether the MORE decision support tool stands up to real world conditions and promotes changes in prescribing practice.

The extent and correlates of community-based pharmaceutical opioid utilisation in Australia

PURPOSE

There has been concern regarding the increasing use of opioids and related harm. We present data on opioid utilisation across Australia and consider sociodemographic factors that may affect utilisation rates.

METHODS

IMS Health national sales data for over-the-counter (codeine) and prescription opioids (buprenorphine, codeine, dextropropoxyphene, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tapentadol and tramadol) were used to estimate total utilisation rates in the community during 2013, mapped to Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) and Remoteness Areas. All opioid amounts were measured in pack sales and milligrammes then converted to oral morphine equivalent milligrammes (OME mg) for comparison across opioids. Data on the demographic characteristics of SLAs were obtained from the ABS (sex and age distribution, income and levels of physical labour) and other sources (number of pharmacies in SLAs) and were included in linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

In 2013, an estimated 10 747 kg (OME) of opioids were sold across Australia, equating to 481 OME mg per person. There was considerable geographic variation in opioid utilisation, with higher rates of use in rural and regional areas. Geographic areas that were less populated, had more men and older people, proportionally more low-income earning households and greater proportions in jobs requiring physical labour had higher utilisation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial geographic variation in opioid utilisation was identified, with areas outside of major cities having higher rates of utilisation of all types of opioids. Prescription monitoring and best practice interventions aimed at improving opioid use need to have a particular focus on areas outside of major cities. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of a Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program on Prescription of Opioid Analgesics by Dentists

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP) are statewide databases that collect data on prescription of controlled substances. New York State mandates prescribers to consult the PDMP registry before prescribing a controlled substance such as opioid analgesics. The effect of mandatory PDMP on opioid drug prescriptions by dentists is not known. This study investigates the impact of mandatory PDMP on frequency and quantity of opioid prescriptions by dentists in a dental urgent care center. Based on the sample size estimate, we collected patient records of a 3-month period before and two consecutive 3-month periods after the mandatory PDMP implementation and analyzed the data on number of visits, treatment types and drug prescriptions using Chi-square tests. For patients who were prescribed pain medications, 452 (30.6%), 190 (14.1%), and 140 (9.6%) received opioid analgesics in the three study periods respectively, signifying a statistically significant reduction in the number of opioid prescriptions after implementation of the mandatory PDMP (p<0.05). Total numbers of prescribed opioid pills in a 3-month period decreased from 5096 to 1120, signifying a 78% reduction in absolute quantity. Prescriptions for non-opioid analgesics acetaminophen increased during the same periods (p<0.05). We conclude that the mandatory PDMP significantly affected the prescription pattern for pain medications by dentists. Such change in prescription pattern represents a shift towards the evidence-based prescription practices for acute postoperative pain.

Comparative Analgesic Efficacy of Oxycodone/Acetaminophen vs Codeine/Acetaminophen for Short-Term Pain Management Following ED Discharge

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that oxycodone/acetaminophen provides analgesia superior to codeine/acetaminophen following emergency department (ED) discharge.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, trial.

SETTING

Adult inner city ED.

SUBJECTS

ED patients with acute extremity pain who were discharged home.

METHODS

Patients randomized to oxycodone/acetaminophen (5 mg/325 mg) or codeine/acetaminophen (30 mg/300 mg). The primary outcome, obtained via telephone one day after ED discharge, was the between-group difference in improvement in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores over a 2-hour period following the most recent ingestion of study drug. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients with >50% pain reduction, side-effect profile, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty patients were enrolled. Mean baseline NRS scores were 7.9 in both groups. Mean decrease over 2 hours was 4.5 NRS units in the oxycodone/acetaminophen group vs 4.2 NRS units in the codeine/acetaminophen group, for a clinically and statistically nonsignificant difference of 0.2 NRS units (95% CI -0.4-0.9 NRS units). Similarly, 66% vs 61% achieved >50% pain relief for a nonsignificant difference of 5% (95% CI -8% to 17%). Side-effect profile and patient satisfaction were similar.

CONCLUSION

Our hypothesis that oxycodone/acetaminophen provides analgesia superior to codeine/acetaminophen was rejected. Although pain within each group was reduced by more than half, the between-group difference was not significant. Pending independent validation, these unexpected findings suggest that codeine/acetaminophen, a Schedule III agent, may be a clinically reasonable outpatient opioid alternative to oxycodone/acetaminophen, a more tightly restricted Schedule II agent thought to be more prone to misuse.

Dexketoprofen/tramadol: randomised double-blind trial and confirmation of empirical theory of combination analgesics in acute pain

Background

Combination analgesics are effective in acute pain, and a theoretical framework predicts efficacy for combinations. The combination of dexketoprofen and tramadol is untested, but predicted to be highly effective.

Methods

This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, single-dose trial in patients with moderate or severe pain following third molar extraction. There were ten treatment arms, including dexketoprofen trometamol (12.5 mg and 25 mg) and tramadol hydrochloride (37.5 mg and 75 mg), given as four different fixed combinations and single components, with ibuprofen 400 mg as active control as well as a placebo control. The study objective was to evaluate the superior analgesic efficacy and safety of each combination and each single agent versus placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least 50 % max TOTPAR over six hours.

Results

606 patients were randomised and provided at least one post-dose assessment. All combinations were significantly better than placebo. The highest percentage of responders (72 %) was achieved in the dexketoprofen trometamol 25 mg plus tramadol hydrochloride 75 mg group (NNT 1.6, 95 % confidence interval 1.3 to 2.1). Addition of tramadol to dexketoprofen resulted in greater peak pain relief and greater pain relief over the longer term, particularly at times longer than six hours (median duration of 8.1 h). Adverse events were unremarkable.

Conclusions

Dexketoprofen trometamol 25 mg combined with tramadol hydrochloride 75 mg provided good analgesia with rapid onset and long duration in a model of moderate to severe pain. The results of the dose finding study are consistent with pre-trial calculations based on empirical formulae.

Trial registration

EudraCT (2010-022798-32); Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01307020).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-015-0541-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Oral oxycodone for pain after caesarean section: A randomized comparison with nurse-administered IV morphine in a pragmatic study

Background and aims The present randomized open label parallel group study was conducted to evaluate if an oral oxycodone (OXY) regimen can be at least equally effective and as safe for postoperative analgesia after caesarean section (CS) as a standard of care program using nurse-administered intravenous morphine (IVM), followed by oral codeine. Methods Eighty women (40 + 40) were scheduled for elective CS under spinal anaesthesia. All patients received postoperative multimodal analgesic therapy, including ibuprofen and paracetamol. The OXY group got standardized extended release and short acting oral treatment (and in a few cases intravenous OXY) as needed and the other group received current standard of care, IVM as needed for 24 h, followed by codeine. Opioid treatment lasted maximum five days. Outcome measures were pain intensity (numerical rating scale, NRS), opioid requirements, duration of administering opioids and safety for mother and newborn. All opioids in the study were expressed in OXY equivalents, using a conversion table. As the bioavailability of each opioid has a certain extent of interindividual bioavailability this conversion represents an approximation. The possible influence of opioids on the newborns was evaluated by the Neurological Adaptive Capacity Score at birth and at 24 and 48 h. Results During the first 24 h, there were no differences between treatments in opioid requirements or mean pain intensity at rest but pain intensity when asking for rescue medication was lower in the OXY than in the IVM group (mean ± SD; 5.41 ± 6.42 vs. 6.42 ± 1.61; p = 0.027). Provoked pain (uterus palpation) during the first 6h was also less in the OXY group (3.26 ± 2.13 vs. 4.60 ± 2.10; p = 0.007). During the 25-48 h period postoperatively, patients on OXY reported significantly lower pain intensity at rest (2.9 ± 1.9 vs. 3.8 ± 1.8; p = 0.039) and consumed less opioids (OXY equivalents; mg) (31.5 ± 9.6 vs. 38.2 ± 38.2; p = 0.001) than those on IVM/codeine. The total amount of opioids 0-5 days postoperatively was significantly lower in the OXY than in the IVM/codeine group (108.7 ± 37.6 vs. 138.2 ± 45.1; p = 0.002). Duration of administering opioids was significantly shorter in the OXY group. Time to first spontaneous bowel movement was shorter in the OXY group compared with the IVM/codeine group. No serious adverse events were recorded in the mothers but the total number of common opioid adverse effects was higher among women on IVM/codeine than among those receiving OXY (15 vs. 3; p = 0.007). No adverse outcomes in the newborns related to treatment were observed in either group. Conclusions In a multimodal protocol for postoperative analgesia after CS better pain control and lower opioid intake was observed in patients receiving oral OXY as compared to those on IVM/codeine. No safety risks for mother and child were identified with either protocol. Implications Our findings support the view that use of oral OXY is a simple, effective and time saving treatment for postoperative pain after CS.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2013. 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 effects 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. Some combinations of ibuprofen and codeine are available without prescription (but usually only from a pharmacy) where the dose of codeine is lower, and with a prescription when the dose of codeine is higher.Use of combination analgesics that contain codeine has been a source of some concern because of misuse from over-the-counter preparations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of ibuprofen plus codeine for acute 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, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 1 December 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of single dose oral ibuprofen plus codeine 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 prescribed ibuprofen plus codeine, placebo, or the same dose of ibuprofen alone with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. 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. Analyses were planned for different doses of ibuprofen and codeine, but especially for codeine where we set criteria for low (< 10 mg), medium (10 to 20 mg), and high (> 20 mg) doses.

MAIN RESULTS

Since the last version of this review no new studies were found. Information was available from six studies with 1342 participants, using a variety of doses of ibuprofen and codeine. In four studies (443 participants) using ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 25.6 mg to 60 mg (high dose codeine) 64% of participants had at least 50% maximum pain relief with the combination compared to 18% with placebo. The NNT was 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.6) (high quality evidence). In three studies (204 participants) ibuprofen plus codeine (any dose) was better than the same dose of ibuprofen (69% versus 55%) but the result was barely significant with a relative benefit of 1.3 (1.01 to 1.6) (moderate quality evidence). In two studies (159 participants) ibuprofen plus codeine appeared to be better than the same dose of codeine alone (69% versus 33%), but no analysis was done. There was no difference between the combination and placebo in the reporting of adverse events in these acute studies (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 25.6 mg to 60 mg demonstrates good analgesic efficacy. Very limited data suggest that the combination is better than the same dose of either drug alone, and that similar numbers of people experience adverse events with the combination as with placebo.

Codeine, alone and with paracetamol (acetaminophen), for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is very common in patients with cancer. Opioid analgesics, including codeine, play a significant role in major guidelines on the management of cancer pain, particularly for mild to moderate pain. Codeine is widely available and inexpensive, which may make it a good choice, especially in low-resource settings. Its use is controversial, in part because codeine is not effective in a minority of patients who cannot convert it to its active metabolite (morphine), and also because of concerns about potential abuse, and safety in children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of codeine used alone or in combination with paracetamol for relieving cancer pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 5 March 2014, supplemented by searches of clinical trial registries and screening of the reference lists of the identified studies and reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials using single or multiple doses of codeine, with or without paracetamol, for the treatment of cancer pain. Trials could have either parallel or cross-over design, with at least 10 participants per treatment group. Studies in children or adults reporting on any type, grade, and stage of cancer were eligible. We accepted any formulation, dosage regimen, and route of administration of codeine, and both placebo and active controls.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently read the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the searches and excluded those that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. For the remaining studies, two authors read the full manuscripts and assessed them for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies between review authors by discussion. Included studies were described qualitatively, since no meta-analysis was possible because of the small amount of data identified, and clinical and methodological between-study heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies including 721 participants with cancer pain due to diverse types of malignancy. All studies were performed on adults; there were no studies on children. The included studies were of adequate methodological quality, but all except for one were judged to be at a high risk of bias because of small study size, and six because of methods used to deal with missing data or high withdrawal rates. Three studies used a parallel group design; the remainder were cross-over trials in which there was an adequate washout period, but only one reported results for treatment periods separately.Twelve studies used codeine as a single agent and three combined it with paracetamol. Ten studies included a placebo arm, and 14 included one or more of 16 different active drug comparators or compared different routes of administration. Most studies investigated the effect of a single dose of medication, while five used treatment periods of one, seven or 21 days. Most studies used codeine at doses of 30 mg to 120 mg.There were insufficient data for any pooled analysis. Only two studies reported our preferred responder outcome of 'participants with at least 50% reduction in pain' and two reported 'participants with no worse than mild pain'. Eleven studies reported treatment group mean measures of pain intensity or pain relief; overall for these outcome measures, codeine or codeine plus paracetamol was numerically superior to placebo and equivalent to the active comparators.Adverse event reporting was poor: only two studies reported the number of participants with any adverse event specified by treatment group and only one reported the number of participants with any serious adverse event. In multiple-dose studies nausea, vomiting and constipation were common, with somnolence and dizziness frequent in the 21-day study. Withdrawal from the studies, where reported, was less than 10% except in two studies. There were three deaths, in all cases due to the underlying cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small amount of data in studies that were both randomised and double-blind. Studies were small, of short duration, and most had significant shortcomings in reporting. The available evidence indicates that codeine is more effective against cancer pain than placebo, but with increased risk of nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Uncertainty remains as to the magnitude and time-course of the analgesic effect and the safety and tolerability in longer-term use. There were no data for children.

Randomized clinical trial of hydrocodone/acetaminophen versus codeine/acetaminophen in the treatment of acute extremity pain after emergency department discharge

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to test the hypothesis that hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin [5/500]) provides more efficacious analgesia than codeine/acetaminophen (Tylenol #3 [30/300]) in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). Both are currently Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Schedule III narcotics.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial of patients with acute extremity pain who were discharged home from the ED, comparing a 3-day supply of oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen (5 mg/500 mg) to oral codeine/acetaminophen (30 mg/300 mg). Pain was measured on a valid and reproducible verbal numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10, and patients were contacted by telephone approximately 24 hours after being discharged. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in improvement in pain at 2 hours following the most recent ingestion of the study drug, relative to the time of phone contact after ED discharge. Secondary outcomes compared side-effect profiles and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The median time from ED discharge to follow-up was 26 hours (interquartile range [IQR] = 24 to 39 hours). The mean NRS pain score before the most recent dose of pain medication after ED discharge was 7.6 NRS units for both groups. The mean decrease in pain scores 2 hours after pain medications were taken were 3.9 NRS units in the hydrocodone/acetaminophen group versus 3.5 NRS units in the codeine/acetaminophen group, for a difference of 0.4 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.3 to 1.2 NRS units). No differences were found in side effects or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Both medications decreased NRS pain scores by approximately 50%. However, the oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen failed to provide clinically or statistically superior pain relief compared to oral codeine/acetaminophen when prescribed to patients discharged from the ED with acute extremity pain. Similarly, there were no clinically or statistically important differences in side-effect profiles or patient satisfaction. If the DEA reclassifies hydrocodone as a Schedule II narcotic, as recently recommended by its advisory board, our data suggest that the codeine/acetaminophen may be a clinically reasonable Schedule III substitute for hydrocodone/acetaminophen at ED discharge. These findings should be regarded as tentative and require independent validation in similar and other acute pain models.

WITHDRAWN: Single dose dipyrone for acute postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical pharmacology of analgesics assessed with human experimental pain models: bridging basic and clinical research

The medical impact of pain is such that much effort is being applied to develop novel analgesic drugs directed towards new targets and to investigate the analgesic efficacy of known drugs. Ongoing research requires cost-saving tools to translate basic science knowledge into clinically effective analgesic compounds. In this review we have re-examined the prediction of clinical analgesia by human experimental pain models as a basis for model selection in phase I studies. The overall prediction of analgesic efficacy or failure of a drug correlated well between experimental and clinical settings. However, correct model selection requires more detailed information about which model predicts a particular clinical pain condition. We hypothesized that if an analgesic drug was effective in an experimental pain model and also a specific clinical pain condition, then that model might be predictive for that particular condition and should be selected for development as an analgesic for that condition. The validity of the prediction increases with an increase in the numbers of analgesic drug classes for which this agreement was shown. From available evidence, only five clinical pain conditions were correctly predicted by seven different pain models for at least three different drugs. Most of these models combine a sensitization method. The analysis also identified several models with low impact with respect to their clinical translation. Thus, the presently identified agreements and non-agreements between analgesic effects on experimental and on clinical pain may serve as a solid basis to identify complex sets of human pain models that bridge basic science with clinical pain research.

Single dose oral ibuprofen plus oxycodone 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. Fixed-dose combinations of ibuprofen and oxycodone are available, and the drugs may be separately used in combination in some acute pain situations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of ibuprofen plus oxycodone for moderate to severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (CENTRAL), on The Cochrane Library, (Issue 4 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 21st May 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 21st May 2013), the Oxford Pain Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind clinical trials of single dose, oral ibuprofen plus oxycodone compared with placebo or the same dose of ibuprofen alone for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed quality, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants prescribed ibuprofen plus oxycodone, ibuprofen alone, oxycodone alone, or placebo with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. We calculated relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on 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 events.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified three studies involving 1202 participants. All examined the same dose combination. Included studies provided data from 603 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with placebo, 717 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg alone, and 471 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with oxycodone 5 mg alone.The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours was 60% with ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg and 17% with placebo, giving an NNT of 2.3 (2.0 to 2.8). For ibuprofen 400 mg alone the proportion was 50%, producing no significant difference between ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg alone. For oxycodone 5 mg alone the proportion was 23%, giving an NNT for ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg compared with oxycodone alone of 2.9 (2.3 to 4.0).Ibuprofen + oxycodone resulted in longer times to remedication than with placebo. The median time to use of rescue medication was more than 5 hours for ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg, and 2.3 hours or less with placebo. Fewer participants needed rescue medication with ibuprofen + oxycodone combination than with placebo or ibuprofen alone. The proportion was 40% with ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg, 83% with placebo, 53% with ibuprofen alone, and 83% with oxycodone alone, giving NNT to prevent one patient needing rescue medication of 2.4 (2.0 to 2.9), 11 (6.1 to 56), and 2.6 (2.1 to 3.4) for comparisons of ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg with placebo, ibuprofen alone, and oxycodone alone, respectively.The proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events was 25% with ibuprofen 400 mg + oxycodone 5 mg, 25% with placebo, 26% with ibuprofen alone, and 35% with oxycodone alone; they were not significantly different. Serious adverse events were reported only after abdominal surgery 6/169 with the combination, 1/175 with ibuprofen alone, 3/52 with oxycodone alone, and 1/60 with placebo. Withdrawals for reasons other than lack of efficacy were fewer than 5% and balanced across treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ibuprofen 400mg + oxycodone 5mg provided analgesia for longer than oxycodone alone, but not ibuprofen alone (at the same dose). There was also a smaller chance of needing additional analgesia over about eight hours, and with no greater chance of experiencing an adverse event.

Single dose oral ibuprofen plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) for acute postoperative pain

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. Some combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol are available for use without prescription in some acute pain situations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of single dose oral ibuprofen plus paracetamol for 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) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to May 21st 2013), EMBASE (1974 to May 21st 2013), the Oxford Pain Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind clinical trials of single dose, oral ibuprofen plus paracetamol compared with placebo or the same dose of ibuprofen alone for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed quality, and extracted data. We used validated equations to calculate the area under the pain relief versus time curve and derive the proportion of participants with at least 50% of maximum pain relief over six hours. We calculated relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for ibuprofen plus paracetamol, ibuprofen alone, or placebo. We used information on 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 events.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified three studies involving 1647 participants. Each of them examined several dose combinations. Included studies provided data from 508 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg with placebo, 543 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg with placebo, and 359 participants for the comparison of ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg alone.The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief over 6 hours was 69% with ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 73% with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 7% with placebo, giving NNTs of 1.6 (1.5 to 1.8) and 1.5 (1.4 to 1.7) for the lower and higher doses respectively compared with placebo. For ibuprofen 400 mg alone the proportion was 52%, giving an NNT for ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg compared with ibuprofen alone of 5.4 (3.5 to 12).Ibuprofen + paracetamol at the 200/500 mg and 400/1000 mg doses resulted in longer times to remedication than placebo. The median time to use of rescue medication was 7.6 hours for ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 8.3 hours with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 1.7 hours with placebo. Fewer participants needed rescue medication with ibuprofen + paracetamol combination than with placebo or ibuprofen alone. The proportion was 34% with ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 25% with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 79% with placebo, giving NNTs to prevent use of rescue medication of 2.2 (1.8 to 2.9) and 1.8 (1.6 to 2.2) respectively compared with placebo. The proportion of participants using rescue medication with ibuprofen 400 mg was 48%, giving an NNT to prevent use for ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg compared with ibuprofen alone of 4.3 (3.0 to 7.7).The proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events was 30% with ibuprofen 200 mg + paracetamol 500 mg, 29% with ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg, and 48% with placebo, giving NNT values in favour of the combination treatment of 5.4 (3.6 to 10.5) and 5.1 (3.5 to 9.5) for the lower and higher doses respectively. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. Withdrawals for reasons other than lack of efficacy were fewer than 5% and balanced across treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations provided better analgesia than either drug alone (at the same dose), with a smaller chance of needing additional analgesia over about eight hours, and with a smaller chance of experiencing an adverse event.