Single dose oral ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults

The role of the sympathetic component of the autonomic nervous system on pain before and after third molar extraction- an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Assessing heart rate variability (HRV) before a standardized surgery would help to explore further the relationship between the autonomic nervous system and pain.

METHODS

A single-center prospective cohort of 117 patients (55% female) scheduled for third molar extraction underwent a preoperative resting measurement of arterial pressure followed by an HRV recording, then potentiated by a Valsalva maneuver and a deep breathing challenge. Finally, pain sensitivity was assessed by hand immersion in hot water. All surgeries were conducted under local anesthesia, with or without sedation. The primary outcome was a composite pain/analgesia score (CPAS) incorporating both pain intensity and analgesic drug intake; it was adjusted to the type of anesthesia by within-subgroup ranking.

RESULTS

The increase in heart rate in the Valsalva maneuver, and the low- to high-frequency ratio (LF/HF) in the deep breathing, were inversely correlated to preoperative heat pain, which was correlated itself to the CPAS (ρ = 0.195; p = 0.035). The only other parameter influencing CPAS was the increase in heart rate in the Valsalva maneuver, with an inverse correlation (ρ = - 0.191; p = 0.046). While age tended to impair HRV, particularly in its parasympathetic component, and while men displayed a stronger parasympathetic response than women, neither age nor sex interacted with these effects. Neither preoperative arterial pressure nor the occurrence of parental hypertension influenced the pain outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Although the identified relationships were not particularly strong, they are consistent with an influence of the sympathetic component of the autonomic nervous system. However, they do not support the interest of HRV assessment to predict postoperative pain in current practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period.

OBJECTIVES

1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

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.

Effects of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and Gastroprotective NSAIDs on the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Narrative Review

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used for their anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic properties. However, their use is often associated with gastrointestinal tract (GIT) side effects due to the inhibition of both cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 enzymes, leading to a decrease in gastroprotective prostaglandins (PG). To minimize these adverse effects, various approaches have been explored, including selective COX-2 inhibitors, NO-NSAIDs (nitric oxide-releasing NSAIDs), and dual COX/LOX (lipoxygenase) NSAIDs. However, the effects of these gastroprotective NSAIDs on the GIT and their efficacy remains uncertain. This review aims to provide an overview of the current understanding of the effects of traditional NSAIDs and gastroprotective NSAIDs on GIT. We discuss the underlying mechanisms of GIT damage caused by NSAIDs, including mucosal injury, ulceration, and bleeding, and the potential of gastroprotective NSAIDs to mitigate these effects. We also summarize recent studies on the efficacy and safety of various gastroprotective NSAIDs and highlight the limitations and challenges of these approaches. The review concludes with recommendations for future research in this field.

Pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: Detailed statistical analysis plan for the RECIPE randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The RECIPE trial systematically investigates the effects of different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty. To preserve transparency, minimise risk of bias and to prevent data-driven analysis, we present this detailed statistical analysis plan.

METHODS

The RECIPE trial is a randomised, blinded, parallel four-group multicenter clinical trial for patients undergoing planned primary total hip arthroplasty. Interventions are initiated preoperatively and continued for 24 h postoperatively. Primary outcome is total opioid consumption 0-24 h after end of surgery. Primary analysis will be performed in the modified intention to treat population of all patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, and all analyses will be stratified for site. We will perform pairwise comparisons between each of the four groups. The primary outcome will be analysed using the van Elteren test and we will present Hodges-Lehmann median differences and confidence intervals. Binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression. To preserve a family-wise error rate of <0.05, we will use a Bonferroni-adjusted alfa of 0.05/6 = 0.0083 for all six pairwise comparisons between groups when analysing the primary outcome. We will systematically assess the underlying statistical assumptions for each analysis. Data will be analysed by two blinded independent statisticians, and we will write abstracts covering all possible combinations of conclusions, before breaking the blind.

DISCUSSION

The RECIPE trial will provide important information on benefit and harm of combinations of the most frequently used non-opioid analgesics for pain after primary hip arthroplasty.

Paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: protocol for the randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel 4-group, blinded, multicentre RECIPE trial

INTRODUCTION

Multimodal analgesia with paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and glucocorticoid is recommended for hip arthroplasty, but with uncertain effects of the different combinations. We aim to investigate benefit and harm of different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone following total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RECIPE is a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel 4-group, blinded trial with 90-day and 1-year follow-up performed at nine Danish hospitals. Interventions are initiated preoperatively and continued for 24 hours postoperatively. Eligible participants undergoing total hip arthroplasty are randomised to:group A: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous placebo; group B: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg+oral placebo; group C: oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg+oral placebo; group D: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg.Primary outcome is cumulative opioid consumption at 0-24 hours. Secondary outcomes are pain at rest, during mobilisation and during a 5 m walk and adverse events. Follow-up includes serious adverse events and patient reported outcome measures at 90 days and 1 year. A total of 1060 participants are needed to demonstrate a difference of 8 mg in 24-hour morphine consumption assuming an SD of 24.5 mg, a risk of type I errors of 0.0083 and a risk of type 2 errors of 0.2. Primary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis.With this trial we aim to verify recommendations for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty, and investigate the role of dexamethasone as an analgesic adjuvant to paracetamol and ibuprofen.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial is approved by the Region Zealand Committee on Health Research Ethics (SJ-799). Plans for dissemination include publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04123873.

A Comprehensive Strategy to Pain Management for Cancer Patients in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility

Cancer pain has been shown to have a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for people experiencing it. This is also true for patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). An interdisciplinary approach is often needed to fully address a person's pain to help them attain maximum functional independence and to ensure a safe discharge home. Improving a patient's performance status in an IRF may also be a crucial determinant in their ability to continue receiving treatment for their cancer. However, if a person is determined to no longer be a candidate for aggressive, disease modulating treatment, IRFs can also be utilized to help patients and family's transition to comfort directed care with palliative or hospice services. This article will discuss the interventions of the multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation team to address a person's pain.

Post-operative Pain and Antibacterial Efficacy of Silver Nanoparticles Formulations Intracanal Medication: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

AIM: To evaluate the effect of using combined calcium hydroxide/silver nanoparticles or silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) or calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) individually as intracanal medications in reducing postoperative pain and intracanal bacterial count. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with necrotic mandibular anterior teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups; Ca(OH)2 + AgNPs or AgNPs gel (Intervention Groups) or Ca(OH)2 (Control Group). Patients received a standard 2-visit endodontic treatment and recorded their pain levels after 4, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours following the first and second visit on a modified visual analogue scale (VAS). Intracanal bacterial counts were assessed using culturing before and after instrumentation and intracanal medication. Outcome data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher’s Exact tests to compare between the groups and Friedman’s test to assess the changes by time. RESULTS: At 24 hours interappointment the incidence of pain was statistically significant (P = .005) as well as at 48 hours (P = .001). There was a statistically significant difference between the mean percentage reduction of anaerobic bacterial counts in the three groups with the highest percentage in the Ca(OH)2 + AgNPs group at 98.9% followed by AgNPs group 98.5% and Ca(OH)2 at 85.3% (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined calcium hydroxide/silver nanoparticles reduced the intracanal bacterial counts significantly, but adversely affected the interappointment pain. Based on that finding, this combination should be tested in different concentrations with different ratios to reach the most effective combination that reduce pain with high antibacterial efficacy.

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.

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.

Robenacoxib shows efficacy for the treatment of chronic degenerative joint disease-associated pain in cats: a randomized and blinded pilot clinical trial

The main objective of this pilot clinical trial was to evaluate outcome measures for the assessment of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) robenacoxib in cats with degenerative joint disease-associated pain (DJD-pain). Otherwise healthy cats (n = 109) with DJD-pain entered a parallel group, randomized, blinded clinical trial. Cats received placebo (P) or robenacoxib (R) for two consecutive 3-week periods. Treatment groups were PP, RR, and RP. Actimetry and owner-assessment data were collected. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects and generalized mixed-effects linear models. Activity data showed high within-cat and between-cat variability, and 82.4% of the values were zero. Compared to placebo, mean total activity was higher (5.7%) in robenacoxib-treated cats (p = 0.24); for the 80th percentile of activity, more robenacoxib-treated cats had a > 10% increase in activity after 3 (p = 0.046) and 6 weeks (p = 0.026). Robenacoxib treatment significantly decreased owner-assessed disability, (p = 0.01; 49% reduction in disability; effect size ~ 0.3), and improved temperament (p = 0.0039) and happiness (p = 0.021) after 6 weeks. More robenacoxib-treated cats were successes at 6 weeks (p = 0.018; NNT: 3.8). Adverse effect frequencies were similar across groups. Results identified suitable endpoints for confirmatory studies, while also indicating efficacy of robenacoxib in cats with DJD-pain.

Efficacy of ibuprofen in musculoskeletal post-traumatic pain in children: A systematic review

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the most frequent reason for pain-related evaluation in the emergency department (ED) in children. There is still no consensus as to what constitutes the best analgesic for MSK pain in children. However, ibuprofen is reported to be the most commonly prescribed analgesic and is considered the standard first-line treatment for MSK injury pain in children, even if it is argued that it provides inadequate relief for many patients. The purpose of this study was to review the most recent literature to assess the efficacy of ibuprofen for pain relief in MSK injuries in children evaluated in the ED. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents under 19 years of age with MSK injuries according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome was the risk ratio for successful reduction in pain scores. Six studies met the inclusion criteria and provided data on 1028 children. A meta-analysis was not performed since studies were not comparable due to the different analgesic treatment used. No significant difference in term of main pain score reduction between all the analgesics used in the included studies was noted. Patients who received oral opioids had side effects more frequently when compared to children who received ibuprofen. The combination of effect on pain relief and tolerability would suggest ibuprofen as the initial drug of choice in providing relief from mild-to-moderate MSK pain in children in the ED. The results obtained in this review and current research suggest that there’s no straightforward statistically significant evidence of the optimal analgesic agent to be used. However, ibuprofen may be preferable as the initial drug of choice in providing relief from MSK pain due to the favorable combination of effectiveness and safety profile. In fact, despite the non-significant pain reduction as compared to children who received opioids, there are less side effect associated to ibuprofen within studies. The wide range of primary outcomes measured in respect of pain scores and timing of recorded measures warrants a future standardization of study designs.

The Impact of Baseline Pain Intensity on the Analgesic Efficacy of Ibuprofen/Caffeine in Patients with Acute Postoperative Dental Pain: Post Hoc Subgroup Analysis of a Randomised Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

A fixed dose combination (FDC) of ibuprofen 400 mg and caffeine 100 mg has been shown to be more effective than ibuprofen 400 mg alone for the treatment of acute postoperative dental pain in a phase III randomised controlled trial. A post hoc subgroup analysis of the primary data from an active-/placebo-controlled, double-blind, single-centre, parallel-group study was conducted in patients with moderate or severe baseline pain.

METHODS

After dental surgery, patients with moderate or severe pain, which was determined on a 4-point verbal rating scale ('no pain' to 'severe pain'), received a single dose of ibuprofen 400 mg/caffeine 100 mg FDC, ibuprofen 400 mg, caffeine 100 mg or placebo. Pain relief (PAR) and pain intensity were assessed 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 h after administration of study medication. The primary study endpoint was the time-weighted sum of PAR and pain intensity difference (PID) from pre-dose baseline, summed for all post-dose assessment times from 0 to 8 h (SPRID0-8h).

RESULTS

There were 237 patients with moderate pain and 325 with severe pain at baseline. SPRID0-8h was significantly improved with the FDC versus ibuprofen, caffeine and placebo in the moderate and severe pain subgroups. Adjusted mean SPRID0-8h difference for the FDC versus ibuprofen was 18.19 (p < 0.0001) for patients with moderate pain and 7.70 (p = 0.0409) for patients with severe pain. With the exception of the 7-h measurement in patients with moderate pain, PID was significantly improved with the FDC versus ibuprofen at all measured time points from 0.5 to 8 h. In the severe pain subgroup, PID was significantly improved for the FDC versus ibuprofen from 0.5 to 3 h post-dose, but was not significantly different thereafter.

CONCLUSION

The enhanced analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen/caffeine FDC versus ibuprofen is most pronounced in patients with moderate intensity pain at baseline, and also evident in patients with severe baseline pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01929031.

Nocebo effects of a simplified package leaflet compared to unstandardised oral information and a standard package leaflet: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The term "nocebo effect" describes the phenomenon that the mere knowledge and anticipation of possible negative consequences of an intervention can increase the probability of experiencing these consequences. Our objective was to assess whether different information presentations on adverse events (AEs) in package information leaflets (PILs) could influence the nocebo effect.

METHODS

We included patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery in this pilot randomised controlled trial (pRCT). Patients were assigned by random, computerised and centralised allocation to one of three groups: Simplified-PIL, No-PIL or Standard-PIL on ibuprofen. The Simplified-PIL was written in plain language, and AEs were reported with a focus on avoiding biased risk perception. Only the outcome assessment was blinded.

RESULTS

We included 35, 33 and 34 patients in the Simplified-PIL, No-PIL and Standard-PIL groups, respectively. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Six patients in the Simplified-PIL, four in the No-PIL and eight in the Standard-PIL group reported an AE. This corresponds to relative risks of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-1.90) for the Simplified-PIL and 0.50 (95% CI 0.14-1.46) for the No-PIL compared with the Standard-PIL group. The Simplified-PIL increased knowledge, reduced anxiety and improved adherence, although statistical uncertainty was high for all of these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This pRCT provides the first hints on the way information on AEs is reported in PILs can affect the nocebo effect. This pRCT shows that a definitive RCT is feasible. If the results are confirmed in a definitive large RCT, a revision of the current practice for designing PILs should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03428035. Registered 2 February 2018.

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.

Effects of peri-operative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-operative kidney function for adults with normal kidney function

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provide effective analgesia during the post-operative period but can cause acute kidney injury (AKI) when used peri-operatively (at or around the time of surgery). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

This review looked at the effect of NSAIDs used in the peri-operative period on post-operative kidney function in patients with normal kidney function.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 January 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at the use of NSAIDs versus placebo for the treatment of post-operative pain in patients with normal kidney function were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors as was assessment of risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses were used to assess the outcomes of AKI, change in serum creatinine (SCr), urine output, renal replacement therapy (RRT), death (all causes) and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 26 studies (8835 participants). Risk of bias was high in 17, unclear in 6and low in three studies. There was high risk of attrition bias in six studies.Only two studies measured AKI. The use of NSAIDs had uncertain effects on the incidence of AKI compared to placebo (7066 participants: RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.96; I2 = 59%; very low certainty evidence). One study was stopped early by the data monitoring committee due to increased rates of AKI in the NSAID group. Moreover, both of these studies were examining NSAIDs for indications other than analgesia and therefore utilised relatively low doses.Compared to placebo, NSAIDs may slightly increase serum SCr (15 studies, 794 participants: MD 3.23 μmol/L, 95% CI -0.80 to 7.26; I2 = 63%; low certainty evidence). Studies displayed moderate to high heterogeneity and had multiple exclusion criteria including age and so were not representative of patients undergoing surgery. Three of these studies excluded patients if their creatinine rose post-operatively.NSAIDs may make little or no difference to post-operative urine output compared to placebo (6 studies, 149 participants: SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.27). No reliable conclusions could be drawn from these studies due to the differing units of measurements and measurement time points.It is uncertain whether NSAIDs leads to the need for RRT because the certainty of this evidence is very low (2 studies, 7056 participants: RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.07; I2 = 26%); there were few events and the results were inconsistent.It is uncertain whether NSAIDs lead to more deaths (2 studies, 312 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.12; I2 = 38%) or increased the length of hospital stay (3 studies, 410 participants: MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.72; I2 = 24%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall NSAIDs had uncertain effects on the risk of post-operative AKI, may slightly increase post-operative SCr, and it is uncertain whether NSAIDs lead to the need for RRT, death or increases the length of hospital stay. The available data therefore does not confirm the safety of NSAIDs in patients undergoing surgery. Further larger studies using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition for AKI including patients with co-morbidities are required to confirm these findings. .

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.

Paravertebral blocks and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in breast reconstructive surgery: patient selection and perspectives

The management of postoperative pain is of critical importance for women undergoing breast reconstruction after surgical treatment for breast cancer. Mitigating postoperative pain can improve health-related quality of life, reduce health care resource utilization and costs, and minimize perioperative opiate use. Multimodal analgesia pain management strategies with nonopioid analgesics have improved the value of surgical care in patients undergoing various operations but have only recently been reported in reconstructive breast surgery. Regional anesthesia techniques, with paravertebral blocks (PVBs) and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks, and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been increasingly utilized in opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocols for women undergoing breast reconstruction. The objectives of this review are to 1) comprehensively review regional anesthesia techniques in breast reconstruction, 2) outline important components of ERAS protocols in breast reconstruction, and 3) provide evidence-based recommendations regarding each intervention included in these protocols. The authors searched across six databases to identify relevant articles. For each perioperative intervention included in the ERAS protocols, the literature was exhaustively reviewed and evidence-based recommendations were generated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system methodology. This study provides a comprehensive evidence-based review of interventions to optimize perioperative care and postoperative pain control in breast reconstruction. Incorporating evidence-based interventions into future ERAS protocols is essential to ensure high value care in breast reconstruction.

Investigation of factors that influence pain experienced and the use of pain medication following periodontal surgery

Aims

To determine the relationship between anticipated pain and actual pain experienced following soft tissue grafting or implant surgery; to identify the factors that predict actual pain experienced and the use of pain medication following soft tissue grafting or implant surgery.

Materials and Methods

Prior to dental implant placement (n = 98) or soft tissue grafting (n = 115) and for seven days following the procedure, patients completed a visual analog scale indicating anticipated or experienced pain, respectively. The use of pain medication and alcohol, and smoking were measured.

Results

Actual pain experienced on day 1 was lower (p < .01) than anticipated pain and continued to decrease (p ≤ .01) for each of the 7 consecutive days. Anticipated and actual pain were positively correlated. Increasing age (p < .05), having sedation during the surgery (p < .05), and lower use of pain pills (p < .01) predicted lower pain experienced. Actual pain experienced was a predictor of pain pill use (p < .01). Greater nervousness (p < .01) prior to surgery was a predictor of greater anticipated pain.

Conclusions

Patients anticipated more pain than they actually experienced. Sedation, age and number of pain pills used predicted pain experienced. This trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03064178.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, a Cochrane systematic review

This paper compares the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the novel combination of both in a single tablet for pain relief following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth. In this systematic review only randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials were included. We calculated the proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief at 2 and 6 hours post dosing, along with the proportion of participants using rescue medication at 6 and 8 hours. Adverse events were also analysed. Data was meta-analysed where possible. Seven studies were included with a total of 2,241 participants enrolled. Ibuprofen 400 mg is superior to 1,000 mg paracetamol with a risk ratio for at least 50% pain relief at 6 hours of 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.69). For the combined drug, the risk ratio for at least 50% maximum pain relief over 6 hours is 1.77 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.39) based on total pain relief (TOTPAR) data. There is high quality evidence that ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol. The novel combination drug shows encouraging results when compared to the single drugs (based on two trials).

Avoiding Opioids and Their Harmful Side Effects in the Postoperative Patient: Exogenous Opioids, Endogenous Endorphins, Wellness, Mood, and Their Relation to Postoperative Pain

Prescribed opioids are routinely used for many postoperative patients. However, these medications have daunting adverse effects on the body's innate pain management system--the action of the beta-endorphins. The prescribed opioids not only severely impair the function of the mu-opioid receptors, but also inhibit the release of beta-endorphin. This is unfortunate, because beta-endorphin appears to be a much more potent agonist of the mu-opioid receptor than opioids. In addition, beta-endorphin indirectly elevates dopamine, a neurotransmitter related to feelings of euphoria. Therefore, by prescribing opioids, practitioners may inadvertently prolong and increase the overall intensity of the postoperative patients' pain as well as herald anhedonia. This article highlights the relationships between prescribed (exogenous) opioids, beta-endorphins, mu-opioid receptors, wellness, mood, and postoperative pain. The role of patient education, opioid alternatives, and additional recommendations regarding pain control in the postoperative patient are also discussed.

Effect of Premedication with Indomethacin and Ibuprofen on Postoperative Endodontic Pain: A Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Post-endodontic pain is one of the main problems for both patients and dentists. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of premedication with indomethacin and ibuprofen for management of postoperative endodontic pain.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this clinical trial, mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis were endodontically treated in 66 patients. The medicines were prepared similarly in the form of capsules containing 400 mg ibuprofen (group A), 25 mg indomethacin (group B) and placebo (group C). The patients were given one capsule 1 h before the start of treatment. Patients recorded their pain measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) at medication time, during treatment and 8, 12 and 24 h after treatment. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, repeated measures ANOVA, paired t-test, Tamhane and Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Ibuprofen and indomethacin significantly reduced the postoperative pain in comparison with placebo during treatment and 8 h after treatment; however, there were no significant differences between them 12 and 24 h after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Premedication with ibuprofen and indomethacin can effectively control short term post-operative pain; the lower incidence of side effects and greater analgesic power of ibuprofen make it a superior choice.

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.

Comparison of analgesic efficacy of flupirtine maleate and ibuprofen in gynaecological ambulatory surgeries: A randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims:

Flupirtine maleate is a centrally acting, non-opioid analgesic with unique muscle relaxant properties as compared to common analgesics. The aim of this study was to compare post-operative analgesic efficacy of flupirtine maleate and ibuprofen in patients undergoing gynaecological ambulatory surgeries.

Methods:

This prospective, randomised controlled study was conducted in 60 women of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I/II, 18–70 years of age and scheduled to undergo gynaecological ambulatory surgeries. The participants were randomised to receive either 100 mg oral flupirtine maleate (group flupirtine, n = 30) or 800 mg oral ibuprofen (group ibuprofen, n = 30), 1 h prior to surgery and then every 8 h for 48 h. Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS) on movement was assessed at 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 h following surgery. Following discharge from hospital, the patients were interviewed telephonically at 12, 24 and 48 h post-operatively. VNRS was statistically analysed using Mann-Whitney test.

Results:

VNRS on movement was statistically reduced at 2 h after surgery (P = 0.04) in group flupirtine as compared to group ibuprofen. The analgesic efficacy was similar in both the groups at 4, 6, 8, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. The satisfaction scores at 24 and 48 h post-operatively were superior in group flupirtine as compared to group ibuprofen (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Analgesic efficacy of flupirtine maleate was comparable with ibuprofen in patients in ambulatory gynaecological patients up to 48 h postoperatively with superior satisfaction scores.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of food on pharmacokinetics of immediate release oral formulations of aspirin, dipyrone, paracetamol and NSAIDs - a systematic review

Aims

It is common to advise that analgesics, and especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), be taken with food to reduce unwanted gastrointestinal adverse effects. The efficacy of single dose analgesics depends on producing high, early, plasma concentrations; food may interfere with this. This review sought evidence from single dose pharmacokinetic studies on the extent and timing of peak plasma concentrations of analgesic drugs in the fed and fasting states.

Methods

A systematic review of comparisons of oral analgesics in fed and fasting states published to October 2014 reporting kinetic parameters of bioavailability, time to maximum plasma concentration (t_max), and its extent (C_max) was conducted. Delayed-release formulations were not included.

Results

Bioavailability was not different between fasted and fed states. Food typically delayed absorption for all drugs where the fasting t_max was less than 4 h. For the common analgesics (aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, paracetamol) fed t_max was 1.30 to 2.80 times longer than fasted t_max. C_max was typically reduced, with greater reduction seen with more rapid absorption (fed C_max only 44–85% of the fasted C_max for aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen and paracetamol).

Conclusion

There is evidence that high, early plasma concentrations produces better early pain relief, better overall pain relief, longer lasting pain relief and lower rates of remedication. Taking analgesics with food may make them less effective, resulting in greater population exposure. It may be time to rethink research priorities and advice to professionals, patients and the public.

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.

Combination paracetamol and ibuprofen for pain relief after oral surgery: a dose ranging study

PURPOSE

Combined paracetamol and ibuprofen has been shown to be more effective than either constituent alone for acute pain in adults, but the dose-response has not been confirmed. The aim of this study was to define the analgesic dose-response relationship of different potential doses of a fixed dose combination containing paracetamol and ibuprofen after third molar surgery.

METHODS

Patients aged 16 to 60 years with moderate or severe pain after the removal of at least two impacted third molars were randomised to receive double-blind study medication as two tablets every 6 h for 24 h of either of the following: two tablet, combination full dose (paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 300 mg); one tablet, combination half dose (paracetamol 500 mg and ibuprofen 150 mg); half a tablet, combination quarter dose (paracetamol 250 mg and ibuprofen 75 mg); or placebo. The primary outcome measure was the time-adjusted summed pain intensity difference over 24 h (SPID 24) calculated from the 100-mm VAS assessments collected over multiple time points for the study duration.

RESULTS

Data from 159 patients were included in the analysis. Mean (SD) time-adjusted SPID over 24 h were full-dose combination 20.1 (18.0), half dose combination 20.4 (20.8), quarter dose combination 19.3 (20.0) and placebo 6.6 (19.8). There was a significant overall effect of dose (p = 0.002) on the primary outcome. Planned pairwise comparisons showed that all combination dose groups were superior to placebo (full dose vs. placebo p = 0.004, half dose vs. placebo p = 0.002, quarter dose vs. placebo p = 0.002). The overall effect of dose was also significant for maximum VAS pain intensity score (p = 0.048), response rate (p = 0.0094), percentage of participants requiring rescue (p = 0.025) and amount of rescue (p < 0.001). No significant dose effect was found for time to peak reduction in VAS or time to meaningful pain relief. The majority of adverse events recorded were of mild (52.75%) or moderate (40.16%) severity and not related (30.7%) or unlikely related (57.5%) to the study medication.

CONCLUSION

All doses of the combination provide safe superior pain relief to placebo in adult patients following third molar removal surgery.

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.

Periotome as an Aid to Atraumatic Extraction: A Comparative Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of periotomes in single rooted nonsurgical tooth extractions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double blind, randomized controlled clinical trial of 100 patients requiring nonsurgical single rooted tooth extractions was performed. The subjects were randomized into the experimental group (underwent extractions with periotome and conventional extraction forceps) or into the control group (subjects underwent extractions using periosteal elevator and conventional extraction forceps). Pain was assessed using visual analogue scale all throughout 7 days postoperatively. Gingival laceration, duration of surgery, number and frequency of analgesics consumed and complications (if present) were also noted.

RESULTS

On inter-group comparison, all the parameters were statistically significant in control group (p < 0.05). Also on pre and post-operative inter-group comparison, statistically significant pain reduction was noted in experimental group (52.8 %) whereas pain increased in control group (65 %).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that use of periotome may be helpful in reducing post extraction discomfort.

Single dose oral etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 2, 2009, and updated in Issue 4, 2012.Etoricoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor licensed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain in some jurisdictions. This class of drugs is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of single dose etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain using methods that permit accurate comparison with other analgesics evaluated in the same way, using criteria of efficacy recommended by in-depth studies at the individual patient level.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 31 January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently considered studies 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 etoricoxib 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

We identified no new studies for this updated review, which includes six studies with 1214 participants in comparisons of etoricoxib with placebo. All six studies reported on the 120 mg dose (798 participants in a comparison with placebo). Sixty-six per cent of participants with etoricoxib 120 mg and 12% with placebo reported at least 50% pain relief (NNT 1.8 (1.7 to 2.0); high-quality evidence). For dental studies only, the NNT was 1.6 (1.5 to 1.8). A single dose of 90 mg produced similar results in one large trial. Other doses (60, 180, and 240 mg) were each studied in only one treatment arm.Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication over 24 hours when taking etoricoxib 120 mg than placebo (NNT to prevent remedication 2.2 (1.9 to 2.8)), and the median time to use of rescue medication was 20 hours for etoricoxib and two hours for placebo. Adverse events were reported at a similar rate to placebo (moderate-quality evidence), with no serious events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose oral etoricoxib produces high levels of good quality pain relief after surgery, and adverse events did not differ from placebo in these studies. The 120 mg dose is as effective as, or better than, other commonly used analgesics.

The impact of diclofenac and ibuprofen on biofilm formation on the surface of polypropylene mesh

PURPOSE

The difficulties related to treatment of deep surgical site infection involve formation of biofilm on the surface of synthetic material. It is considered that in treatment of infections involving formation of biofilm, concomitant therapy shall be applied covering anti-inflammatory drugs. The purpose of the work was to assess the impact of diclofenac and ibuprofen on bacterial biofilm formation on the surface of monofilament polypropylene mesh.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study involved 70 strains of Staphylococcus aureus and 70 strains of Escherichia coli isolated from different patients and those which differ with chromosomal DNA pattern within the species. The assessment of the impact of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on biofilm formation was carried out with the use of qualitative method (TTC reduction), quantitative (tenfold serial dilution) and with the use of scanning electron microscope (SEM).

RESULTS

In the qualitative assessment, after incubation in the medium containing NSAIDs statistically significant growth of S. aureus strain amount and E. coli which poorly make up biofilm was stated. Quantitative examination indicated characteristic decrease of the number of colony forming units in 1 ml of the suspension isolated from bacterial biofilm formed as a result of incubation of isolates in the medium with the addition of examined NSAIDs in comparison to biofilm from control regimen. In the examination with the use of SEM it was stated that the effect of isolates incubation in the medium with NSAIDs was decrease of the number of bacteria adjacent to the biomaterial surface.

CONCLUSIONS

Diclofenac and ibuprofen in the concentration obtained in the serum limit the formation of biofilm by S. aureus and E. coli.

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Both paracetamol and ibuprofen are commonly used analgesics for the relief of pain following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth (third molars). In 2010, a novel analgesic (marketed as Nuromol) containing both paracetamol and ibuprofen in the same tablet was launched in the United Kingdom, this drug has shown promising results to date and we have chosen to also compare the combined drug with the single drugs using this model. In this review we investigated the optimal doses of both paracetamol and ibuprofen via comparison of both and via comparison with the novel combined drug. We have taken into account the side effect profile of the study drugs. This review will help oral surgeons to decide on which analgesic to prescribe following wisdom tooth removal.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the novel combination of both in a single tablet for pain relief following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, at different doses and administered postoperatively.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group'sTrials Register (to 20 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 20 May 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 May 2013) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 20 May 2013). We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for further studies. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and searched personal references in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied to the searches of the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials were included. Cross-over studies were included provided there was a wash out period of at least 14 days. There had to be a direct comparison in the trial of two or more of the trial drugs at any dosage. All trials used the third molar pain model.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All trials identified were scanned independently and in duplicate by two review authors, any disagreements were resolved by discussion, or if necessary a third review author was consulted. The proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief (based on total pain relief (TOTPAR) and summed pain intensity difference (SPID) data) was calculated for all three drugs at both two and six hours postdosing and meta-analysed for comparison. The proportion of participants using rescue medication over both six and eight hours was also collated and compared. The number of patients experiencing adverse events or the total number of adverse events reported or both were analysed for comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies were included, they were all parallel-group studies, two studies were assessed as at low risk of bias and three at high risk of bias; two were considered to have unclear bias in their methodology. A total of 2241 participants were enrolled in these trials.Ibuprofen was found to be a superior analgesic to paracetamol at several doses with high quality evidence suggesting that ibuprofen 400 mg is superior to 1000 mg paracetamol based on pain relief (estimated from TOTPAR data) and the use of rescue medication meta-analyses. The risk ratio for at least 50% pain relief (based on TOTPAR) at six hours was 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 1.69; five trials) favouring 400 mg ibuprofen over 1000 mg paracetamol, and the risk ratio for not using rescue medication (also favouring ibuprofen) was 1.50 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.79; four trials).The combined drug showed promising results, with a risk ratio for at least 50% of the maximum pain relief over six hours of 1.77 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.39) (paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg) (one trial; moderate quality evidence), and risk ratio not using rescue medication 1.60 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.88) (two trials; moderate quality evidence).The information available regarding adverse events from the studies (including nausea, vomiting, headaches and dizziness) indicated that they were comparable between the treatment groups. However, we could not formally analyse the data as it was not possible to work out how many adverse events there were in total.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high quality evidence that ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol at doses of 200 mg to 512 mg and 600 mg to 1000 mg respectively based on pain relief and use of rescue medication data collected at six hours postoperatively. The majority of this evidence (five out of six trials) compared ibuprofen 400 mg with paracetamol 1000 mg, these are the most frequently prescribed doses in clinical practice. The novel combination drug is showing encouraging results based on the outcomes from two trials when compared to the single drugs.

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.

Single dose oral dexibuprofen [S(+)-ibuprofen] for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2009 on single dose oral dexibuprofen (S(+)-ibuprofen) for acute postoperative pain in adults.Dexibuprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and widely available in other countries worldwide. It is an active isomer of ibuprofen. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral dexibuprofen in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies in patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over four to six hours, using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of single dose oral dexibuprofen for acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised studies using almost identical methods and outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were run for the original review in 2009 and subsequent searches have been run in August 2013. We did not find any new published studies as a result of the updated search.We searched for randomised studies of dexibuprofen in acute postoperative pain in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane LIbrary), and for clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We extracted pain relief or pain intensity data and converted it into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, from which relative risk and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. We collected information on adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

New data were identified for this update in one unpublished trial synopsis (BR1160 1995) in addition to the single study (Dionne 1998) that was included in the original review. In both studies dexibuprofen gave high levels of response, with 51/96 (53%) participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief with dexibuprofen 200 mg and 35/50 (70%) with dexibuprofen 400 mg, compared with 75/147 (51%) with racemic ibuprofen 400 mg, and 12/62 (13%) with placebo. The numbers of participants was too small to calculate NNTs with any meaning. The median time to additional analgesic use was greater than four hours for all active therapies, but about two hours for placebo.Adverse events were generally of mild or moderate intensity and consistent with events normally associated with anaesthesia and surgery. There were no serious adverse events or deaths.Additional data did not alter the conclusions from the earlier review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The information from these two studies in acute postoperative pain suggested that dexibuprofen may be a useful analgesic, but at doses not very different from racemic ibuprofen, for which considerably more evidence exists.

Single dose oral celecoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2008, and updated in Issue 3, 2012. Celecoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor usually prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Its effectiveness in acute pain was demonstrated in the earlier reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of celecoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent search was to 31 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of oral celecoxib or placebo for acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies for quality and extracted data. We converted summed pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) into dichotomous information, yielding the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours. We used this to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), for one patient to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief with celecoxib who would not have done so with 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.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (1785 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The two new studies in this update had been identified in the earlier update, but data were not available. There remain three potentially relevant unpublished studies for which data are not available at this time.The NNT for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg compared with placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over four to six hours was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 to 5.6) and 2.6 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.0) respectively. The median time to use of rescue medication was 6.6 hours with celecoxib 200 mg, 8.4 hours with celecoxib 400 mg, and 2.3 hours with placebo. The proportion of participants requiring rescue medication over 24 hours was 74% with celecoxib 200 mg, 63% for celecoxib 400 mg, and 91% for placebo. The NNT to prevent one patient using rescue medication was 4.8 (95% CI 3.5 to 7.7) and 3.5 (95% CI 2.9 to 4.6) for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg respectively. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity, and were experienced by a similar proportion of participants in the celecoxib and placebo groups. One serious adverse event that was probably related to celecoxib was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose oral celecoxib is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain relief. Indirect comparison suggests that the 400 mg dose has similar efficacy to ibuprofen 400 mg.

Triptans for acute cluster headache

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Law 2010). Cluster headache is an uncommon,severely painful, and disabling condition, with rapid onset. Validated treatment options are limited; first-line therapy includes inhaled oxygen. Other therapies such as intranasal lignocaine and ergotamine are not as commonly used and are less well studied. Triptans are successfully used to treat migraine attacks and they may also be useful for cluster headache.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of the triptan class of drugs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache in adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL),MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies from inception to 22 January 2010 for the original review, and from 2009 to 4 April 2013 for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of triptans for acute treatment of cluster headache episodes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants with different levels of pain relief,requiring rescue medication, and experiencing adverse events and headache-associated symptoms in treatment and control groups were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat for benefit (NNT) and harm (NNH).

MAIN RESULTS

New searches in 2013 did not identify any relevant new studies.All six included studies used a single dose of triptan to treat an attack of moderate to severe pain intensity. Subcutaneous sumatriptan was given to 131 participants at a 6 mg dose, and 88 at a 12 mg dose. Oral or intranasal zolmitriptan was given to 231 participants ata 5 mg dose, and 223 at a 10 mg dose. Placebo was given to 326 participants.Triptans were more effective than placebo for headache relief and pain-free responses. By 15 minutes after treatment with subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg, 48% of participants were pain-free and 75% had no pain or mild pain (17% and 32% respectively with placebo).NNTs for subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg were 3.3 (95% CI 2.4 to 5.0) and 2.4 (1.9 to 3.2) respectively. Intranasal zolmitriptan 10mg was of less benefit, with 12% of participants pain-free and 28% with no or mild pain (3% and 7% respectively with placebo).NNTs for intranasal zolmitriptan 10 mg were 11 (6.4 to 49) and 4.9 (3.3 to 9.2) respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited data, subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg was superior to intranasal zolmitriptan 5 mg or 10 mg for rapid (15 minute)responses, which are important in this condition. Oral routes of administration are not appropriate.

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.