Single dose dihydrocodeine for acute postoperative pain

Network pharmacology and multitarget analysis of Nigella sativa in the management of diabetes and obesity: a computational study

Obesity and diabetes are commonly associated with one another and represent a significant global health issue, with a recent surge in disease incidence. Nigella sativa, also known as black cumin, is believed to possess several health benefits, including anti-diabetic, anticancer, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anti-obesity properties. In this study, we aimed to identify the active compounds derived from N. sativa, which can potentially inhibit key protein targets and signaling pathways associated with diabesity treatment. We employed an exhaustive in silico search, which led to the identification of 22 potential compounds. Out of these, only five hits were found to be non-toxic, including Arabic and ascorbic acids, dihydrocodeine, catechin, and kaempferol. Our analysis revealed that these hits were associated with genes such as AKT1, IL6, SRC, and EGFR. Finally, we conducted molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations, which identified kaempferol as the best binder for AKT1 in comparison to the reference molecule. Overall, our in silico integrated pipeline provides a useful approach to identify non-toxic phytocompounds as promising drug candidates to treat diabetes and obesity.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Evaluation and Treatment of Acute Trauma Pain in Older Adults

In the context of an ageing population, the demographic sands of trauma are shifting. Increasingly, trauma units are serving older adults who have sustained injuries in low-energy falls from a standing height. Older age is commonly associated with changes in physiology, as well as an increased prevalence of frailty and multimorbidity, including cardiac, renal and liver disease. These factors can complicate the safe and effective administration of analgesia in the older trauma patient. Trauma services therefore need to adapt to meet this demographic shift and ensure that trauma clinicians are sufficiently skilled in treating pain in complex older people. This article is dedicated to the management of acute trauma pain in older adults. It aims to highlight the notable clinical challenges of managing older trauma patients compared with their younger counterparts. It offers an overview of the evidence and practical opinion on the merits and drawbacks of commonly used analgesics, as well as more novel and emerging analgesic adjuncts. A search of Medline (Ovid, from inception to 7 November 2022) was conducted by a medical librarian to identify relevant articles using keyword and subject heading terms for trauma, pain, older adults and analgesics. Results were limited to articles published in the last 10 years and English language. Relevant articles' references were hand-screened to identify other relevant articles. There is paucity of dedicated high-quality evidence to guide management of trauma-related pain in older adults. Ageing-related changes in physiology, the accumulation of multimorbidity, frailty and the risk of inducing delirium secondary to analgesic medication present a suite of challenges in the older trauma patient. An important nuance of treating pain in older trauma patients is the challenge of balancing iatrogenic adverse effects of analgesia against the harms of undertreated pain, the complications and consequences of which include immobility, pneumonia, sarcopenia, pressure ulcers, long-term functional decline, increased long-term care needs and mortality. In this article, the role of non-opioid agents including short-course non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is discussed. Opioid selection and dosing are reviewed for older adults suffering from acute trauma pain in the context of kidney and liver disease. The evidence base and limitations of other adjuncts such as topical and intravenous lidocaine, ketamine and regional anaesthesia in acute geriatric trauma are discussed.

A retrospective analysis of the effects of different analgesics on the pain of patients with traumatic thoracolumbar fractures in the peri-treatment period

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and compare the effects of peri-treatment analgesics on acute and chronic pain and postoperative functional recovery of patients with thoracolumbar fractures, so as to guide the clinical drug use.

METHODS

Seven hundred nineteen patients with thoracolumbar fractures were collected and divided into acetaminophen dihydrocodeine, celecoxib, and etoricoxib groups. The main indicators were the degree of postoperative pain (visual analog scale (VAS)), the incidence of chronic pain and postoperative functional recovery (Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedics Association score (JOA)), which were continuously tracked through long-term telephone follow-up. The correlation analysis of ODI-pain score, peri-treatment VAS score, and ODI index was performed, and bivariate regression analysis was conducted to understand the risk factors for chronic pain.

RESULTS

Regression analysis showed that severe spinal cord injury and peri-treatment use of acetaminophen dihydrocodeine were both one of the risk factors for postoperative chronic pain. But there were no statistically conspicuous differences in basic characteristics, preoperative injury, and intraoperative conditions. Compared with the other two groups, patients in the acetaminophen dihydrocodeine group had longer peri-therapeutic analgesic use, higher pain-related scores (VAS 1 day preoperatively, VAS 1 month postoperatively, and ODI-pain 1 year postoperatively), higher VAS variation, higher incidence of chronic pain 1 year after surgery, and higher ODI index. And other ODI items and JOA assessments showed no statistically significant differences. In addition, the correlation analysis showed that the peri-treatment pain score was correlated with the severity of postoperative chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

Although the peri-treatment analgesic effect of acetaminophen dihydrocodeine is good, it is still necessary to combine analgesics with different mechanisms of action for patients with severe preoperative pain of thoracolumbar fracture, so as to inhibit the incidence of postoperative chronic pain and improve the quality of postoperative rehabilitation.

Dihydrocodeine for detoxification and maintenance treatment in individuals with opiate use disorders

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment and detoxification from opiate disorders includes oral administration of opioid agonists. Dihydrocodeine (DHC) substitution treatment is typically low threshold and therefore has the capacity to reach wider groups of opiate users. Decisions to prescribe DHC to patients with less severe opiate disorders centre on its perceived safety, reduced toxicity, shorter half-life and more rapid onset of action, and potential retention of patients. This review set out to investigate the effects of DHC in comparison to other pharmaceutical opioids and placebos in the detoxification and substitution of individuals with opiate use disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of DHC in reducing illicit opiate use and other health-related outcomes among adults compared to other drugs or placebos used for detoxification or substitution therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2019 we searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Trialsjournal.com. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of DHC for detoxification and maintenance substitution therapy for adolescent (aged 15 years and older) and adult illicit opiate users. The primary outcomes were abstinence from illicit opiate use following detoxification or maintenance therapy measured by self-report or urinalysis. The secondary outcomes were treatment retention and other health and behaviour outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures that are outlined by Cochrane. This includes the GRADE approach to appraise the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials (in five articles) with 385 opiate-using participants that measured outcomes at different follow-up periods in this review. Two studies with 150 individuals compared DHC with buprenorphine for detoxification, and one study with 235 participants compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. For the two studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine, we found low-quality evidence of no significant difference between DHC and buprenorphine for detoxification at six-month follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.39; P = 0.23) in the meta-analysis for the primary outcome of abstinence from illicit opiates. Similarly, low-quality evidence indicated no difference for treatment retention (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.68; P = 0.06). In the single trial that compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy, the evidence was also of low quality, and there may be no difference in effects between DHC and methadone for reported abstinence from illicit opiates (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.29). For treatment retention at six months' follow-up in this single trial, the RR calculated with an intention-to-treat analysis also indicated that there may be no difference between DHC and methadone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16). The studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine reported no serious adverse events, while the DHC versus methadone study reported one death due to methadone overdose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence that DHC may be no more effective than other commonly used pharmacological interventions in reducing illicit opiate use. It is therefore premature to make any conclusive statements about the effectiveness of DHC, and it is suggested that further high-quality studies are conducted, especially in low- to middle-income countries.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Microwave-assisted hydrogenation of codeine in aqueous media

An efficient one-pot microwave-assisted hydrogenation of codeine was achieved in aqueous solution. This technique is simple, fast, environmentally friendly, and highly efficient. Structure of produced dihydrocodeine was approved by using FT-IR, ¹H NMR, ¹³C NMR, EIMS, and elemental analysis technique. Its purity analysis was performed by using HPLC and assay analysis was performed by using potentiometric titration methods.

Comparison of analgesic effects and patient tolerability of nabilone and dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain: randomised, crossover, double blind study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic efficacy and side effects of the synthetic cannabinoid nabilone with those of the weak opioid dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain.

DESIGN

Randomised, double blind, crossover trial of 14 weeks' duration comparing dihydrocodeine and nabilone.

SETTING

Outpatient units of three hospitals in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

96 patients with chronic neuropathic pain, aged 23-84 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was difference between nabilone and dihydrocodeine in pain, as measured by the mean visual analogue score computed over the last 2 weeks of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes were changes in mood, quality of life, sleep, and psychometric function. Side effects were measured by a questionnaire.

INTERVENTION

Patients received a maximum daily dose of 240 mg dihydrocodeine or 2 mg nabilone at the end of each escalating treatment period of 6 weeks. Treatment periods were separated by a 2 week washout period. Results Mean baseline visual analogue score was 69.6 mm (range 29.4-95.2) on a 0-100 mm scale. 73 patients were included in the available case analysis and 64 patients in the per protocol analysis. The mean score was 6.0 mm longer for nabilone than for dihydrocodeine (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 10.5) in the available case analysis and 5.6 mm (10.3 to 0.8) in the per protocol analysis. Side effects were more frequent with nabilone.

CONCLUSION

Dihydrocodeine provided better pain relief than the synthetic cannabinoid nabilone and had slightly fewer side effects, although no major adverse events occurred for either drug.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15330757 controlled-trials.com] .