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

Paracetamol Combination Therapy for Back Pain and Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) - 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4 to -2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD - 4.7, 95% CI - 8.3 to - 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD - 15.1, 95% CI - 18.5 to - 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD - 11.7, 95% CI - 19.2 to - 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD - 6.8, 95% CI - 12.7 to -0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator.

Evaluating a unique enhanced recovery protocol in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A single center experience

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been associated with a reduction in opioid consumption and a hastening in recovery in abdominal surgery. However, their impact on laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study is to evaluate opioid consumption and other relevant outcome measures before and after implementation of a unique LDN ERAS protocol.

METHODS

244 LDN patients were included in this retrospective cohort study. Forty-six underwent LDN prior to implementation of ERAS, whereas 198 patients received ERAS perioperative care. The primary outcome was daily oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption averaged over the entire postoperative stay. Due to removal of preoperative oral morphine from the protocol partway through the study period, the ERAS group was further subdivided into morphine recipients and non-recipients for subgroup analysis. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), length of stay, pain scores, and other relevant measures.

RESULTS

ERAS donors consumed significantly fewer average daily OMEs than Pre-ERAS donors (21.5 vs. 37.6, respectively; p < .0001). There were no statistically significant differences in OME consumption between morphine recipients and non-recipients. The ERAS group experienced less PONV (44.4% requiring one or more rescue antiemetic postoperatively, vs. 60.9% of Pre-ERAS donors; p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol pairing lidocaine and ketamine with a comprehensive approach to preoperative PO intake, premedication, intraoperative fluid management and postoperative pain control is associated with reduced opioid consumption in LDN.

Examining the efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen and meperidine for preventing post-operative shivering after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with general anesthesia

Postoperative shivering is a common complication that can lead to increased postoperative complications. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of intravenous ibuprofen and meperidine in preventing shivering following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A total of 120 patients, aged 20-70 and classified as ASA I-II, were enrolled in this triple-blind clinical trial. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: ibuprofen (800mg IV), meperidine (30 mg), or placebo (normal saline 2 ml), administered 30 minutes before the end of surgery. The occurrence of postoperative shivering was assessed and recorded at regular intervals (0, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after surgery). Additionally, postoperative pain levels were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS), sedation levels were evaluated using the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was documented. The prevalence and severity of postoperative shivering were not statistically significant between groups. The VAS was significantly lower in the meperidine group than the ibuprofen group throughout the study (p <0.001). The VAS was significantly lower in the ibuprofen group than the placebo group at 0 and 15 minutes after surgery. Although the incidence of nausea was slightly higher in the meperidine group, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.75). Sedation scores were consistently lower in the ibuprofen group and higher in the meperidine group compared to the other groups (p<0.0001) The meperidine group had a significantly higher sedation score indicative of deep sleepiness (score of 4) than the other groups. Intravenous ibuprofen demonstrated comparable efficacy to meperidine in controlling shivering. Additionally, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and sleepiness was lower in the intravenous ibuprofen group, suggesting it is a potential alternative to meperidine.

An Updated Review on the Metabolite (AM404)-Mediated Central Mechanism of Action of Paracetamol (Acetaminophen): Experimental Evidence and Potential Clinical Impact

Paracetamol remains the recommended first-line option for mild-to-moderate acute pain in general population and particularly in vulnerable populations. Despite its wide use, debate exists regarding the analgesic mechanism of action (MoA) of paracetamol. A growing body of evidence challenged the notion that paracetamol exerts its analgesic effect through cyclooxygenase (COX)-dependent inhibitory effect. It is now more evident that paracetamol analgesia has multiple pathways and is mediated by the formation of the bioactive AM404 metabolite in the central nervous system (CNS). AM404 is a potent activator of TRPV₁, a major contributor to neuronal response to pain in the brain and dorsal horn. In the periaqueductal grey, the bioactive metabolite AM404 activated the TRPV₁ channel-mGlu5 receptor-PLC-DAGL-CB1 receptor signaling cascade. The present article provides a comprehensive literature review of the centrally located, COX-independent, analgesic MoA of paracetamol and relates how the current experimental evidence can be translated into clinical practice. The evidence discussed in this review established paracetamol as a central, COX-independent, antinociceptive medication that has a distinct MoA from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and a more tolerable safety profile. With the establishment of the central MoA of paracetamol, we believe that paracetamol remains the preferred first-line option for mild-to-moderate acute pain for healthy adults, children, and patients with health concerns. However, safety concerns remain with the high dose of paracetamol due to the NAPQI-mediated liver necrosis. Centrally acting paracetamol/p-aminophenol derivatives could potentiate the analgesic effect of paracetamol without increasing the risk of hepatoxicity. Moreover, the specific central MoA of paracetamol allows its combination with other analgesics, including NSAIDs, with a different MoA. Future experiments to better explain the central actions of paracetamol could pave the way for discovering new central analgesics with a better benefit-to-risk ratio.

Cervical Endocrine Surgery With a Novel Opioid-Limited Perioperative Protocol

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have demonstrated that patients undergoing cervical endocrine surgery could be comfortably discharged with minimal opioid analgesia. However, no study to date has examined the efficacy of limiting administration of opioids intraoperatively. We have developed a novel protocol for patients undergoing cervical endocrine surgery that eliminates perioperative opioids. We sought to determine the efficacy of this protocol and its impact on opioid use at discharge.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective opt-in opioid-limited surgery program study to opioid-naive patients scheduled for cervical endocrine surgery beginning in August 2019. Postoperatively, nonopioid analgesia was encouraged, but patients were also given a low dose prescription for opioids at discharge. Patients were then matched with 2 retrospective control groups, patients from 2014-2016 and 2017-2018, in order to account for increased public awareness of opioid-prescribing patterns. Primary end points included perioperative opioid use. Secondary end points included postoperative pain scores and complications.

RESULTS

218 patients underwent cervical endocrine surgery with our opioid-limited protocol between August 2019 and February 2020. Nine patients received opioids intraoperatively (4%) and 109 (50%) filled their opioid prescriptions at discharge. Compared to retrospective control groups, the average oral morphine equivalents (OME) administered intraoperatively and prescribed postoperatively were significantly lower (P < .0001). Pain scores and complication rates were similar in all groups (P = .7247).

DISCUSSION

Our novel opioid-limited surgery protocol used in conjunction with preoperative counseling is an effective approach for pain control in patients undergoing cervical endocrine surgery and limits opioid exposure throughout the perioperative period.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Discussion

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

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04452344. Registered on June 20, 2020

Bupivacaine for Root Canal Treatment – Practitioner Behaviors and Patient Perspectives: Survey Studies

Introduction and Objectives

Local anesthesia is essential in dentistry in providing intraoperative analgesia and anesthesia. However, knowledge related to its use for management of post-operative pain is limited. Perioperative pain management is especially important for root canal treatment (ie, endodontic therapy), performed by endodontists. In this study, we sought to better understand endodontists’ attitudes regarding the use of long-lasting anesthetic, namely 0.5% bupivacaine HCl with 1:200,000 epinephrine, for the management of post-endodontic pain. Additionally, we aimed to understand the perspectives of dental patients about receiving longer lasting anesthesia for endodontic therapy and to determine factors that affect their anesthetic preferences within the orofacial region.

Methods

An email invitation to participate in an anonymous online survey was sent to members of the American Association of Endodontists. Also, 82 patients attending an in-person visit to an endodontic clinic were recruited to the study.

Results

Data from 474 endodontic practitioners and 82 patients included in analysis. Among practitioners, the majority reported to either never (33.31%) or rarely (34.84%) using bupivacaine. Most chose “I don’t think I need it” (47%) and “patient discomfort because of longer duration of soft tissue anesthesia” (30.81%) as reasons for not preferring the use of bupivacaine. Of the practitioners who reported at least rare use, most chose bupivacaine for post-operative pain management (78.02%). Conversely, 52% of patients reported that they were likely/most likely to request long-lasting anesthetics for post-operative pain control.

Conclusion

Bupivacaine is rarely used as a post-operative pain management strategy for endodontic therapy. Specifically, bupivacaine is not preferred not because of adverse events, toxicity, or slow onset concerns, but rather, because of longer duration of soft tissue anesthesia. However, our data suggest that patients may be willing to receive long-lasting anesthesia. Further patient-centered research should investigate the use of long-lasting anesthetic agents for management of post-endodontic pain.

Nonopioid analgesics for analgesia in critically ill patients: Friends, enemies, or collaborators

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) experience pain, which they describe as a significant cause of stress during treatment. It can progress to chronic pain and significantly affect the quality of life. Opioids have long been the backbone of ICU pain therapy. The consequences of their long-term use are known today, such as prolonged ICU stay and mechanical ventilation, resulting in increased treatment costs. Additionally, abstinence syndrome is a consequence of abrupt opioid withdrawal. Also, there is a risk of tolerance and hyperalgesia after prolonged opioid use. Globally, opioid dependence after hospital opioid treatment is alarming, although there is still a lack of data on its incidence after ICU. Multimodal analgesia enables comfort to the patient, opioid-sparing, and avoidance of side effects of non-opioid analgesics. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a broad group of drugs recommended with paracetamol to treat mild to moderate acute postoperative pain. Although often prescribed by intensivists, their use in treating painful conditions in ICU is controversial due to the possible consequences on the organs of critically ill patients. Due to the inhibition of cyclooxygenases, NSAIDs indirectly cause vasoconstriction of the renal arteries and arterioles, leading to kidney damage. NSAIDs inhibit platelet aggregation and may predispose to bleeding. Analgesia of a critically ill patient is a important part of their treatment, however it can be challenging in certain patients. Numerous combinations of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches can be adapted to the patient's current characteristics.

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.

Clinical and pharmacological approaches to the choice of a drug for a tension-type headache relief

The article goes to describe clinical and pharmacological approaches to choosing a drug with an optimal efficacy/safety profile, providing the necessary analgesic effect in tension-type headache. TRPV1 brain receptors are considered the main action point of the mediator. Aim. The purpose of this study is a comparative analysis of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters of ibuprofen and paracetamol as a part of fixed dose combination and as monotherapy in tension type headaches. Materials and methods. Comparative dissolution kinetics test; Comparative analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters using the PubMed/MEDLINE database. Results. The median Tmax of ibuprofen as a part of a fixed-dose combination and as a monotherapy is 75 minutes. The median Tmax of paracetamol is 30 min when taken in a fixed dose combination and 40 min as a monotherapy. In patients who received the fixed dose combination, the concentration of ibuprofen in the blood plasma after 10 minutes 6.64 g/ml-1; after 20 minutes 16.81 g/ml-1, while when taken in the same dose in as a monotherapy, respectively, 0.58 and 9.00 g/ml-1. The mean plasma concentrations of paracetamol after 10 and 20 minutes in patients receiving the fixed combination were 5.43 and 14.54 g/ml-1, respectively, compared with 0.33 and 9.19 g/ml-1 for paracetamol as monotherapy. dissolution kinetics test of the Paracytolgin: after 5 minutes, 20% of paracetamol passed into the solution in a system with a pH of 1.2; in a system with a pH of 4.5 36.4%; in a system with a pH of 6.8 33.5%; after 10 minutes, respectively 68.5, 98.0 and 89.6%. After 15 minutes, almost complete dissolution was noted in all systems: 98.5, 98.8 and 100.5%, respectively. Discussion. The combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol makes it possible to enhance the analgesic effect as a result of additive action by the help of central mechanisms. The fixed dose combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol significantly increases the rate of absorption of paracetamol, which has potential therapeutic benefits in terms of a faster analgesias onset. Conclusion. The fixed dose combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol provides faster and long-term anaesthesia with a comparatively lower dosage of each analgesic.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]

BACKGROUND

Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics.

METHODS

An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process.

RESULTS

The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs.

CONCLUSION

The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]

BACKGROUND

Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics.

METHODS

An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process.

RESULTS

The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs.

CONCLUSION

The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]

Hintergrund

Nichtopioidanalgetika werden bei vielen Patienten zur perioperativen Analgesie eingesetzt. Zu einigen praktischen Fragen beim Einsatz von Nichtopioidanalgetika liegen z. T. nur wenig Informationen aus Studien vor, und in Krankenhäusern existieren häufig keine Konzepte zum Vorgehen, z. B. zur Patientenaufklärung und zum Zeitpunkt der perioperativen Gabe.

Methodik

Eine Expertengruppe der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften hat konsensbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Einsatz von Nichtopioidanalgetika erarbeitet und in einem strukturierten formalen Konsensusprozess verabschiedet.

Ergebnisse

Die Arbeitsgruppe stimmt überein, dass Nichtopioidanalgetika Bestandteil eines perioperativen multimodalen Analgesiekonzepts sein sollen und Patienten präoperativ über Nutzen, Risiken und alternative Behandlungsmöglichkeiten aufgeklärt werden sollen. Die präoperative Patienteninformation und -edukation soll auch eine Schmerz- und Analgetikaanamnese umfassen und Patienten mit Risikofaktoren für starke Schmerzen und eine Schmerzchronifizierung sollen identifiziert werden. Unter Berücksichtigung von Kontraindikationen können Nichtopioidanalgetika abhängig von der Operationsdauer auch schon prä- oder intraoperativ gegeben werden, um nach Beendigung der Anästhesie ausreichende Plasmakonzentrationen zu erzielen. Nichtopioidanalgetika oder Kombinationen von (Nichtopioid‑)Analgetika sollen nur für einen begrenzten Zeitraum gegeben werden. Ein gemeinsam erarbeiteter abteilungsübergreifender Behandlungsstandard mit dem Nichtopioidanalgetikum erster Wahl, weiteren Therapieoptionen sowie adäquaten Dosierungen, ergänzt durch eingriffsspezifische Konzepte, soll schriftlich hinterlegt werden. Bei Entlassung aus dem Krankenhaus soll der nachbehandelnde Arzt zu perioperativ gegebenen und aktuell noch eingenommenen Analgetika schriftliche Informationen erhalten. Patienten sollen zu möglichen Nebenwirkungen der Analgetika und ihrer Symptome, die auch nach Krankenhausentlassung auftreten können, und die befristete Einnahmedauer informiert werden.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Anwendung von Nichtopioidanalgetika soll als Bestandteil eines perioperativen multimodalen Analgesiekonzepts mit klaren Vorgaben zu Indikationen, Kontraindikationen, Dosierungen und Behandlungsdauer in einem abteilungsübergreifenden Behandlungsstandard schriftlich hinterlegt werden.

Zusatzmaterial online

Die Offenlegung von Interessen ist in der Online-Version dieses Artikels (10.1007/s00104-021-01421-w) enthalten.

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.

Perioperative Pain Management and Opioid Stewardship: A Practical Guide

Surgical procedures are key drivers of pain development and opioid utilization globally. Various organizations have generated guidance on postoperative pain management, enhanced recovery strategies, multimodal analgesic and anesthetic techniques, and postoperative opioid prescribing. Still, comprehensive integration of these recommendations into standard practice at the institutional level remains elusive, and persistent postoperative pain and opioid use pose significant societal burdens. The multitude of guidance publications, many different healthcare providers involved in executing them, evolution of surgical technique, and complexities of perioperative care transitions all represent challenges to process improvement. This review seeks to summarize and integrate key recommendations into a "roadmap" for institutional adoption of perioperative analgesic and opioid optimization strategies. We present a brief review of applicable statistics and definitions as impetus for prioritizing both analgesia and opioid exposure in surgical quality improvement. We then review recommended modalities at each phase of perioperative care. We showcase the value of interprofessional collaboration in implementing and sustaining perioperative performance measures related to pain management and analgesic exposure, including those from the patient perspective. Surgery centers across the globe should adopt an integrated, collaborative approach to the twin goals of optimal pain management and opioid stewardship across the care continuum.

Opioid Prescribing Laws Are Not Associated with Short-term Declines in Prescription Opioid Distribution

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the adoption of laws that limit opioid prescribing or dispensing is associated with changes in the volume of opioids distributed in states.

METHODS

State-level data on total prescription opioid distribution for 2015-2017 were obtained from the US Drug Enforcement Administration. We included in our analysis states that enacted an opioid prescribing law in either 2016 or 2017. We used as control states those that did not have an opioid prescribing law during the study period. To avoid confounding, we excluded from our analysis states that enacted or modified mandates to use prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) during the study period. To estimate the effect of opioid prescription laws on opioid distribution, we ran ordinary least squares models with indicators for whether an opioid prescription law was in effect in a state-quarter. We included state and quarter fixed effects to control for time trends and time-invariant differences between states.

RESULTS

With the exception of methadone and buprenorphine, the amount of opioids distributed in states fell during the study period. The adoption of opioid prescribing laws was not associated with additional decreases in opioids distributed.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not detect an association between adoption of opioid prescribing laws and opioids distributed. States may instead wish to pursue evidence-based efforts to reduce opioid-related harm, with a particular focus on treatment access and harm reduction interventions.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

An Evaluation of Ibuprofen Versus Ibuprofen/Acetaminophen for Postoperative Endodontic Pain in Patients With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis and Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis

The purpose of this investigation was to compare ibuprofen versus an ibuprofen/acetaminophen combination for postoperative pain control in a patient model specific to teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis. One hundred and two patients presenting with moderate to severe pain from a maxillary or mandibular posterior tooth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Following local anesthetic administration, complete endodontic cleaning and shaping was performed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive identically appearing tablets of ibuprofen 200 mg or a combination of ibuprofen 200 mg/acetaminophen 216.7 mg with instructions to take 3 tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. Patients were also given a prescription for an escape medication to take if the study medications did not adequately control their pain. A 4-day diary was used to record pain ratings and medication use. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 59-61% of the patients on postoperative day 1 and 50-57% of the patients on day 2, with the pain ratings decreasing over the next 2 days. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative pain, percussion pain, or medication use. There was no difference between ibuprofen and the combination of ibuprofen/acetaminophen in the reduction of postoperative pain following endodontic debridement in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis.

Multimodal Analgesia After Posterior Fossa Decompression With and Without Duraplasty for Children With Chiari Type I

BACKGROUND

Multimodal analgesia (MMA) may reduce opioid use after surgery for Chiari malformation type I. An MMA protocol was implemented after both posterior fossa decompression without dural opening (PFD) and posterior fossa decompression with duraplasty (PFDD).

METHODS

Scheduled nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (ketorolac or ibuprofen) and diazepam were alternated with acetaminophen, and as-needed oxycodone or intravenous morphine. The primary outcome was total opioid requirement over postoperative days 0 to 2.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2017, 49 PFD and 29 PFDD procedures were performed, and 46 of 78 patients used the protocol. Patients with PFD required less opioids than patients with PFDD. Among patients with PFDD, patients with MMA protocol usage had a lower mean opioid requirement than patients with no MMA protocol usage (0.53 ± 0.49 mgEq/kg versus 1.4 ± 1.0 mgEq/kg, P = .0142). In multivariable analysis, MMA protocol usage status independently predicted a mean decrease in opioid requirement of 0.146 mg equivalents/kg (P = .0497) after adjustment for procedure and surgeon. Statistically significant differences were not demonstrated in antiemetic requirements, discharge opioid prescriptions, total direct cost, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol of scheduled nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs alternating with scheduled acetaminophen and diazepam was associated with opioid use reductions.

Consensus Statement for the Prescription of Pain Medication at Discharge after Elective Adult Surgery

This Consensus Statement provides recommendations on the prescription of pain medication at discharge from hospital for opioid-naïve adult patients who undergo elective surgery. It encourages health care providers (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses/nurse practitioners, pain teams, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and trainees) to (1) use nonopioid therapies and reduce the prescription of opioids so that fewer opioid pills are available for diversion and (2) educate patients and their families/caregivers about pain management options after surgery to optimize quality of care for postoperative pain. These recommendations apply to opioid-naïve adult patients who undergo elective surgery. This consensus statement is intended for use by health care providers involved in the management and care of surgical patients. A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on the recommendations. First, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature to determine current best practices and existing guidelines. From the available literature and expertise of the authors, a draft list of recommendations was created. Second, the authors asked key stakeholders to review and provide feedback on several drafts of the document and attend an in-person consensus meeting. The modified Delphi stakeholder group included surgeons, anesthesiologists, residents, fellows, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. After multiple iterations, the document was deemed complete. The recommendations are not graded because they are mostly based on consensus rather than evidence.

Opioid and non-opioid utilization at home following gastrointestinal procedures: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Overprescribing of opioid medications for patients to be used at home after surgery is common. We sought to ascertain important patient and procedural characteristics that are associated with low versus high rates of self-reported utilization of opioids at home, 1-4 weeks after discharge following gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

We developed a survey consisting of questions from NIH PROMIS tools for pain intensity/interference and queries on postoperative analgesic use. Adult patients completed the survey weekly during the first month after discharge. Using regression procedures we determined the patient and procedure characteristics that predicted high post-discharge opioid use operationalized as 75 mg oral morphine equivalents/50 mg oxycodone reported taken.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 86% (201/233). High opioid use was reported by 52.7% of patients (106/201). Median reported intake of opioid pain pills was 7 for week #1 and 0 for weeks #2-4. Combinations of acetaminophen and non-steroidal and anti-inflammatory drugs were used by 8.9%-12.5% of patients after discharge. Following adjustment for significant variables of the univariate analysis, last 24-h in-hospital opioid intake remained as a significant co-variate for post-discharge opioid intake.

CONCLUSIONS

After gastrointestinal surgery, the equivalent of each oxycodone 5 mg tablet taken in the last 24 h before discharge increases the likelihood of taking the equivalent of > 10 oxycodone 5 mg tablets by 5%. Non-opioid analgesia was utilized in less than half of the cases. Maximizing non-opioid analgesic therapy and basing opioid prescriptions on 24-h pre-discharge opioid intake may improve the quality of post-discharge pain management.

Development of evidence-based recommendations for procedure-specific pain management: PROSPECT methodology

Effective peri‐operative pain management is a prerequisite for optimal recovery after surgery. Despite published evidence‐based guidelines from several professional groups, postoperative pain management remains inadequate. The procedure‐specific pain management (PROSPECT) collaboration consists of anaesthetists and surgeons with broad international representation that provide healthcare professionals with practical and evidence‐based recommendations formulated in a way that facilitates clinical decision‐making across all stages of the peri‐operative period on a procedure‐specific basis. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a detailed description of the current PROSPECT methodology with the intention of providing the rigour and transparency in which procedure‐specific pain management recommendations are developed. The high methodological standards of the recommendations should improve the quality of clinical practice.

Systematic review of analgesics and dexamethasone for post-tonsillectomy pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Intense pain can last several days after tonsillectomy. It is often undertreated and improved analgesic strategies that can be safely used at home are needed.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of systemic medications used for post-tonsillectomy pain in adult and adolescent (13 yr old) patients. Studies were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and by hand searching reference lists from studies and review articles. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies reporting on pain intensity or use of rescue analgesia were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials representing 1816 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Follow-up time was ≤24 h in 15 studies, in which the majority were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Thirteen studies were suitable for meta-analysis. In pooled analysis, paracetamol, dexamethasone, and gabapentinoids reduced pain intensity on the day of operation. In individual studies, ketoprofen, ibuprofen, lornoxicam, parecoxib, rofecoxib, indomethacin and dextromethorphan reduced pain intensity, need for rescue analgesics, or both on the day of operation. Oral celecoxib for 2 postoperative weeks or i.v. ketamine on the day of operation were not effective at the studied doses. Dexamethasone in multiple doses provided analgesia beyond 1 postoperative day. Pain was moderate to strong in both study and control groups during the first postoperative week.

CONCLUSIONS

Single analgesics and dexamethasone provide only a weak to moderate effect for post-tonsillectomy pain on the day of operation and thus a multimodal analgesic strategy is recommended. Short follow-up times and clinical heterogeneity of studies limit the usefulness of results.

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.

Effect of Combination of Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) and Ibuprofen vs Either Alone on Patient-Controlled Morphine Consumption in the First 24 Hours After Total Hip Arthroplasty: The PANSAID Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Multimodal postoperative analgesia is widely used but lacks evidence of benefit.

OBJECTIVE

Investigate beneficial and harmful effects of 4 nonopioid analgesics regimens.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, 4-group trial in 6 Danish hospitals with 90-day follow-up that included 556 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) from December 2015 to October 2017. Final date of follow-up was January 1, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive paracetamol (acetaminophen) 1000 mg plus ibuprofen 400 mg (n = 136; PCM + IBU), paracetamol 1000 mg plus matched placebo (n = 142; PCM), ibuprofen 400 mg plus matched placebo (n = 141; IBU), or half-strength paracetamol 500 mg plus ibuprofen 200 mg (n = 140; HS-PCM + IBU) orally every 6 hours for 24 hours postoperatively, starting 1 hour before surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Two co-primary outcomes: 24-hour morphine consumption using patient-controlled analgesia in pairwise comparisons between the 4 groups (multiplicity-adjusted thresholds for statistical significance, P < .0042; minimal clinically important difference, 10 mg), and proportion of patients with 1 or more serious adverse events (SAEs) within 90 days (multiplicity-adjusted thresholds for statistical significance, P < .025).

RESULTS

Among 559 randomized participants (mean age, 67 years; 277 [50%] women), 556 (99.5%) completed the trial and were included in the analysis. Median 24-hour morphine consumption was 20 mg (99.6% CI, 0-148) in the PCM + IBU group, 36 mg (99.6% CI, 0-166) for PCM alone, 26 mg (99.6% CI, 2-139) for IBU alone, and 28 mg (99.6% CI, 2-145) for HS-PCM + IBU. The median difference in morphine consumption between the PCM + IBU group vs PCM alone was 16 mg (99.6% CI, 6.5 to 24; P < .001); for the PCM-alone group vs HS-PCM + IBU, 8 mg (99.6% CI, -1 to 14; P = .001); and for the PCM + IBU group vs IBU alone, 6 mg (99.6% CI, -2 to 16; P = .002). The difference in morphine consumption was not statistically significant for the PCM + IBU group vs HS-PCM + IBU (8 mg [99.6% CI, -2 to 16]; P = .005) or for the PCM-alone group vs IBU alone (10 mg [99.6% CI, -2 to 16]; P = .004) after adjustment for multiple comparisons and 2 co-primary outcomes. There was no significant difference between the IBU-alone group vs HS-PCM + IBU (2 mg [99.6% CI, -10 to 7]; P = .81). The proportion of patients with SAEs in groups receiving IBU was 15%, and in the PCM-alone group, was 11%. The relative risk of SAE was 1.44 (97.5% CI, 0.79 to 2.64; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing THA, paracetamol plus ibuprofen significantly reduced morphine consumption compared with paracetamol alone in the first 24 hours after surgery; there was no statistically significant increase in SAEs in the pooled groups receiving ibuprofen alone vs with paracetamol alone. However, the combination did not result in a clinically important improvement over ibuprofen alone, suggesting that ibuprofen alone may be a reasonable option for early postoperative oral analgesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02571361.

An integrated safety analysis of combined acetaminophen and ibuprofen (Maxigesic /Combogesic®) in adults

INTRODUCTION

Acetaminophen (APAP) and ibuprofen (IBP) are two analgesic compounds with a long history of use. Both are considered safe at recommended over-the-counter daily doses. Chronic use, high doses, or concomitant medication can produce safety risks for both drugs. APAP is associated with increased risk of hepatic injury, while IBP can produce gastric bleeding and thromboembolic events. Using a combination of APAP and IBP provides superior analgesia without transgressing daily dose limits of each individual drug.

METHODS

The present study aimed to determine if treatment with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing APAP and IBP results in any unexpected adverse events (AEs) and/or changes in the safety profiles of its two ingredients compared to monotherapy. The analysis will examine clinical safety data obtained from either single dose trials, multiple dose trials, a long-term exposure trial, and post-marketing surveillance data of APAP/IBP FDC tablets (Maxigesic®/Combogesic®, AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd). The largest dataset was obtained by pooling the four randomized-controlled, multiple-dose clinical studies with either APAP 325 mg + IBP 97.5 mg (FDC 325/97.5, three tablets per dose) or APAP 500 mg + IBP 150 mg (FDC 500/150, two tablets per dose). At maximum doses, the two FDCs are bioequivalent, permitting the pooling of data for the analysis of safety.

RESULTS

A safety population of 922 patients who received full doses of either FDC, APAP alone, IBP alone, or placebo was compiled from the four studies. A total of 521 AEs were experienced with the incidence of FDC AEs similar to or below either monotherapy group or placebo. The FDC did not alter the incidence and percentage of the most common AEs, including gastrointestinal events and postoperative bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the FDC is well tolerated and has a strong safety profile at single and multiple doses with improved efficacy over monotherapy.

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.

Designing the ideal perioperative pain management plan starts with multimodal analgesia

Multimodal analgesia is defined as the use of more than one pharmacological class of analgesic medication targeting different receptors along the pain pathway with the goal of improving analgesia while reducing individual class-related side effects. Evidence today supports the routine use of multimodal analgesia in the perioperative period to eliminate the over-reliance on opioids for pain control and to reduce opioid-related adverse events. A multimodal analgesic protocol should be surgery-specific, functioning more like a checklist than a recipe, with options to tailor to the individual patient. Elements of this protocol may include opioids, non-opioid systemic analgesics like acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, ketamine, and local anesthetics administered by infiltration, regional block, or the intravenous route. While implementation of multimodal analgesic protocols perioperatively is recommended as an intervention to decrease the prevalence of long-term opioid use following surgery, the concurrent crisis of drug shortages presents an additional challenge. Anesthesiologists and acute pain medicine specialists will need to advocate locally and nationally to ensure a steady supply of analgesic medications and in-class alternatives for their patients’ perioperative pain management.

Opioid-Prescribing Guidelines for Common Surgical Procedures: An Expert Panel Consensus

BACKGROUND

One in 16 surgical patients prescribed opioids becomes a long-term user. Overprescribing opioids after surgery is common, and the lack of multidisciplinary procedure-specific guidelines contributes to the wide variation in opioid prescribing practices. We hypothesized that a single-institution, multidisciplinary expert panel can establish consensus on ideal opioid prescribing for select common surgical procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a 3-step modified Delphi method involving a multidisciplinary expert panel of 6 relevant stakeholder groups (surgeons, pain specialists, outpatient surgical nurse practitioners, surgical residents, patients, and pharmacists) to develop consensus ranges for outpatient opioid prescribing at the time of discharge after 20 common procedures in 8 surgical specialties. Prescribing guidelines were developed for opioid-naïve adult patients without chronic pain undergoing uncomplicated procedures. The number of opioid tablets was defined using oxycodone 5 mg oral equivalents.

RESULTS

For all 20 surgical procedures reviewed, the minimum number of opioid tablets recommended by the panel was 0. Ibuprofen was recommended for all patients unless medically contraindicated. The maximum number of opioid tablets varied by procedure (median 12.5 tablets), with panel recommendations of 0 opioid tablets for 3 of 20 (15%) procedures, 1 to 15 opioid tablets for 11 of 20 (55%) procedures, and 16 to 20 tablets for 6 of 20 (30%) procedures. Overall, patients who had the procedures voted for lower opioid amounts than surgeons who performed them.

CONCLUSIONS

Procedure-specific prescribing recommendations may help provide guidance to clinicians who are currently overprescribing opioids after surgery. Multidisciplinary, patient-centered consensus guidelines for more procedures are feasible and may serve as a tool in combating the opioid crisis.

The comparison of single-dose preemptive intravenous ibuprofen and paracetamol on postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption after open septorhinoplasty: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Septorhinoplasty is performed in combination with septoplasty and rhinoplasty operations and is characterized by severe postoperative pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate preemptive effects of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen and IV paracetamol on opioid consumption and pain scores after open septorhinoplasty.

METHODS

The study included 150 patients who had undergone elective open septorhinoplasty. Patients were randomly assigned into three groups; Group Control (Group C, n = 50) received 100 ml saline solution, Group Paracetamol (Group P, n = 50) received 1000 mg IV paracetamol in 100 ml solution, and Group Ibuprofen (Group I, n = 50) received 800 mg IV ibuprofen in 100 ml saline before surgery. Postoperative analgesia was achieved by opioid administration via patient-controlled analgesia. Visual analog scores (VASs), postoperative opioid consumption, additional analgesic requirements, and side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with Group C, VASs in Group P and Group I were statistically lower at all time points (p < 0.05). VAS was lower in Group I than in Group P at postoperative, 1st and 6th hours (p < 0.05). Opioid consumption in Group C was highest in all groups at all time periods (p < 0.05). At the 0-6 and 6-12 time intervals, total opioid consumption was significantly lower in Group I compared to Group P (p < 0.05). Total opioid consumption was highest in Group C (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has indicated that ibuprofen has more analgesic effect than paracetamol during first 12 h, but there is a non-inferiority between ibuprofen and paracetamol after first 12 h.

A pilot study of a breast surgery Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol to eliminate narcotic prescription at discharge

BACKGROUND

The evolving conceptualization of the management of surgical pain was a major contributor to the supply of narcotics that led to the opioid crisis. We designed and implemented a breast surgery-specific Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol using opioid-sparing techniques to eliminate narcotic prescription at discharge without sacrificing perioperative pain control.

METHODS

A pilot observational study included patients with and without cancer undergoing lumpectomy. The convenience sample consisted of an ERAS group and a control usual care (UC) group who underwent surgery during the same time period. Discharge narcotic prescriptions were compared after converting to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME's). Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Ninety ERAS and 67 UC patients were enrolled. Most lumpectomies were wire-localized, and half of the patients in each group had breast cancer. There were more obese patients in the ERAS group. UC lumpectomy patients were discharged with a median of 54.5 MMEs (range 0-120), while the ERAS lumpectomy patients were discharged with none (p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between groups, and there were few complications.

CONCLUSION

A breast surgery-specific ERAS protocol employing opioid-sparing techniques successfully eliminated postoperative narcotic prescription without sacrificing perioperative pain control or increasing postoperative complications. By promoting the adoption of similar protocols, surgeons can continue to improve patient outcomes while decreasing the quantity of narcotics available for diversion within our patients' communities.

Role of Multimodal Analgesia in the Evolving Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Pathways

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are specially designed multimodal perioperative care pathways which are intended to attain and improve rapid recovery after surgical interventions by supporting preoperative organ function and attenuating the stress response caused by surgical trauma, allowing patients to get back to normal activities as soon as possible. Evidence-based protocols are prepared and published to implement the conception of ERAS. Although they vary amongst health care institutions, the main three elements (preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative components) remain the cornerstones. Postoperative pain influences the quality and length of the postoperative recovery period, and later, the quality of life. Therefore, the optimal postoperative pain management (PPM) applying multimodal analgesia (MA) is one of the most important components of ERAS. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the concept of MA in PPM, particularly reviewing the use of opioid-sparing measures such as paracetamol, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), other adjuvants, and regional techniques.

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

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

Techniques to Optimize Multimodal Analgesia in Ambulatory Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ambulatory surgery has grown in popularity in recent decades due to the advancement in both surgical and anesthetic techniques resulting in quicker recovery times, fewer complications, higher patient satisfaction, and reduced costs of care. We review common approaches to multimodal analgesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

A multimodal approach can help reduce perioperative opioid requirements and improve patient recovery. Analgesic options may include NSAIDs, acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, corticosteroids, alpha-2 agonists, local anesthetics, and the use of regional anesthesia. We highlight important aspects related to pain management in the ambulatory surgery setting. A coordinated approach is required by the entire healthcare team to help expedite patient recovery and facilitate a resumption of normal activity following surgery. Implementation and development of standardized analgesic protocols will further improve patient care and outcomes.

[Pain therapy with metamizole after ambulatory surgery?]

One third of operations are performed on an outpatient basis in Germany, but methods of postoperative pain therapy are less studied. We observed 126 patients with ambulatory and planned surgery in the field of orthopedics and trauma surgery. They were treated with the analgesic metamizole intra- and postoperatively and completed the patients' questionnaire QUIPS on the first postoperative day. In all, 79 patients (61.7%) reported current pain ≥4 on the numerical rating scale (NRS); 84 (66.6%) had restrictions in mobility, 48 (38.1%) described sleep disorders, and 26 (20.6%) wished for more or stronger analgesics. However, 91 (72.2%) of our patients were satisfied with the their pain therapy. Chances are that the treatment of nociceptive pain during movement with NSAID or COX-2-inhibitors is more successful. Further investigations should follow.

PANSAID - PAracetamol and NSAID in combination: study protocol for a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Effective postoperative pain management is essential for the rehabilitation of the surgical patient. No 'gold standard' exists after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and combinations of different nonopioid medications are used with virtually no evidence for additional analgesic efficacy compared to monotherapy. The objective of this trial is to investigate the analgesic effects and safety of paracetamol and ibuprofen alone and in combination in different dosages after THA.

METHODS

PANSAID is a placebo-controlled, parallel four-group, multicentre trial with centralised computer-generated allocation sequence and allocation concealment and with varying block size and stratification by site. Blinding of assessor, investigator, caregivers, patients and statisticians. Patients are randomised to four groups: (A) paracetamol 1 g × 4 and ibuprofen 400 mg × 4, (B) paracetamol 1 g × 4 and placebo, (C) placebo and ibuprofen 400 mg × 4 and (D) paracetamol 0.5 g × 4 and ibuprofen 200 mg. The two co-primary outcomes are 24-h consumption of morphine and number of patients with one or more serious adverse events within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes are pain scores during mobilisation and at rest at 6 and 24 h postoperatively, and number of patients with one or more adverse events within 24 h postoperatively. Inclusion criteria are patients scheduled for unilateral, primary THA; age above 18 years; ASA status 1-3; BMI >18 and <40 kg/m²; women must not be pregnant; and provision of informed consent. Exclusion criteria are patients who cannot cooperate with the trial; participation in another trial; patients who cannot understand/speak Danish; daily use of strong opioids; allergy against trial medication; contraindications against ibuprofen; alcohol and/or drug abuse. A total of 556 eligible patients are needed to detect a difference of 10 mg morphine i.v. the first 24 h postoperatively with a standard deviation of 20 mg and a family wise type 1 error rate of 0.025 (two-sided) and a type 2 error rate of 0.10 for the six possible comparisons of the four intervention groups.

DISCUSSION

We started recruiting patients in December 2015 and expect to finish in September 2017. Data analysis will be from September 2017 to October 2017 and manuscript submission ultimo 2017.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT: 2015-002239-16 (12/8-15); ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02571361 . Registered on 7 October 2015.

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.

Metamizole versus ibuprofen at home after day surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain and, in a more extended perspective, quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered the principal endpoints after day surgery. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol are a cornerstone of pain treatment after painful day surgery. Nevertheless, NSAIDs are not always sufficiently effective, have numerous contraindications, and consequently are not suitable in up to 25 % of all patients. Metamizole is a non-opioid compound with a favourable gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular profile compared to NSAIDs. The aim of this study is to assess if a combination of metamizole and paracetamol is non-inferior to a combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol in the treatment of acute postoperative pain at home after painful day case surgery. In addition, we aim to assess and compare quality of recovery (QOR) profiles of both groups.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 200 patients undergoing elective haemorrhoid surgery, arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery, or inguinal hernia repair in a day care setting will be randomised to receive either a combination of metamizole and paracetamol (MP) or a combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol (IP). Participants will take study medication orally for 4 days. Primary endpoints are average postoperative pain intensity measured by an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale at postoperative day 1 and QOR profile measured by the Functional Recovery Index (FRI), the 1-item Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) index and the EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaire at days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14 and 28 postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include compliance with study medication, adverse effects of study medication, use of rescue medication and satisfaction with study medication, surgery and hospital care and telephone follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide clinical evidence on the analgesic efficacy and safety of a combination of metamizole and paracetamol in treating postoperative pain at home after painful day surgery. This study may also provide an insight into QOR profile after four different types of surgery and into the interrelationship between three different instruments used to assess QOR.

TRIAL STATUS

Recruitment is currently ongoing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

European Union Clinical Trials Register 2015-003987-35 . Registered 10 November 2015.

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).

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.

Ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol for pain relief following third molar removal

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials were searched with no language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials using the third molar model were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two review authors independently and in duplicate extracted data. 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 post-dosing and meta-analysed for comparison.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 2241 patients were included. Two studies were considered to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk and two unclear risk of bias. 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. Risk ratio (RR) 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, RR for not using rescue medication (also favouring ibuprofen) was 1.50 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.79; four trials). For combined drug RR 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). RR not using rescue medication 1.60 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.88) (two trials; moderate quality evidence). Adverse events were comparable between the treatment groups, but no formal analysis could be undertaken.

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.

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.

TRPA1 mediates the hypothermic action of acetaminophen

Acetaminophen (APAP) is an effective antipyretic and one of the most commonly used analgesic drugs. Unlike antipyretic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, APAP elicits hypothermia in addition to its antipyretic effect. Here we have examined the mechanisms responsible for the hypothermic activity of APAP. Subcutaneous, but not intrathecal, administration of APAP elicited a dose dependent decrease in body temperature in wildtype mice. Hypothermia was abolished in mice pre-treated with resiniferatoxin to destroy or defunctionalize peripheral TRPV1-expressing terminals, but resistant to inhibition of cyclo-oxygenases. The hypothermic activity was independent of TRPV1 since APAP evoked hypothermia was identical in wildtype and Trpv1^−/− mice, and not reduced by administration of a maximally effective dose of a TRPV1 antagonist. In contrast, a TRPA1 antagonist inhibited APAP induced hypothermia and APAP was without effect on body temperature in Trpa1^−/− mice. In a model of yeast induced pyrexia, administration of APAP evoked a marked hypothermia in wildtype and Trpv1^−/− mice, but only restored normal body temperature in Trpa1^−/− and Trpa1^−/−/Trpv1^−/− mice. We conclude that TRPA1 mediates APAP evoked hypothermia.