1
|
Paladini A, Rawal N, Coca Martinez M, Trifa M, Montero A, Pergolizzi J, Pasqualucci A, Narvaez Tamayo MA, Varrassi G, De Leon Casasola O. Advances in the Management of Acute Postsurgical Pain: A Review. Cureus 2023; 15:e42974. [PMID: 37671225 PMCID: PMC10475855 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2023] [Accepted: 08/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Despite the millions of surgeries performed every year around the world, postoperative pain remains prevalent and is often addressed with inadequate or suboptimal treatments. Chronic postsurgical pain is surprisingly prevalent, and its rate varies with the type of surgery, as well as with certain patient characteristics. Thus, better clinical training is needed as well as patient education. As pain can be caused by more than one mechanism, multimodal or balanced postsurgical analgesia is appropriate. Pharmacological agents such as opioid and nonopioid pain relievers, as well as adjuvants and nonpharmacologic approaches, can be combined to provide better and opioid-sparing pain relief. Many specialty societies have guidelines for postoperative pain management that emphasize multimodal postoperative analgesia. These guidelines are particularly helpful when dealing with special populations such as pregnant patients or infants and children. Pediatric pain control, in particular, can be challenging as patients may be unable to communicate their pain levels. A variety of validated assessment tools are available for diagnosis. Related to therapy, most guidelines agree on the fact that codeine should be used with extreme caution in pediatric patients as some may be "rapid metabolizers" and its use may be life-threatening. Prehabilitation is a preoperative approach that prepares patients in advance of elective surgery with conditioning exercises and other interventions to optimize their health. Prehabilitation may have aerobic, strength-training, nutritional, and counseling components. Logistical considerations and degree of patient adherence represent barriers to effective prehabilitation programs. Notwithstanding all this, acute postoperative pain represents a clinical challenge that has not yet been well addressed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonella Paladini
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences (MESVA), University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, ITA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Montero Matamala A, Hanna M, Perrot S, Varrassi G. Avoid Postoperative Pain To Prevent Its Chronification: A Narrative Review. Cureus 2022; 14:e22243. [PMID: 35340463 PMCID: PMC8930466 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.22243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Acute postoperative pain is a normal and expected part of the patient’s postsurgical trajectory, and its intensity, severity, and duration vary with surgery-related and patient factors. In a subset of patients, postoperative pain does not resolve as the tissue heals but instead transitions to chronic postoperative pain, a challenging condition to treat and one associated with decreased quality of life, sleep and mood disorders, and neuropathy. Promptly and adequately treating acute postoperative pain can reduce the risk that it will transition into chronic postoperative pain. Numerous agents are available that may help treat postoperative pain, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and others. In this connection, it is also important to consider patient factors, such as mental health status and comorbidities, as well as the type and duration of surgery. A multimodal approach is recommended, which uses two or more agents with complementary mechanisms of action, working at different targets. Multimodal analgesia may also reduce adverse events and lessen opioid consumption after surgery. A particularly useful fixed-dose combination product is dexketoprofen/tramadol (DEX-TRA), which is safe and effective in numerous clinical trials. This review is based on a presentation from the Roma Pain Days scientific sessions of 2021.
Collapse
|
3
|
Ferguson MC, Schumann R, Gallagher S, McNicol ED. Single-dose intravenous ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 9:CD013264. [PMID: 34499349 PMCID: PMC8428326 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013264.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- McKenzie C Ferguson
- Pharmacy Practice, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
| | - Roman Schumann
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Sean Gallagher
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ewan D McNicol
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
McNicol ED, Ferguson MC, Schumann R. Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 5:CD013263. [PMID: 33998669 PMCID: PMC8127532 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013263.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewan D McNicol
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - McKenzie C Ferguson
- Pharmacy Practice, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL, USA
| | - Roman Schumann
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Varrassi G, Coaccioli S, De-Andrés J, Hanna M, Macheras G, Montero A, Perrot S, Piras V, Scarpignato C. Expert Consensus on Clinical Use of an Orally Administered Dexketoprofen Plus Tramadol Fixed-Dose Combination in Moderate-To-Severe Acute Pain: A Delphi Study. Adv Ther 2019; 36:3174-3185. [PMID: 31535328 PMCID: PMC6822787 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01096-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In 2016, the orally administered fixed-dose combination of dexketoprofen 25 mg and tramadol 75 mg (DKP/TRAM FDC) was approved in Europe for short-term treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain, an indication that encompasses a wide range of post-operative and non-surgical painful conditions. This has suggested the necessity to have a clearer indication on its clinical use, with the support of expert pain clinicians, working in different medical specialities, and reinforced by the data present in the literature. METHODS With the aim of assisting clinicians in the use of DKP/TRAM FDC in daily practice, two rounds of a modified Delphi process were conducted. In the first round, a board of nine experts developed a series of consensus statements based on available evidence, and their clinical experience, with DKP/TRAM FDC. In the second round, 75 clinicians with extensive experience in pain management expressed individually their agreement with the statements, using a dedicated online platform. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement. RESULTS Twenty-eight statements were developed. Of these, 19 reached the defined level of consensus. CONCLUSION The agreed consensus statements may assist clinicians in applying the results of clinical studies and clinical experience to routine care settings, providing guidance for use of this new analgesic combination in moderate-to-severe post-operative and non-surgical acute pain. FUNDING Menarini Group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stefano Coaccioli
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy
| | - Josè De-Andrés
- Department of Anesthesiology Critical Care and Pain Management, General University Hospital, Valencia, Spain
| | - Magdi Hanna
- Analgesics & Pain Research Ltd, Beckenham, UK
| | - Giorgos Macheras
- Fourth Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, KAT Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Antonio Montero
- Anaesthesiology and Surgery Department, Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida, Spain
| | - Serge Perrot
- Pain Center, Hôpital Cochin, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - Vincenzo Piras
- Department of Surgical Science, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Carmelo Scarpignato
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhao S, Chen F, Feng A, Han W, Zhang Y. Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies for Postoperative Opioid Abuse. Pain Res Manag 2019; 2019:7490801. [PMID: 31360271 PMCID: PMC6652031 DOI: 10.1155/2019/7490801] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2018] [Accepted: 06/25/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Worldwide, 80% of patients who undergo surgery receive opioid analgesics as the fundamental agent for pain relief. However, the irrational use of opioids leads to excessive drug dependence and drug abuse, resulting in an increased mortality rate and huge economic loss. The crisis of opioid overuse remains a great challenge. In this review, we summarize several key factors in opioid abuse, including race, region, income, genetic factors, age and gender, smoking and alcohol abuse, history of chronic pain and analgesic drug abuse, surgery, neuropsychiatric illness, depression and antidepressant use, human factors, national policies, hospital regulations, and health insurance under treatment of pain. Furthermore, we present several prevention strategies, such as perioperative measures, opioid substitutes, treatment of the primary illness, emotional regulation, use of opioid antagonists, efforts of the state, hospitals, doctors and pharmacy benefit managers, gene therapy, and vaccines. Greater understanding and better assessment are required of the risks associated with opioid abuse to ensure the safety and analgesic effects of pain treatment after surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shuai Zhao
- Department of Anesthesiology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| | - Fan Chen
- Department of Neurosurgery, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| | - Anqi Feng
- Department of Anesthesiology, Second Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Wei Han
- Department of Anesthesiology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| | - Yuan Zhang
- Department of Anesthesiology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ferguson MC, Schumann R, Gallagher S, McNicol ED. Single-dose intravenous ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults. Hippokratia 2019. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013264] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- McKenzie C Ferguson
- Southern Illinois University Edwardsville; Pharmacy Practice; Edwardsville IL USA
| | - Roman Schumann
- Tufts Medical Center; Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine; 800 Washington Street Box #298 Boston Massachusetts USA 02111
| | - Sean Gallagher
- Tufts Medical Center; Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine; 800 Washington Street Box #298 Boston Massachusetts USA 02111
| | - Ewan D McNicol
- Tufts Medical Center; Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine; 800 Washington Street Box #298 Boston Massachusetts USA 02111
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
McNicol ED, Ferguson MC, Gallagher S, Schumann R. Single‐dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019:CD013263. [PMCID: PMC6379096 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013263] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewan D McNicol
- Tufts Medical CenterDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative MedicineBostonUSA
| | | | - Sean Gallagher
- Tufts Medical CenterDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative MedicineBostonUSA
| | - Roman Schumann
- Tufts Medical CenterDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative MedicineBostonUSA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gay-Escoda C, Hanna M, Montero A, Dietrich T, Milleri S, Giergiel E, Zoltán TB, Varrassi G. Tramadol/dexketoprofen (TRAM/DKP) compared with tramadol/paracetamol in moderate to severe acute pain: results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active-controlled, parallel group trial in the impacted third molar extraction pain model (DAVID study). BMJ Open 2019; 9:e023715. [PMID: 30782886 PMCID: PMC6377526 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2018] [Revised: 10/31/2018] [Accepted: 11/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare efficacy/safety of oral tramadol 75 mg/dexketoprofen 25 mg (TRAM/DKP) and TRAM 75 mg/paracetamol 650 mg (TRAM/paracetamol) in moderate to severe pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar. DESIGN Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb study. PARTICIPANTS Healthy adult patients scheduled for surgical extraction of at least one fully/partially impacted lower third molar requiring bone manipulation. 654 patients were randomised and 653 were eligible for analysis. INTERVENTIONS Surgery was performed under local anaesthetic. No sedation was permitted. Patients rated pain intensity (PI) using an 11-Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (0 no pain; 10 worst pain). Participants experiencing moderate/severe pain (≥4) within 4 hours of surgery were randomised (2:2:1 ratio) to a single oral dose of TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg, TRAM/paracetamol 75/650 mg or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Efficacy was based patients' electronic diaries. Analgesia and pain were recorded as follows: pain relief (PAR) on a 5-point Verbal Rating Scale (0='no relief', 1='a little (perceptible) relief', 2='some (meaningful) relief', 3='lot of relief', 4='complete relief') at the predefined postdose time points t15 min, t30 min, t1 hour, t1.5 hour, t2 hour, t4 hour, t6 hour and t8 hour and PI on the 11-point NRS at t0 and at the same predefined postdose time points. Onset of analgesia documented using double stopwatch method over a 2-hour period. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 6 hours (TOTPAR6). Rescue medication was available during the treatment period. RESULTS TRAM/DKP was superior to TRAM/paracetamol and placebo at the primary endpoint TOTPAR6 (p<0.0001). Mean (SD) TOTPAR6 in the TRAM/DKP group was 13 (6.97), while those in the active control and placebo groups were 9.2 (7.65) and 1.9 (3.89), respectively. Superiority of TRAM/DKP over active comparator and placebo was observed at all secondary endpoints. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between active groups. CONCLUSIONS TRAM/DKP (75/25 mg) is effective and superior to TRAM/paracetamol (75/650 mg) in relieving moderate to severe acute pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar, with a faster onset of action, greater and durable analgesia, together with a favourable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER EudraCT 2015-004152-22 and NCT02777970.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cosme Gay-Escoda
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), School of Dentistry, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Magdi Hanna
- Analgesics & Pain Research (APR) Ltd, Beckenham, UK
| | - Antonio Montero
- Department of Anaesthesiology Pain Treatment and Critical Care, University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida, Spain
| | - Thomas Dietrich
- Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Dental Hospital, Birmingham Community NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Stefano Milleri
- University Hospital G.B. Rossi, Verona, Italy
- Centro Ricerche Cliniche di Verona S.r.l, Verona, Italy
| | - Ewa Giergiel
- Ars-Dent Spokka Partnerska Fitonowicz Giergiel, Białystok, Poland
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
McNicol ED, Ferguson MC, Schumann R. Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 8:CD012498. [PMID: 30153336 PMCID: PMC6353087 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012498.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewan D McNicol
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
What place is there for tramadol/dexketoprofen? Drug Ther Bull 2018; 56:66-68. [PMID: 29903752 DOI: 10.1136/dtb.2018.6.0635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
No single analgesic provides effective pain relief in all patients and increasing the dose of an analgesic may increase its unwanted effects.1 In addition, pain frequently results from multiple mechanisms that may respond to different pharmacological interventions.2 One suggested approach is to combine analgesics with different modes of action, with the aim of delivering better analgesia using lower doses of each drug.1 Skudexa (A. Menarini Farmaceutica Internazionale SRL), a combination of tramadol hydrochloride (a synthetic opioid analgesic that is a partial agonist at the μ, δ and κ opioid receptors) and dexketoprofen (a NSAID), is licensed for short term treatment of moderate to severe acute pain in adults.1-4 Here, we consider the evidence for this product and how it fits with current guidance on the management of pain.
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Opioid use and abuse has led to a worldwide opioid epidemic. And while opioids are clinically useful when appropriately indicated, they are associated with a wide range of dangerous side effects and whether they are effective at treating or eliminating chronic pain is controversial. There has long been a need for the development of nonopioid alternative treatments for patients that live in pain, and until recently, only a few effective treatments were available. Today, there are a wide range of nonopioid treatments available including NSAIDs, acetaminophen, corticosteroids, nerve blocks, SSRIs, neurostimulators, and anticonvulsants. However, these treatments are still not entirely effective at treating pain, which has sparked a new exploration of novel nonopioid pharmacotherapies. RECENT FINDINGS This manuscript will outline the most recent trends in novel nonopioid pharmacotherapy development including tramadol/dexketoprofen, TrkA inhibitors, tapentadol, opioid agonists, Nektar 181, TRV 130, ßarrestin2, bisphosphonates, antibodies, sodium channel blockers, NMDA antagonists, TRP receptors, transdermal vitamin D, AAK1 kinase inhibition, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), TRPV4 antagonists, cholecystokinin, delta opioid receptor, neurokinin, and gene therapy. The pharmacotherapies discussed in this manuscript outline promising opioid alternatives which can change the future of chronic pain treatment.
Collapse
|
13
|
Gaskell H, Derry S, Wiffen PJ, Moore RA. Single dose oral ketoprofen or dexketoprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 5:CD007355. [PMID: 28540716 PMCID: PMC6481461 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007355.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review is an update of "Single dose oral ketoprofen and dexketoprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults" last updated in Issue 4, 2009. Ketoprofen is a non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used to treat acute and chronic painful conditions. Dexketoprofen is the (S)-enantiomer, which is believed to confer analgesia. Theoretically dexketoprofen is expected to provide equivalent analgesia to ketoprofen at half the dose, with a consequent reduction in gastrointestinal adverse events. This review is one of a series on oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain. Individual reviews have been brought together in two overviews to provide information about the relative efficacy and harm of the different interventions. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of single dose oral ketoprofen and oral dexketoprofen compared with placebo for acute postoperative pain, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in the same way, and criteria of efficacy recommended by an in-depth study at the individual patient level. SEARCH METHODS For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from 2009 to 28 March 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered ketoprofen or dexketoprofen in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ketoprofen and dexketoprofen, compared with placebo, where there were sufficient data. We collected information on the number of participants with at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over six hours, the median time to use of rescue medication, and the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication. We also collected information on adverse events and withdrawals. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE, and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS This updated review included 24 studies; six additional studies added 1001 participants involved in comparisons of ketoprofen or dexketoprofen and placebo, with a 12% increase in participants taking ketoprofen and a 65% increase for dexketoprofen. Most participants (70%) were women. Dental studies typically involved young participants (mean age 20 to 30 years); other types of surgery involved older participants (mean age 37 to 68 years). Overall, we judged the studies at high risk of bias only for small size, which can lead to an overestimation of benefit.Ketoprofen doses ranged between 6.5 mg and 150 mg. The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours with the usual ketoprofen oral dose of 50 mg was 57%, compared to 23% with placebo, giving an NNT of 2.9 (95% CI 2.4 to 3.7) (RR 2.5, 95% CI 2.0 to 3.1; 594 participants; 8 studies; high quality evidence). Efficacy was significantly better in dental studies (NNT 1.8) than other surgery (NNT 4.2). The proportion of participants using rescue medication within six hours was lower with ketoprofen (32%) than with placebo (75%), giving a number needed to treat to prevent use of rescue medication (NNTp) of 2.3 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.1); 263 participants; 4 studies; high quality evidence). Median time to remedication estimates were poorly reported. Reports of any adverse event were similar with ketoprofen (18%) and placebo (11%) (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.8; 342 participants; 5 studies; high quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events (very low quality evidence).Dexketoprofen doses ranged between 5 mg and 100 mg. The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours with the usual dexketoprofen oral dose of 20 mg or 25 mg was 52%, compared to 27% with placebo, giving an NNT of 4.1 (95% CI 3.3 to 5.2) (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.2; 1177 participants; 8 studies; high quality evidence). Efficacy was significantly better in dental studies (NNT 2.7) than other surgery (NNT 5.7). The proportion of participants using rescue medication within six hours was lower with dexketoprofen (47%) than placebo (69%), giving an NNTp of 4.7 (95% CI 3.3 to 8.0); 445 participants; 5 studies; high quality evidence). Median time to remedication estimates were poorly reported. Reports of any adverse event were similar with dexketoprofen (14%) and placebo (10%) (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.2; 536 participants, 6 studies; high quality evidence). No study reported any serious adverse events (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Ketoprofen at doses of 25 mg to 100 mg is an effective analgesic in moderate to severe acute postoperative pain with an NNT for at least 50% pain relief of 2.9 with a 50 mg dose. This is similar to that of commonly used NSAIDs such as ibuprofen (NNT 2.5 for 400 mg dose) and diclofenac (NNT 2.7 for 50 mg dose). Dexketoprofen is also effective with an NNT of 4.1 in the dose range 10 mg to 25 mg. Differential efficacy between dental surgery and other types of surgery seen for both drugs is unusual. Both drugs were well tolerated in single doses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Gaskell
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Fornasari D, Allegri M, Gerboni S, Fanelli G. A "novel" association to treat pain: tramadol/dexketoprofen. The first drug of a "new pharmacological class". ACTA BIO-MEDICA : ATENEI PARMENSIS 2017; 88:17-24. [PMID: 28467329 PMCID: PMC6166198 DOI: 10.23750/abm.v88i1.6361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2017] [Accepted: 04/11/2017] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
Acute and chronic pain have an important socio-economical impact. In order to help physicians to choose the appropriate drug, especially for cancer pain, in 1986 WHO has developed a three-step analgesic “ladder” for cancer pain relief in adults. Later it has also been used for acute pain and chronic non-cancer pain. In step I nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are considered with or without adjuvants, in step II the use of weak opioids for mild-moderate pain, with or without NSAIDs and adjuvant, is suggested, while the step III is reserved to strong opioids for moderate-severe pain with or without non-opioids or adjuvants. In the last two decades, a better pathophysiology knowledge has improved pain management shifting our view from the pain ladder to a modern pain pyramid, in which drugs are selected not only on the basis of pain intensity, but mainly according to mechanisms underlying pain, including peripheral and spinal sensitization which is the main trigger of chronic pain. The best pharmacological approach has become multimodal, in which drugs belonging to different steps should be combined, matching the mechanisms of action with the type of pain. An important corollary of combining analgesic drugs with different mechanism of action is that proper matching achieves the same effect with lower doses, better outcome and fewer adverse effects. In this new perspective, fixed-dose pharmaceutical combinations of different drugs are very useful to fulfil pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and adherence criteria, enriching the pain pyramid of half-steps between the first and second step and between the second and third step. Hence, a new fixed combination of a NSAID with peripheral and central anti-infilammatory activities, such as dexketoprofen, and a weak opioid, such as tramadol, with double analgesic activity in the spinal cord as an opioid and, at the same time, on the descending modulatory pathways, is expected to cover a wide range of acute and recurrent painful conditions, ranging from nociceptive inflammatory pain to neuropathic pain of moderate/severe intensity. In this review we evaluate the rationale that justifies its use as new class of pharmacological modality to treat pain accordingly also to a more update view of WHO pain ladder. (www.actabiomedica.it)
Collapse
|