Comparison of oral oxycodone and naproxen in soft tissue injury pain control: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

What a pain in the … back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient's condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.

Comparison of intravenous ibuprofen and tenoxicam efficiency in ankle injury: a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pain after soft tissue injuries in and around the ankle is a troublesome process in terms of patient comfort and mobilization. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen and intravenous tenoxicam in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain due to ankle injury.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study in a tertiary hospital. The patients were divided into two groups as those administered IV 400 mg ibuprofen and IV 20 mg tenoxicam. After the treatment of the patients, visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at 15, 30, 60, and 120 min. VAS scores were compared with the effectiveness of drugs, their side effects, and the need for rescue drugs.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four patients were included in the study. There were 62 patients in the tenoxicam group and 62 patients in the ibuprofen group. When VAS scores were compared, it was found that the VAS scores of the ibuprofen group were statistically significantly lower (p < 0.001). When the ΔVAS scores were compared, it was observed that the ΔVAS scores of the ibuprofen group were statistically significantly higher from 30 min (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in favor of ibuprofen between the two drug groups in terms of the need for rescue analgesics (p < 0.001). Conclusıon. The analgesic efficacy of intravenous ibuprofen and tenoxicam is equal after an ankle injury. However, after 30 min of drug administration, ibuprofen provides more effective analgesia than tenoxicam.

Effectiveness of Opioid Analgesic Medicines Prescribed in or at Discharge From Emergency Departments for Musculoskeletal Pain : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative benefits and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) are uncertain.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and registries from inception to 7 February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of any opioid analgesic compared with placebo or a nonopioid analgesic administered or prescribed to adults in or on discharge from the ED.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pain and disability were rated on a scale of 0 to 100 and pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-two articles were included (n = 6128). In the ED, opioids were statistically but not clinically more effective in reducing pain in the short term (about 2 hours) than placebo and paracetamol (acetaminophen) but were not clinically or statistically more effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or local or systemic anesthetics. Opioids may carry higher risk for harms than placebo, paracetamol, or NSAIDs, although evidence is very uncertain. There was no evidence of difference in harms associated with local or systemic anesthetics.

LIMITATIONS

Low or very low GRADE ratings for some outcomes, unexplained heterogeneity, and little information on long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The risk-benefit balance of opioids versus placebo, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and local or systemic anesthetics is uncertain. Opioids may have equivalent pain outcomes compared with NSAIDs, but evidence on comparisons of harms is very uncertain and heterogeneous. Although factors such as route of administration or dosage may explain some heterogeneity, more work is needed to identify which subgroups will have a more favorable benefit-risk balance for one analgesic over another. Longer-term pain management once dose thresholds are reached is also uncertain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42021275293).

Exploring perspectives on changing opioid prescribing practices: A qualitative study of community stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study

BACKGROUND

Community-based perspectives are needed to more broadly inform policy-makers, public health practitioners, prescribers, and pharmacists about community-led and broader efforts to reduce opioid overprescribing, and ultimately reduce prescription opioid use disorder, overdoses and fatalities. The aim of this study is to explore community-based perspectives on efforts to change opioid prescribing practices in their communities.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 388 community stakeholders across four states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio) from November 2019 to January 2020 about community approaches and goals of community-led responses to the opioid crisis. Data analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches to identify themes and sub-themes related to improving opioid prescribing practices.

RESULTS

Three major themes and different subthemes were characterized: (1) acknowledging progress (i.e., healthcare providers being part of the solution, provider education, and prescription drug monitoring programs); (2) emergent challenges (i.e., physician nonadherence with safer opioid prescribing guidelines, difficulty identifying appropriate use of opioids, and concerns about accelerating the progression from opioid misuse to drug abuse); and (3) opportunities for change (i.e., educating patients about safer use and proper disposal of opioids, expanding prescriber and pharmacist education, changing unrealistic expectations around eliminating pain, expanding and increasing insurance coverage for alternative treatment options).

CONCLUSIONS

Community stakeholders appeared to support specific opportunities to reduce prescription opioid misuse and improve safer prescribing. The opportunities included culture change around pain expectations, awareness of safe disposal, additional provider education, and increased coverage and acceptability of non-opioid treatments.

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Opioids versus Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs for Postoperative Analgesia in Outpatient Rhinoplasty

BACKGROUND

The misuse and abuse of opioids, including overprescription, has led to the current opioid epidemic and national crisis. There is a national effort to eliminate the unnecessary prescription of opioids for analgesia.

METHODS

Seventy patients were randomized to receive postoperative analgesia with either 5 mg hydrocodone with 325 mg acetaminophen (opioid control group) or 400 mg of ibuprofen [nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) experimental group]. Pain levels were assessed on postoperative days 1, 2, and 7. Outcome measures included numeric pain rating scores and assessments of frequency and amount of analgesic used.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in gender (p = 0.81) or age (p = 0.61) between groups. On postoperative day 0, the NSAID group (mean ± SD, 2.54 ± 1.57) was found to be noninferior to the opioid group (mean ± SD, 3.14 ± 1.75; p = 0.003). On postoperative day 1, the NSAID group showed a lower mean pain score (mean ± SD, 1.84 ± 1.29) than the opioid group (mean ± SD, 2.46 ± 1.90; p = 0.01). However, on postoperative day 7, the difference in pain scores between the NSAID (mean ± SD, 3.29 ± 2.14) and opioid (mean ± SD, 3.14 ± 2.12; p = 0.17) groups lost statistical significance. There was no significant difference in mean day of medication cessation between the NSAID (mean ± SD, 4.73 ± 1.57) and opioid (mean ± SD, 4.28 ± 2.23; p = 0.26) groups. Seventy-six percent of patients who were prescribed opioids took fewer than eight tablets. Five patients escalated from NSAIDs to opioids. There were no adverse effects related to NSAID use.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs are an acceptable and safe alternative to opioids for postoperative analgesia in rhinoplasty and potentially lead to better overall pain control in some patients. Significantly reducing or eliminating opioid prescriptions may be considered in light of the current opioid epidemic.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Comparative efficacy of therapeutics for traumatic musculoskeletal pain in the emergency setting: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Musculoskeletal pain control is essential in the management of trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). Here, we performed a network meta-analysis of the use of analgesics to manage traumatic musculoskeletal pain.

METHOD

This network meta-analysis (NMA) protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020150145). Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing systemic pharmaceutical interventions for treating traumatic musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting. The outcomes were global efficacy and changes in pain intensity.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (2656 patients, four medication classes) met the inclusion criteria. The top-ranking medication class for global efficacy was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; network odds ratio: 0.52, 95% credible interval: 0.34-0.81, surface under the cumulative ranking curve score: 86). No interventions were more effective at decreasing pain intensity than opioids at 60 min.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs were the most effective medications for treating traumatic musculoskeletal pain, and combination therapies may not have advantages in the ED setting.

Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus other oral analgesic agents for acute soft tissue injury

BACKGROUND

Acute soft tissue injuries are common and costly. The best drug treatment for such injuries is not certain, although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often recommended. There is concern about the use of oral opioids for acute pain leading to dependence. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits or harms of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, 2020 Issue 1, MEDLINE (from 1946), and Embase (from 1980) to January 2020; other databases were searched to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving people with acute soft tissue injury (sprain, strain, or contusion of a joint, ligament, tendon, or muscle occurring within 48 hours of inclusion in the study), and comparing oral NSAIDs versus paracetamol (acetaminophen), opioid, paracetamol plus opioid, or complementary and alternative medicine. The outcomes were pain, swelling, function, adverse effects, and early re-injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, with 3305 participants. Three studies included children only. The others included predominantly young adults; approximately 60% were male. Seven studies recruited people with ankle sprains only. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of bias; however, two were at high risk of selection bias, three were at high risk of bias from lack of blinding, and five were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. Some evidence relating to pain relief was high certainty. Other evidence was either moderate, low or very low certainty, reflecting study limitations, indirectness, imprecision, or combinations of these. Thus, we are certain or moderately certain about some of the estimates, and uncertain or very uncertain of others. Eleven studies, involving 1853 participants compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. There were no differences between the two groups in pain at one to two hours (1178 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), at days one to three (1232 participants, 6 studies; high-certainty evidence), and at day seven or later (467 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was little difference between the groups in numbers of participants with minimal swelling at day seven or later (77 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from three studies (386 participants) means we are uncertain of the finding of little difference between the two groups in return to function at day seven or later. There was low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (1504 participants) that NSAIDs may slightly increase the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with paracetamol. There was low-certainty evidence from nine studies (1679 participants) of little difference in neurological adverse events between the NSAID and paracetamol groups. Six studies, involving 1212 participants compared NSAIDs with opioids. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference between the groups in pain at one hour (1058 participants, 4 studies), and low-certainty evidence for no difference in pain at days four or seven (706 participants, 1 study). There was very low-certainty evidence of no important difference between the groups in swelling (84 participants, 1 study). Participants in the NSAIDs group were more likely to return to function in 7 to 10 days (542 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence (1143 participants, 5 studies) that NSAIDs were less likely to result in gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events compared with opioids. Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day one (51 participants, 1 study), day three (149 participants, 2 studies), or day seven (138 participants, 2 studies); swelling (230 participants, 3 studies); return to function at day seven (89 participants, 1 study); and the risk of gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies). No studies reported re-injury rates. No studies compared NSAIDs with oral complementary and alternative medicines, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paracetamol, NSAIDs make no difference to pain at one to two hours and at two to three days, and may make no difference at day seven or beyond. NSAIDs may result in a small increase in gastrointestinal adverse events and may make no difference in neurological adverse events compared with paracetamol. Compared with opioids, NSAIDs probably make no difference to pain at one hour, and may make no difference at days four or seven. NSAIDs probably result in fewer gastrointestinal and neurological adverse effects compared with opioids. The very low-certainly evidence for all outcomes for the NSAIDs versus paracetamol with opioid combination analgesics means we are uncertain of the findings of no differences in pain or adverse effects. The current evidence should not be extrapolated to adults older than 65 years, as this group was not well represented in the studies.

[The efficacy and safety of naproxen in the treatment of nonspecific lumbalgia: the results of an open multi-center study (NEST)]

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of naproxen in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety patients with nonspecific low back pain were enrolled in the study. Patients took 550 mg of naproxen twice a day. All patients were assessed with VAS, the Oswestry questionnaire, Schober's test and clinical global impression scale. The treatment lasted from 7 to 14 days depending on the pain relief (VAS ≤10 mm).

RESULTS

The pain syndrome relief was observed in 77 patients (88.5%) during the first week of the treatment and in 81 (93.1%) by the end of the study. The average value of VAS was reduced by 6.2 times (by 52.9 mm) in comparison to the baseline. According to the Oswestry questionnaire the influence of pain syndrome on the life quality was reduced by 4,78 times in comparison to the baseline. Schober's test revealed an increase in the amplitude of movements during therapy by 27% in comparison to the baseline. Only 5 (5.7%) drug-related adverse reactions were observed during the whole study, 80% of those were mild.

CONCLUSION

Naproxen in the dose of 550 mg twice a day demonstrates the high efficacy and safety in patients with non-specific pain in lumbosacral spine.

Intradermal mesotherapy versus systemic therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: A prospective randomized study

INTRODUCTION

Acute musculoskeletal injuries are one of the most common painful presentation when admission to the emergency department. The aim of the study is to compare the tenoxicam mesotherapy with intravenous dexketoprofen in pain control in patients with acute musculoskeletal injury.

METHODS

This parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted with the patients admitted to the emergency department with musculoskeletal injury. Intravenous dexketoprofen was administered to the control group, and mesotherapy treatment was performed to the other group. Differences between 10th, 30th, 60th and 120th minutes VAS scores and on the admission VAS score, clinically meaningful change in pain intensity, and adverse effect of the procedures were compared among groups.

THE RESULTS

The differences in VAS scores and the presence of clinically meaningful change in pain intensity were statistically significantly higher in mesotherapy group than the systemic therapy group in all time periods. During one-week follow-up period, there was no reported adverse effect neither in mesotherapy group nor in the systemic therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

The mesotherapy treatment may be superior than the systemic therapy for pain relief in musculoskeletal injury in short term follow-up in emergency department settings.

Opioid-sparing Effects of SoluMatrix Indomethacin in a Phase 3 Study in Patients With Acute Postoperative Pain

OBJECTIVES

To report the opioid-sparing effects of SoluMatrix indomethacin, developed using SoluMatrix Fine Particle Technology, in a phase 3 study in patients with acute pain following bunionectomy.

METHODS

This phase 3, placebo-controlled study randomized 462 patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy surgery to receive SoluMatrix indomethacin 40 mg 3 times daily, SoluMatrix indomethacin 40 mg twice daily, SoluMatrix indomethacin 20 mg 3 times daily, celecoxib 400-mg loading dose followed by 200 mg twice daily, or placebo. Patients were permitted to receive opioid-containing rescue medication throughout the study. The proportion of patients who used rescue medication and the amount of rescue medication used on the first (0 to 24 h) and second (>24 to 48 h) days following initial dose of study medication, as well as time to first rescue medication use, were assessed.

RESULTS

Significantly fewer patients who received SoluMatrix indomethacin 40 or 20 mg 3 times daily used opioid-containing rescue medication on day 1 compared with those receiving placebo (P≤0.034), and fewer patients in all active treatment groups used rescue medication during the second day compared with those in the placebo group (P<0.001). All active treatment groups used significantly fewer rescue medication tablets on days 1 and 2 following randomization compared with placebo (P<0.001). The most common adverse events were nausea, postprocedural edema, and headache.

DISCUSSION

SoluMatrix indomethacin was associated with opioid-sparing effects in patients with acute postoperative pain.

The Analgesic Efficacy of 5% Naproxen Gel for Pain Associated with Orthodontic Separator Placement: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives

Several methods have been proposed to relieve orthodontic pain, each with its advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy of 5% naproxen gel to relieve pain associated with orthodontic separator placement.

Methods

This double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted on 41 patients between 14 and 20 years old complaining of pain due to placement of orthodontic elastic separators. Five-percent naproxen and placebo gels were applied randomly in a spilt mouth design to the permanent first molars area. The gels were applied every 8 hours for 3 days after placement of separators. Patients recorded their level of pain at determined time points using a 0 to 100 visual analog scale. Normal distribution was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Paired samples t test was used to compare the mean pain score between the two gels. Multi-factorial repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the severity of pain based on gender and age.

Results

Out of 41 patients, 34 completed this trial (23 females and 11 males). The mean pain score significantly decreased over time in both sides and for both genders (P < 0.001). Pain score was not significantly different between males and females or between patients < 16 and ≥ 16 years of age. The mean pain score was significantly lower in the naproxen group at all-time points (P < 0.001). Naproxen gel showed significantly higher analgesic efficacy when compared to the placebo at all-time points. The highest and lowest pain score was noted at 2 hours and at 7 days after separator placement, respectively.

Conclusions

Using 5% naproxen gel is an effective method for reducing orthodontic pain following elastic separator placement.

Something for pain: Responsible opioid use in emergency medicine

The United States is currently experiencing a public health crisis of opioid addiction, which has its genesis in an industry marketing effort that successfully encouraged clinicians to prescribe opioids liberally, and asserted the safety of prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, despite a preponderance of evidence demonstrating the risks of dependence and misuse. The resulting rise in opioid use has pushed drug overdose deaths in front of motor vehicle collisions to become the leading cause of accidental death in the country. Emergency providers frequently treat patients for complications of opioid abuse, and also manage patients with acute and chronic pain, for which opioids are routinely prescribed. Emergency providers are therefore well positioned to both prevent new cases of opioid misuse and initiate appropriate treatment of existing opioid addicts. In opioid-naive patients, this is accomplished by a careful consideration of the likelihood of benefit and harm of an opioid prescription for acute pain. If opioids are prescribed, the chance of harm is reduced by matching the number of pills prescribed to the expected duration of pain and selecting an opioid preparation with low abuse liability. Patients who present to acute care with exacerbations of chronic pain or painful conditions associated with opioid misuse are best managed by treating symptoms with opioid alternatives and encouraging treatment for opioid addiction.