Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety Profiles of Aspirin and Acetaminophen With Codeine: Results From 2 Randomized, Controlled Trials in Individuals With Tension-Type Headache and Postoperative Dental Pain

Efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Tension-type headache is the most common type of primary headache and results in a huge socioeconomic burden. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of simple analgesics for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese BioMedical Literature database and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for eligible randomized clinical trials reporting the efficacy and/or safety of simple analgesics. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare relative efficacy and safety. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018090554.

RESULTS

We highlighted six studies including 3507 patients. For the 2 h pain-free rate, the SUCRA ranking was ibuprofen > diclofenac-K > ketoprofen > acetaminophen > naproxen > placebo. All drugs except naproxen reported a higher 2 h pain-free rate than placebo, with a risk ratio (RR) of 2.86 (95% credible interval, CrI: 1.62-5.42) for ibuprofen and 2.61 (1.53-4.88) for diclofenac-K. For adverse events rate, the SUCRA ranking was: metamizol > diclofenac-K > ibuprofen > lumiracoxib > placebo > aspirin > acetaminophen > naproxen > ketoprofen. The adverse event rates of all analgesics were no higher than those of placebo, except for ketoprofen. Moreover, all drugs were superior to placebo in the global assessment of efficacy. In particular, the RR of lumiracoxib was 2.47 (1.57-4.57). Global heterogeneity I2 between the studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple analgesics are considered more effective and safe as a placebo for ETTH in adults. Our results suggest that ibuprofen and diclofenac-K may be the two best treatment options for patients with ETTH from a comprehensive point of view (both high-quality evidence).

Analgesia and Side Effects of Codeine Phosphate Associated with Paracetamol Versus Oxycodone After the Extraction of Mandibular Third Molars: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial Using the Split-Mouth Model

Purpose

To assess the analgesia and side effects of 10 mg oxycodone as compared to 30 mg of codeine phosphate associated with 500 mg of paracetamol after bilateral lower third molar extraction.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study applied to a sample of 16 patients. They were evaluated for seven days postoperatively, and the mean score of the visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain between test and control medications was assessed by the Wilcoxon distribution. The side effects of these medications were assessed by the Q Cochran test. A p value of < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The mean score of the VAS of pain was higher in the oxycodone side, where few patients reported the use of rescue analgesic. There was no report of rescue medication in codeine phosphate associated with paracetamol side. The most common side effects reported in both groups, predominantly in patients using the oxycodone, were drowsiness, dizziness, and headache.

Conclusion

The use of codeine phosphate associated with paracetamol after the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is a better choice than oxycodone for controlling postoperative pain.

Trial Registration Number and Date of Registration

RBR-8ntwmyq 07/07/2021.

Risk prediction models for erosive wear in preschool-aged children: a prospective study

Background

Despite increasing prevalence, age-specific risk predictive models for erosive tooth wear in preschool-age children have not been developed. Identification of at-risk groups and the timely introduction of behavioural change or treatment will stop the progression of erosive wear in the permanent dentition. This study aimed to identify age-specific risk factors for erosive wear. Distinct risk prediction models for 3-year-old and 5-year-old children were developed.

Methods

A prospective cohort study included school-based clinical examinations and parent administered questionnaires for consented 3 and 5-year-old healthy children. Calibrated examiners measured the following health parameters under standardised conditions: erosion, using the Basic Erosive Wear Examination Index (BEWE), caries using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS), plaque and calculus according to the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) scores, dental traumatic injuries and soft tissue lesions, salivary testing and BMI. Other health conditions were collected via a parent-administered questionnaire that explored oral- and general-health. Non parametric tests were utilised to explore the temporal relation of erosion with, demographic factors, oral hygiene habits, general health and dietary habits. Variables showing significance with a difference in BEWE cumulative score over time were utilised to develop two risk prediction models. The models were evaluated by Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis.

Results

Risk factors for the 3-year-old cohort (N = 336) included erosive wear (χ²(1, 92) = 12.829, p < 0.001), district (χ²(5, 92) = 17.032, p = 0.004) and family size (χ²(1, 92) = 4.547, p = 0.033). Risk factors for the 5-year-old cohort (N = 441) also included erosive wear (χ²(1, 144) = 4.768, p = 0.029), gender (χ²(1, 144) = 19.399, p < 0.001), consumption of iced tea (χ²(1, 144) = 8.872, p = 0.003) and dry mouth (χ²(1, 144) = 9.598, p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Predictive risk factors for 3-year-old children are based on demographic factors and are distinct from those for 5-year-old children based on biological and behavioural factors. Erosive wear is a risk factor for further wear in both age cohorts.

Managing postoperative pain in adult outpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing codeine with NSAIDs

BACKGROUND

Analgesics that contain codeine are commonly prescribed for postoperative pain, but it is unclear how they compare with nonopioid alternatives. We sought to compare the effectiveness of codeine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for adults who underwent outpatient surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing codeine and NSAIDs for postoperative pain in outpatient surgery. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to October 2019 for eligible studies. Our primary outcome was the patient pain score, converted to a standard 10-point intensity scale. Our secondary outcomes were patient-reported global assessments and adverse effects. We used random-effects models and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Forty studies, including 102 trial arms and 5116 patients, met inclusion criteria. The studies had low risk of bias and low-to-moderate heterogeneity. Compared with codeine, NSAIDs were associated with better pain scores at 6 hours (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.93 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 1.15) and at 12 hours (WMD 0.79, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19). Stronger NSAID superiority at 6 hours was observed among trials where acetaminophen was coadministered at equivalent doses between groups (WMD 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.48). NSAIDs were associated with better global assessments at 6 hours (WMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.72) and at 24 hours (WMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.40), and were associated with fewer adverse effects, including bleeding events.

INTERPRETATION

We found that adult outpatients report better pain scores, better global assessments and fewer adverse effects when their postoperative pain is treated with NSAIDs than with codeine. Clinicians across all specialties can use this information to improve both pain management and opioid stewardship.

Analgesia and side effects of codeine phosphate associated with paracetamol vs. paracetamol after the extraction of mandibular third molars: a randomized double-blind clinical trial using the split-mouth model

PURPOSE

To assess the analgesia and side effects of codeine phosphate associated with paracetamol (test medication) as compared to paracetamol (control medication) after the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-seven patients removed the right and left impacted mandibular third molars. After one surgery, patients took the test medication and after the other surgery, they took the control medication. Patients with exacerbated pain were prescribed to use the rescue medication instead of the medication initially administered and were included in the rescue group. They were evaluated for 7 days postoperatively, and the mean score of the visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain between test and control medications was assessed by the Poisson distribution. The side effects of these medications were assessed by the patient's complaints. A P value of < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean score of the VAS of pain was not statistically different between test and control medications in the non-rescue group, but it was significantly greater in patients previously using paracetamol in the rescue group. The most common side effects reported in both groups, predominantly in patients using the test medication, were drowsiness, dizziness, and nausea.

CONCLUSION

The use of codeine phosphate associated with paracetamol after the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is a better choice to control the postoperative pain rather than paracetamol, but with more side effects, which are clinically acceptable.

Safe use of paracetamol and high-dose NSAID analgesia in dentistry during the COVID-19 pandemic

With dental services currently altered, dentists are being asked to provide advice, analgesia and antibiotics in situations where they would normally be offering operative care. Dentists are familiar with using analgesia for short courses for their patients, but using higher-dose regimes and for periods of over two weeks brings special challenges. This paper reviews the areas where special precautions are needed when using analgesia in the current situation.

Resolving Issues About Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Codeine in Combination Analgesic Drugs: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this systematic review is to reflect on assumptions in relation to codeine use in combination with other analgesics.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched according to the predetermined keywords and criteria. Only English language studies were taken into consideration and the outcome data of the final studies were extracted by two reviewers independently from each other and were checked by the third reviewer. Additionally, the available codeine-related Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) retrieved from EudraVigilance were reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixteen placebo-controlled studies that involved 3378 subjects suffering from acute pain were analyzed for the efficacy of low-dose codeine (≤ 30 mg) combination products. Twelve of them found low-dose codeine combinations more efficient in relieving pain than the assigned comparator. According to 20 randomized clinical trials which included at least one dose of codeine (from 30 to 240 mg daily), the vast majority of reported side-effects were mild or moderate in severity. A total of 20 ICSRs for dependence were identified in the EudraVigilance database with codeine as a suspect drug for the 10-year time period for the European region.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose codeine combinations are effective after a single application in treating acute pain. Codeine in doses ≤ 30 mg and higher was considered safe since only mild to moderate side-effects were observed. There is no indication in the available sources which clearly links low doses of codeine to substance use disorder in non-dependent subjects.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache per month), frequent episodic TTH (two to 14 headache days per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days per month or more). Aspirin is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of aspirin for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache (TTH) in adults compared with placebo or any active comparator.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database from inception to September 2016, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral aspirin for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. For various outcomes (predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS)), we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT), one additional harmful outcome (NNH), or to prevent one event (NNTp) for oral aspirin compared to placebo or an active intervention.We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies enrolling adults with frequent episodic TTH; 1812 participants took medication, of which 767 were included in comparisons of aspirin 1000 mg with placebo, and 405 in comparisons of aspirin 500 mg or 650 mg with placebo. Not all of these participants provided data for outcomes of interest in this review. Four studies specified using IHS diagnostic criteria; one predated commonly recognised criteria, but described comparable characteristics and excluded migraine. All participants treated headaches of at least moderate pain intensity.None of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged one study to be at high risk of bias due to small size.There were no data for aspirin at any dose for the IHS preferred outcome of being pain free at two hours, or for being pain free at any other time, and only one study provided data equivalent to having no or mild pain at two hours (very low quality evidence). Use of rescue medication was lower with aspirin 1000 mg than with placebo (2 studies, 397 participants); 14% of participants used rescue medication with aspirin 1000 mg compared with 31% with placebo (NNTp 6.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1 to 12) (low quality evidence). Two studies (397 participants) reported a Patient Global Evaluation at the end of the study; we combined the top two categories for both studies to determine the number of participants who were 'satisfied' with treatment. Aspirin 1000 mg produced more satisfied participants (55%) than did placebo (37%) (NNT 5.7, 95% CI 3.7 to 12) (very low quality evidence).Adverse events were not different between aspirin 1000 mg and placebo (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), or aspirin 500 mg or 650 mg and placebo (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8 to 2.0) (low quality evidence). Studies reported no serious adverse events.The quality of the evidence using GRADE comparing aspirin doses between 500 mg and 1000 mg with placebo was low or very low. Evidence was downgraded because of the small number of studies and events, and because the most important measures of efficacy were not reported.There were insufficient data to compare aspirin with any active comparator (paracetamol alone, paracetamol plus codeine, peppermint oil, or metamizole) at any of the doses tested.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of aspirin between 500 mg and 1000 mg provided some benefit in terms of less frequent use of rescue medication and more participants satisfied with treatment compared with placebo in adults with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity. There was no difference between a single dose of aspirin and placebo for the number of people experiencing adverse events. The amount and quality of the evidence was very limited and should be interpreted with caution.

The impact of codeine re-scheduling on misuse: a retrospective review of calls to Australia's largest poisons centre

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Codeine is the most commonly used opioid in the world, and is available over the counter (OTC) in many countries, including Australia. Several countries are reconsidering codeine's OTC status due to concerns over addiction and misuse, with serious morbidity and mortality being reported. Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration restricted codeine containing analgesics to 'Pharmacist Only' in 2010, and has recently been considering further up-scheduling to make codeine 'Prescription Only'. This paper estimated Australian trends of codeine misuse over the past 12 years, and examined whether trends changed following previous rescheduling efforts in 2010.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of calls regarding codeine misuse made to the New South Wales Poisons Information Centre (NSWPIC, Australia's largest poisons centre), 2004-15. Joinpoint software was used to quantify the average annual change in calls, and whether there was a significant change in trend at any time, including following rescheduling.

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred patients about whom a call was made to the NSWPIC.

MEASURES

Calls per year, patient age, gender, tablets taken per day, formulation used, symptom disposition.

FINDINGS

The NSWPIC database contained 400 cases of codeine combination analgesic misuse from 2004 to 2015. Joinpoint analysis showed that the frequency of cases increased significantly from 2004 to 2015, with an average annual percentage change (AAPC) of 19.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 13.8-25.5% P < 0.0001] for paracetamol/codeine and 17.9% (95% CI = 7.9-28.9%, P < 0.01) for ibuprofen/codeine. No significant change in trend was seen at any time, including following 2010 rescheduling. The median age of patients was 34 and 27 years for paracetamol/codeine and ibuprofen/codeine cases, respectively. Gender distribution was approximately equal. Clinical features reported were consistent with codeine, paracetamol and ibuprofen toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Misuse of codeine combination products appears to be increasing in Australia. Limited rescheduling in 2010 failed to curb this increase.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults

BACKGROUND

Tension-type headache (TTH) affects about 1 person in 5 worldwide. It is divided into infrequent episodic TTH (fewer than one headache per month), frequent episodic TTH (two to 14 headaches per month), and chronic TTH (15 headache days a month or more). Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of a number of analgesics suggested for acute treatment of headaches in frequent episodic TTH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for the acute treatment of frequent episodic TTH in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database to October 2015, and also reference lists of relevant published studies and reviews. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching online clinical trial registers and manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (parallel-group or cross-over) using oral paracetamol for symptomatic relief of an acute episode of TTH. Studies had to be prospective, with participants aged 18 years or over, and include at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used the numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for oral paracetamol compared to placebo or an active intervention for a range of outcomes, predominantly those recommended by the International Headache Society (IHS).We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies, all of which enrolled adults with frequent episodic TTH. Twelve studies used the IHS diagnostic criteria or similar, six used the older classification of the Ad Hoc Committee, and five did not describe specific diagnostic criteria but generally excluded participants with migraines. Participants had moderate or severe pain at the start of treatment. While 8079 people with TTH participated in these studies, the numbers available for any analysis were lower than this because outcomes were inconsistently reported and because many participants received active comparators.None of the included studies were at low risk of bias across all domains considered, although for most studies and domains this was likely to be due to inadequate reporting rather than poor methods. We judged five studies to be at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome reporting, and seven due to small size.For the IHS preferred outcome of being pain free at two hours the NNT for paracetamol 1000 mg compared with placebo was 22 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15 to 40) in eight studies (5890 participants; high quality evidence), with no significant difference from placebo at one hour. The NNT was 10 (7.9 to 14) for pain-free or mild pain at two hours in five studies (5238 participants; high quality evidence). The use of rescue medication was lower with paracetamol 1000 mg than with placebo, with an NNTp to prevent an event of 7.8 (6.0 to 11) in six studies (1856 participants; moderate quality evidence). On limited data, the efficacy of paracetamol 500 mg to 650 mg was not superior to placebo, and paracetamol 1000 mg was not different from either ketoprofen 25 mg or ibuprofen 400 mg (low quality evidence).Adverse events were not different between paracetamol 1000 mg and placebo (RR 1.1 (0.94 to 1.3); 5605 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). Studies reported no serious adverse events.The quality of the evidence using GRADE comparing paracetamol 1000 mg with placebo was moderate to high. Where evidence was downgraded it was because a minority of studies reported the outcome. For comparisons of paracetamol 500 mg to 650 mg with placebo, and of paracetamol 1000 mg with active comparators, we downgraded the evidence to low quality or very low quality because of the small number of studies and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol 1000 mg provided a small benefit in terms of being pain free at two hours for people with frequent episodic TTH who have an acute headache of moderate or severe intensity.

Comparative Assessment of the Effect of Ibuprofen and Etodolac on Edema, Trismus, and Pain in Lower Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of ibuprofen (IBU) and etodolac (ETO) for controlling pain, edema, and trismus after extraction of lower third molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty adolescents and adults with 2 impacted mandibular-third molars (in similar positions) were selected for the study. Patients were randomly assigned either to the IBU group (600 mg of IBU 3 times a day for 3 days) or to the ETO group (300 mg of ETO 3 times a day for 3 days). Drugs were administered immediately after dental extraction.

RESULTS

During the first 2 days after extraction, swelling was more pronounced in the IBU group than in the ETO group (P = .033). Seven days after surgery, there was no difference in the degree of edema between the groups. At the 2- and 7-day evaluation points, mouth opening was significantly more reduced in the IBU group than in the ETO group (P < .05). After the first 6 hours, the ETO group had more effective pain relief (P < .05), but after this time point, both groups reported similar degrees of relief. Compared with the IBU group, the ETO group had a lower need for administration of additional rescue analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

After extraction of impacted lower third molars, we found that swelling, trismus, and pain were more effectively controlled with ETO than with IBU.

The Efficacy and Clinical Safety of Various Analgesic Combinations for Post-Operative Pain after Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To run a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials aiming to answer the clinical question "which analgesic combination and dosage is potentially the most effective and safe for acute post-operative pain control after third molar surgery?".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of computer databases and journals was performed. The search and the evaluations of articles were performed by 2 independent reviewers in 3 rounds. Randomized clinical trials related to analgesic combinations for acute post-operative pain control after lower third molar surgery that matched the selection criteria were evaluated to enter in the final review.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 3521 subjects, with 10 groups (17 dosages) of analgesic combinations were included in the final review. The analgesic efficacy were presented by the objective pain measurements including sum of pain intensity at 6 hours (SPID6) and total pain relief at 6 hours (TOTPAR6). The SPID6 scores and TOTPAR6 scores of the reported analgesic combinations were ranged from 1.46 to 6.44 and 3.24 - 10.3, respectively. Ibuprofen 400mg with oxycodone HCL 5mg had superior efficacy (SPID6: 6.44, TOTPAR6: 9.31). Nausea was the most common adverse effect, with prevalence ranging from 0-55%. Ibuprofen 200mg with caffeine 100mg or 200mg had a reasonable analgesic effect with fewer side effects.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis may help clinicians in their choices of prescribing an analgesic combination for acute post-operative pain control after lower third molar surgery. It was found in this systematic review Ibuprofen 400mg combined with oxycodone HCL 5mg has superior analgesic efficacy when compared to the other analgesic combinations included in this study.

Assay sensitivity of pain intensity versus pain relief in acute pain clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and meta-analysis

The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity.

PERSPECTIVE

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.

Dental and related infections

Emergency physicians should be comfortable treating most dental and related infections. In this article, we outline recommended techniques to perform a dental examination, explore common pathologies, recommend pain and antibiotic management strategies and review common pitfalls. How to avoid overprescribing opioid analgesics is discussed in depth, along with recent studies to support this strategy.

Effects of preemptive analgesia with celecoxib or acetaminophen on postoperative pain relief following lower extremity orthopedic surgery

Background:

Efficacy of preemptive analgesia with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in comparison with acetaminophen is controversial. The present study evaluates the preemptive analgesia efficacy of celecoxib and acetaminophen in comparison with placebo for postoperative pain relief in patients who underwent orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia.

Materials and Methods:

Ninetypatients eligible for elective distal extremity surgery were categorized in three groups: group C includedpatients who received oral celecoxib 200 mg 2 h before surgery; group A included those who received oral acetaminophen 320 mg 2 h before surgery; and group P included those who received oral placebo 2 h before surgery. Pain scores were recorded at 4, 12, and 24 h after operation.

Results:

The pain scores 4 h after operation was significantly less in group C than in groups A and P (4.7±1.7 vs. 5±1.5 vs. 6.8±1.7, respectively, P = 0.015). No significant difference was noted in pain scores at 12 h (4.6±2, 4.9±1.9, 4.3±1.4 in group A, group C, group P, respectively P > 0.05) and 24 h (3.1±1.7, 3.0±1.4, 3.3±1.7 in group A, group C, group P, respectively, P > 0.05) after operation among the three groups.

Conclusion:

Using oral celecoxib 200 mg 2 h before operation is better thanusing oral acetaminophen 320 mg 2 h before the beginning of surgery for control of postoperative pain in patients who underwent lower extremity orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia.