Efficacy of an Ibuprofen/Codeine Combination for Pain Management in Children Presenting to the Emergency Department with a Limb Injury: A Pilot Study

Opioids for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h).

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed.

RESULTS

We located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%).

DISCUSSION

Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021249346.

Comparing the efficacy of intravenous morphine versus ibuprofen or the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen in patients with closed limb fractures: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous ibuprofen or intravenous ibuprofen plus acetaminophen compared to intravenous morphine in patients with closed extremity fractures.

METHODS

A triple-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary trauma center in Iran. Adult patients between 15 and 60 years old with closed, isolated limb fractures and a pain intensity of at least 6/10 on the visual analog scale (VAS) were eligible. Patients with specific conditions or contraindications were not included. Participants were randomly assigned to receive intravenous ibuprofen, intravenous ibuprofen plus acetaminophen, or intravenous morphine. Pain scores were assessed using the visual analog scale at baseline and 5, 15, 30, and 60 min after drug administration. The primary outcome measure was the pain score reduction after one hour.

RESULTS

Out of 388 trauma patients screened, 158 were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in age or sex distribution among the three groups. The pain scores decreased significantly in all groups after 5 min, with the morphine group showing the lowest pain score at 15 min. The maximum effect of ibuprofen was observed after 30 min, while the ibuprofen-acetaminophen combination maintained its effect after 60 min. One hour after injection, pain score reduction in the ibuprofen-acetaminophen group was significantly more than in the other two groups, and pain score reduction in the ibuprofen group was significantly more than in the morphine group.

CONCLUSION

The study findings suggest that ibuprofen and its combination with acetaminophen have similar or better analgesic effects compared to morphine in patients with closed extremity fractures. Although morphine initially provided the greatest pain relief, its effect diminished over time. In contrast, ibuprofen and the ibuprofen-acetaminophen combination maintained their analgesic effects for a longer duration. The combination therapy demonstrated the most sustained pain reduction. The study highlights the potential of non-opioid analgesics in fracture pain management and emphasizes the importance of initiation of these medications as first line analgesic for patients with fractures. These findings support the growing trend of exploring non-opioid analgesics in pain management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05630222 (Tue, Nov 29, 2022). The manuscript adheres to CONSORT guidelines.

Oral analgesic for musculoskeletal injuries in children: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pain in pediatric musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries can lead to increased anxiety, fear, and avoidance of medical care, making analgesic management critical. Therefore, we evaluated analgesic efficacy and adverse effects to select the optimal analgesic agent in pediatric patients with MSK injuries.

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for peer-reviewed, open randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Inclusion criteria were: (1) trials with RCT design, (2) children aged 1 month-18 years with MSK injury, (3) outpatient setting, (4) interventions and control, (5) primary outcome of pain score at 60 and 120 min and secondary outcome of adverse effects, and (6) full-text and peer-reviewed articles. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach.

RESULTS

We included eight trials comprising 1645 children. Ibuprofen was significantly associated with pain reduction at 120 min, compared with acetaminophen (SMD 0.31 [95% CI 0.11-0.51]; moderate certainty) and opioids (SMD 0.34 [95% CI 0.20-0.48]; moderate certainty). Compared with opioids alone, ibuprofen-opioid combination was significantly associated with pain reduction at 120 min (SMD 0.19 [95% CI 0.03-0.35]). No significant differences were found in pain interventions at 60 min. Ibuprofen had statistically fewer adverse events than opioids (RR, 0.54 [95% CI 0.33-0.90]; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen with opioids (RR 0.47 [95% CI 0.25-0.89]; moderate certainty). In terms of limitations, the eight RCTs included had relatively small sample sizes; only two were high-quality RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our NMA found ibuprofen to be the most effective and least adverse analgesic in pediatric patients with MSK injuries.

Influence of ketamine versus fentanyl on pain relief for pediatric orthopedic emergencies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

The comparison of ketamine with fentanyl for pain control of pediatric orthopedic emergencies remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of ketamine versus fentanyl on pain management among pediatric orthopedic emergencies.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through September 2020 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of ketamine versus fentanyl on pain management for pediatric orthopedic emergencies.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with fentanyl for pediatric orthopedic emergencies, ketamine led to similar change in pain scores at 15 to 20 minutes (standard mean difference = -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.38 to 0.28; P = .77) and 30 minutes (standard mean difference = 0.11; 95% CI = -0.20 to 0.42; P = .49), as well as rescue analgesia (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.51; P = .69), but revealed the increase in nausea/vomiting (RR = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.13 to 6.18; P = .02) and dizziness (RR = 3.83; 95% CI = 1.38 to 10.60; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine may be similar to fentanyl in terms of the analgesic efficacy for pediatric orthopedic emergencies.

Efficacy and safety of ibuprofen in children with musculoskeletal injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of ibuprofen in children with musculoskeletal injuries.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were systematically searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ibuprofen with other analgesics for pain relief in children with musculoskeletal injuries. Primary outcomes included change of visual analog scale (VAS) scores from baseline to post-medication, the proportion of patients achieving adequate analgesia, and the proportion of patients requiring additional analgesia. Secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse effects. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Five RCTs involving 1034 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to the control group, change of VAS scores was greater in ibuprofen group at 60 min (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.28; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0 to 0.57; P = .05), 90 min (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.59; P = .0005), and 120 min (SMD = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.57; P < .00001) after treatment. No difference was found in the change of VAS scores at 30 min (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.22; P = .36) after treatment. The proportion of patients who received adequate analgesia was higher in the ibuprofen group (risk ratios [RR] = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.56; P < .00001). The proportion of patients that required additional analgesia was lower in the ibuprofen group (RR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92; P = .01). The incidence of total adverse effects was lower in the ibuprofen group (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen provides a better pain relief with a lower incidence of adverse effects in children with musculoskeletal injuries as compared to other analgesics.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021231975.

Pain Management in Children: NSAID Use in the Perioperative and Emergency Department Settings

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are often used for pediatric pain management in the emergency setting and postoperatively. This narrative literature review evaluates pain relief, opioid requirements, and adverse effects associated with NSAID use. A PubMed search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of conventional systemic NSAIDs as pain management for children in the perioperative or emergency department (traumatic injury) setting. Trials of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors ("coxibs") were excluded. Search results included studies of ibuprofen (n = 12), ketoprofen (n = 5), ketorolac (n = 6), and diclofenac (n = 4). NSAIDs reduced the opioid requirement in 10 of 13 studies in which this outcome was measured. NSAID use did not compromise pain relief; NSAIDs provided improved or similar pain scores compared with opioids (or other control) in 24 of 27 studies. Adverse event frequencies were reported in 26 studies; adverse event frequencies with NSAIDs were lower than with opioids (or other control) in three of 26 studies, similar in 21 of 26 studies, and more frequent in two of 26 studies. Perioperative and emergency department use of NSAIDs may reduce opioid requirements while maintaining pain control, with similar or reduced frequencies of opioid-associated adverse events.

Efficacy of ibuprofen in musculoskeletal post-traumatic pain in children: A systematic review

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the most frequent reason for pain-related evaluation in the emergency department (ED) in children. There is still no consensus as to what constitutes the best analgesic for MSK pain in children. However, ibuprofen is reported to be the most commonly prescribed analgesic and is considered the standard first-line treatment for MSK injury pain in children, even if it is argued that it provides inadequate relief for many patients. The purpose of this study was to review the most recent literature to assess the efficacy of ibuprofen for pain relief in MSK injuries in children evaluated in the ED. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents under 19 years of age with MSK injuries according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome was the risk ratio for successful reduction in pain scores. Six studies met the inclusion criteria and provided data on 1028 children. A meta-analysis was not performed since studies were not comparable due to the different analgesic treatment used. No significant difference in term of main pain score reduction between all the analgesics used in the included studies was noted. Patients who received oral opioids had side effects more frequently when compared to children who received ibuprofen. The combination of effect on pain relief and tolerability would suggest ibuprofen as the initial drug of choice in providing relief from mild-to-moderate MSK pain in children in the ED. The results obtained in this review and current research suggest that there’s no straightforward statistically significant evidence of the optimal analgesic agent to be used. However, ibuprofen may be preferable as the initial drug of choice in providing relief from MSK pain due to the favorable combination of effectiveness and safety profile. In fact, despite the non-significant pain reduction as compared to children who received opioids, there are less side effect associated to ibuprofen within studies. The wide range of primary outcomes measured in respect of pain scores and timing of recorded measures warrants a future standardization of study designs.

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.

Current Evidence for Acute Pain Management of Musculoskeletal Injuries and Postoperative Pain in Pediatric and Adolescent Athletes

OBJECTIVE

Sports-related injuries in young athletes are increasingly prevalent with an estimated 2.6 million children and adolescents sustaining a sports-related injury annually. Acute sports-related injuries and surgical correction of sports-related injuries cause physical pain and psychological burdens on pediatric athletes and their families. This article aims to evaluate current acute pain management options in pediatric athletes and acute pain management strategies for postoperative pain after sports-related injuries. This article will also elucidate which areas of pain management for pediatric athletes are lacking evidence and help direct future clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a literature search through PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to provide an extensive review of initial and postoperative pain management strategies for pediatric sports-related musculoskeletal injuries.

MAIN RESULTS

The current knowledge of acute pain management for initial sports-related injuries, postoperative pain management for orthopedic surgeries, as well as complementary and alternative medical therapies in pediatric sports-related injuries is presented. Studies evaluating conservative management, enteral and nonenteral medications, regional anesthesia, and complementary medical therapies are included.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate pain management is important for sports injuries in children and adolescents for emotional as well as physical healing, but a balance must be achieved to provide acceptable pain relief while minimizing opioid use and side effects from analgesic medications. More studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of nonopioid analgesic medications and complementary therapies in pediatric patients with acute sports-related injuries.

Guidelines of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology (SFORL): Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pediatric ENT infections. Short version

OBJECTIVES

To present the guidelines of the French Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery concerning the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in pediatric ENT infections.

METHODS

Based on a critical analysis of the medical literature up to November 2016, a multidisciplinary workgroup of 11 practitioners wrote clinical practice guidelines. Levels of evidence were classified according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system: GRADE A, B, C or "expert opinion". The first version of the text was reworked by the workgroup following comments by the 22 members of the reading group.

RESULTS

The main recommendations are: NSAIDs are indicated at analgesic doses (e.g. 20-30 mg/kg/day for ibuprofen) in combination with paracetamol (acetaminophen) in uncomplicated pediatric ENT infections (acute otitis media, tonsillitis, upper respiratory infections, and maxillary sinusitis) if: o pain is of medium intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS) score 3-5 or "Evaluation Enfant Douleur" (EVENDOL) child pain score 4-7) and insufficiently relieved by first-line paracetamol (residual VAS≥3 or EVENDOL≥4); o pain is moderate to intense (VAS 5-7 or EVENDOL 7-10). When combined, paracetamol and ibuprofen are ideally taken simultaneously every 6h. It is recommended: (1) o not to prescribe NSAIDs in severe or complicated pediatric ENT infections; (2) o to suspend NSAIDs treatment in case of unusual clinical presentation of the infection (duration or symptoms); (3) o not to prescribe NSAIDs for more than 72h.

Comparison of the psychometric properties of 3 pain scales used in the pediatric emergency department: Visual Analogue Scale, Faces Pain Scale-Revised, and Colour Analogue Scale

Appropriate pain measurement relies on the use of valid, reliable tools. The aim of this study was to determine and compare the psychometric properties of 3 self-reported pain scales commonly used in the pediatric emergency department (ED). The inclusion criteria were children aged 6 to 17 years presenting to the ED with a musculoskeletal injury and self-reported pain scores ≥30 mm on the mechanical Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Self-reported pain intensity was assessed using the mechanical VAS, Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), and Colour Analogue Scale (CAS). Convergent validity was assessed by Pearson correlations and the Bland-Altman method; responsiveness to change was assessed using paired sample t tests and standardized mean responses; and reliability was estimated using relative and absolute indices. A total of 456 participants were included, with a mean age of 11.9 years ± 2.7 and a majority were boys (252/456, 55.3%). Correlations between each pair of scales were 0.78 (VAS/FPS-R), 0.92 (VAS/CAS), and 0.79 (CAS/FPS-R). Limits of agreement (95% confidence interval) were -3.77 to 2.33 (VAS/FPS-R), -1.74 to 1.75 (VAS/CAS), and -2.21 to 3.62 (CAS/FPS-R). Responsiveness to change was demonstrated by significant differences in mean pain scores among the scales (P < 0.0001). Intraclass correlation coefficient and coefficient of repeatability estimates suggested acceptable reliability for the 3 scales at, respectively, 0.79 and ±2.29 (VAS), 0.82 and ±2.07 (CAS), and 0.76 and ±2.82 (FPS-R). The scales demonstrated good psychometric properties for children with acute pain in the ED. The VAS and CAS showed a strong convergent validity, whereas FPS-R was not in agreement with the other scales.

Effect of Intranasal Ketamine vs Fentanyl on Pain Reduction for Extremity Injuries in Children: The PRIME Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Timely analgesia is critical for children with injuries presenting to the emergency department, yet pain control efforts are often inadequate. Intranasal administration of pain medications provides rapid analgesia with minimal discomfort. Opioids are historically used for significant pain from traumatic injuries but have concerning adverse effects. Intranasal ketamine may provide an effective alternative.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intranasal ketamine is noninferior to intranasal fentanyl for pain reduction in children presenting with acute extremity injuries.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Pain Reduction With Intranasal Medications for Extremity Injuries (PRIME) trial was a double-blind, randomized, active-control, noninferiority trial in a pediatric, tertiary, level 1 trauma center. Participants were children aged 8 to 17 years presenting to the emergency department with moderate to severe pain due to traumatic limb injuries between March 2016 and February 2017. Analyses were intention to treat and began in May 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Intranasal ketamine (1.5 mg/kg) or intranasal fentanyl (2 µg/kg).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was reduction in visual analog scale pain score 30 minutes after intervention. The noninferiority margin for this outcome was 10.

RESULTS

Of 90 children enrolled, 45 (50%) were allocated to ketamine (mean [SD] age, 11.8 [2.6] years; 26 boys [59%]) and 45 (50%) to fentanyl (mean [SD] age, 12.2 [2.3] years; 31 boys [74%]). Thirty minutes after medication, the mean visual analog scale reduction was 30.6 mm (95% CI, 25.4-35.8) for ketamine and 31.9 mm (95% CI, 26.6-37.2) for fentanyl. Ketamine was noninferior to fentanyl for pain reduction based on a 1-sided test of group difference less than the noninferiority margin, as the CIs crossed 0 but did not cross the prespecified noninferiority margin (difference in mean pain reduction between groups, 1.3; 90% CI, -6.2 to 8.7). The risk of adverse events was higher in the ketamine group (relative risk, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0), but all events were minor and transient. Rescue analgesia was similar between groups (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Ketamine provides effective analgesia that is noninferior to fentanyl, although participants who received ketamine had an increase in adverse events that were minor and transient. Intranasal ketamine may be an appropriate alternative to intranasal fentanyl for pain associated with acute extremity injuries. Ketamine should be considered for pediatric pain management in the emergency setting, especially when opioids are associated with increased risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02778880.

Preparation, Characterization and Pharmacokinetics Evaluation of the Compound Capsules of Ibuprofen Enteric-Coated Sustained-Release Pellets and Codeine Phosphate Immediate-Release Pellets

The objective of this study was to prepare ibuprofen enteric-coated sustained-release pellets (IB-SRPs) and codeine phosphate immediate-release pellets (CP-IRPs) to play a synergistic role in analgesia. The pellets were developed by extrusion-spheronization and fluidized bed coating technology. The single-factor investigation was used to determine the optimal prescription and process. The sustained-release membrane of IB-SRPs was water-insoluble ethyl cellulose (EC), triethyl citrate (TEC) was used as plasticizer, and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMCP) was chose as porogen. Besides, the immediate-release layer of CP-IRPs was gastric-soluble coating film. The ibuprofen and codeine phosphate compound capsules (IB-CP SRCs) were prepared by IB-SRPs and CP-IRPs packed together in capsules with the optimum doses of 200 and 13 mg, respectively. The prepared pellets were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy and dissolution test. Pharmacokinetic studies in beagle dogs indicated that the optimized IB-CP SRCs had smaller individual differences and better reproducibility comparing with commercial available tablets. Additionally, IB-CP SRCs achieved consistency with in vivo and in vitro tests. Therefore, IB-CP SRCs could play a great role in rapid and long-term analgesic.

How Safe Are Common Analgesics for the Treatment of Acute Pain for Children? A Systematic Review

Background. Fear of adverse events and occurrence of side effects are commonly cited by families and physicians as obstructive to appropriate use of pain medication in children. We examined evidence comparing the safety profiles of three groups of oral medications, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids, to manage acute nonsurgical pain in children (<18 years) treated in ambulatory settings. Methods. A comprehensive search was performed to July 2015, including review of national data registries. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Risks (incidence rates) were pooled using a random effects model. Results. Forty-four studies were included; 23 reported on adverse events. Based on limited current evidence, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and opioids have similar nausea and vomiting profiles. Opioids have the greatest risk of central nervous system adverse events. Dual therapy with a nonopioid/opioid combination resulted in a lower risk of adverse events than opioids alone. Conclusions. Ibuprofen and acetaminophen have similar reported adverse effects and notably less adverse events than opioids. Dual therapy with a nonopioid/opioid combination confers a protective effect for adverse events over opioids alone. This research highlights challenges in assessing medication safety, including lack of more detailed information in registry data, and inconsistent reporting in trials.

Pain Management of Pediatric Musculoskeletal Injury in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

Background. Pain management for children with musculoskeletal injuries is suboptimal and, in the absence of clear evidence-based guidelines, varies significantly. Objective. To systematically review the most effective pain management for children presenting to the emergency department with musculoskeletal injuries. Methods. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for children aged 0-18 years, with musculoskeletal injury, in the emergency department. The primary outcome was the risk ratio for successful reduction in pain scores. Results. Of 34 studies reviewed, 8 met inclusion criteria and provided data on 1169 children from 3 to 18 years old. Analgesics used greatly varied, making comparisons difficult. Only two studies compared the same analgesics with similar routes of administration. Two serious adverse events occurred without fatalities. All studies showed similar pain reduction between groups except one study that favoured ibuprofen when compared to acetaminophen. Conclusions. Due to heterogeneity of medications and routes of administration in the articles reviewed, an optimal analgesic cannot be recommended for all pain categories. Larger trials are required for further evaluation of analgesics, especially trials combining a nonopioid with an opioid agent or with a nonpharmacological intervention.

Analgesia for fracture pain in children: methodological issues surrounding clinical trials and effectiveness of therapy

Fractures in childhood are common painful conditions. Suboptimal analgesia has been reported in the emergency department and following discharge. Recently, concern about the safety of narcotics such as codeine has sparked a renewed interest in opioids such as morphine for pediatric fracture pain. Consequently, opioids are being increasingly used in the clinical setting. Despite this, there is ample evidence that clinicians are more willing to offer opioids to adults than children. The existence of limited evidence supporting their use in children is likely a major contributing factor. A closer look at the limitations of designing high-quality analgesic trials in children with fractures is needed to enable investigators to anticipate problems and clinicians to make evidence-based choices.

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of NSAIDs compared with other oral analgesics for treating acute soft tissue injuries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (12 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014 Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2014), EMBASE (1980 to September 2014), CINAHL (1937 to November 2012), AMED (1985 to November 2012), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to November 2012), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), and SPORTDiscus (1985 to November 2012), plus internet search engines, trial registries and other databases. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and contacted authors of retrieved studies and pharmaceutical companies to obtain relevant unpublished data.

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 up to 48 hours prior to inclusion in the study) and comparing oral NSAID 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

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials, with a total of 2144 participants. Two studies included children only. The other 14 studies included predominantly young adults, of whom over 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, one was at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data, and four were at high risk of selective outcome reporting bias. The evidence was usually either low quality or very low quality, reflecting study limitations, indirectness such from as suboptimal dosing of single comparators, imprecision, or one or more of these. Thus we are either uncertain or very uncertain of the estimates.Nine studies, involving 991 participants, compared NSAIDs with paracetamol. While tending to favour paracetamol, there was a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups in pain at less than 24 hours (377 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), at days 1 to 3 (431 participants, 4 studies; low quality), and at day 7 or over (467 participants, 4 studies; low quality). A similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (86 participants, 1 study; very low quality) and at day 7 or over (77 participants, 1 study; low quality). There was little difference between the two groups in return to function at day 7 or over (316 participants, 3 studies; very low quality): based on an assumed recovery of function of 804 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 8 fewer per 1000 recovered in the NSAID group (95% confidence interval (CI) 80 fewer to 73 more). There was low-quality evidence of a lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse events in the paracetamol group: based on an assumed risk of gastrointestinal adverse events of 16 per 1000 participants in the paracetamol group, 13 more participants per 1000 had a gastrointestinal adverse event in the NSAID group (95% CI 0 to 35 more).Four studies, involving 958 participants, compared NSAIDs with opioids. Since a study of a selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID (valdecoxib) that was subsequently withdrawn from the market dominates the evidence for this comparison (706 participants included in the analyses for pain, function and gastrointestinal adverse events), the applicability of these results is in doubt and we give only a brief summary. There was low quality evidence for a lack of clinically important differences between the two groups regarding pain at less than 24 hours, at days 4 to 6, and at day 7. Evidence from single studies showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups for swelling at day 3 (68 participants) and day 10 (84 participants). Return to function at day 7 or over favoured the NSAID group (low-quality), and there were fewer gastrointestinal adverse events in the selective COX-2 inhibitor NSAID group (very low quality).Four studies, involving 240 participants, compared NSAIDs with the combination of paracetamol and an opioid. The applicability of findings from these studies is partly in question because the dextropropoxyphene combination analgesic agents used are no longer in general use. While the point estimates favoured NSAID, the very low-quality evidence did not show a difference between the two interventions in the numbers with little or no pain at day 1 (51 participants, 1 study), day 3 (149 participants, 2 studies), or day 7 (138 participants, 2 studies). Very low-quality evidence showed a similar lack of difference between the two groups applied to swelling at day 3 (reported in two studies) and at day 7 (reported in two studies), in return to function at day 7 (89 participants, 1 study), and in gastrointestinal adverse events (141 participants, 3 studies).No studies compared NSAIDs with complementary and alternative medicines, and no study reported re-injury rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is generally low- or very low-quality but consistent evidence of no clinically important difference in analgesic efficacy between NSAIDs and other oral analgesics. There is low-quality evidence of more gastrointestinal adverse effects with non-selective NSAID compared with paracetamol. There is low- or very low-quality evidence of better function and fewer adverse events with NSAIDs compared with opioid-containing analgesics; however, one study dominated this evidence using a now unavailable COX-2 selective NSAID and is of uncertain applicability. Further research is required to determine whether there is any difference in return to function or adverse effects between both non-selective and COX-2 selective NSAIDs versus paracetamol.