Papaverine Hydrochloride for the Treatment of Renal Colic: An Old Drug Revisited. A Prospective, Randomized Study

Papaverine: A Miraculous Alkaloid from Opium and Its Multimedicinal Application

The pharmacological actions of benzylisoquinoline alkaloids are quite substantial, and have recently attracted much attention. One of the principle benzylisoquinoline alkaloids has been found in the unripe seed capsules of Papaver somniferum L. Although it lacks analgesic effects and is unrelated to the compounds in the morphine class, it is a peripheral vasodilator and has a direct effect on vessels. It is reported to inhibit the cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) phosphodiesterase in smooth muscles, and it has been observed to increase intracellular levels of cAMP and cGMP. It induces coronary, cerebral, and pulmonary artery dilatation and helps to lower cerebral vascular resistance and enhance cerebral blood flow. Current pharmacological research has revealed that papaverine demonstrates a variety of biological activities, including activity against erectile dysfunction, postoperative vasospasms, and pulmonary vasoconstriction, as well as antiviral, cardioprotective, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, neuroprotective, and gestational actions. It was recently demonstrated that papaverine has the potential to control SARS-CoV-2 by preventing its cytopathic effect. These experiments were carried out both in vitro and in vivo and require an extensive understanding of the mechanisms of action. With its multiple mechanisms, papaverine can be considered as a natural compound that is used to develop therapeutic drugs. To validate its applications, additional research is required into its precise therapeutic mechanisms as well as its acute and chronic toxicities. Therefore, the goal of this review is to discuss the major studies and reported clinical studies looking into the pharmacological effects of papaverine and the mechanisms of action underneath these effects. Additionally, it is recommended to conduct further research via significant pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.

Assessment of encrustation and physicochemical properties of poly(lactide-glycolide) - Papaverine hydrochloride coating on ureteral double-J stents after long-term flow of artificial urine

Implantation of ureteral stents is associated with inconvenience for the patient, which is related to the natural ability of the ureter to contract. The most frequently used solution is the systemic administration of a diastolic drug, which has a relaxing effect on smooth muscle cells and decreases inconvenience. Current interdisciplinary research aimed at reducing the complications after the implantation of ureteral stents used in the treatment of upper urinary tracts with regard to infection, initiation of encrustation, and fragmentation of stents, and patient pain has not been resolved. This study presents the results of research regarding the impact of a biodegradable coating with the active substance on the physical and chemical properties of ureteral stents used in the treatment of the upper urinary tract. The surface of polyurethane double-J stents was coated with poly(lactide-glycolide) (PLGA) 85/15 loaded with papaverine hydrochloride (PAP) with diastolic properties. The coating for ureteral stents has been designed for short-term implantation. The effect of the coating on the process of encrustation and PAP release by the dynamic in vitro model with artificial urine (AU) up to 30 days was evaluated. The influence of AU on the physical and chemical properties of ureteral stents was determined. As part of the study, surface structure and topography researches; chemical composition analyses using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and wetting; and surface roughness studies of both PUR stents and coated stents were carried out. The proposed biodegradable PLGA+PAP coating is characterized by controlled drug release, while optimal physicochemical properties does not increase the encrustation process.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing the Efficacy of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs, Opioids, and Paracetamol in the Treatment of Acute Renal Colic

CONTEXT

Renal colic is a common, acute presentation of urolithiasis that requires immediate pain relief. European Association of Urology guidelines recommend nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as the preferred analgesia. However, the fear of NSAID adverse effects and the uncertainty about superior analgesic effect have maintained the practice of advocating intravenous opioids as the initial analgesia.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of NSAIDs with opioids and paracetamol (acetaminophen) for the management of acute renal colic.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Google Scholar, and the reference list of retrieved articles were searched up to December 2016 without language restrictions. Two reviewers independently assessed eligible studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing and reporting the risk of bias and abstracted data using predefined data fields.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

From 468 potentially relevant studies, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 4887 patients, published between 1982 and 2016, were included in this systematic review. The treatment effect observed indicated marginal benefit of NSAIDs over opioids in initial pain reduction at 30min (11 RCTs, n=1985, mean difference [MD] -5.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.22 to -0.95; heterogeneity I²=81%). In the subgroup analyses by the route of administration, NSAIDs required fewer rescue treatments (seven RCTs, n=541, number needed to treat [NNT] 11, 95% CI 6-75) and had lower vomiting rates compared with opioids (five RCTs, n=531, NNT 5, 95% CI 4-8). Comparisons of NSAIDs with paracetamol showed no difference for both drugs at 30min (four RCTs, n=1325, MD -5.67, 95% CI -17.52 to 6.18, p=0.35; I²=89%). Patients treated with NSAIDs required fewer rescue treatments (two trials, n=1145, risk ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.74, p<0.001; I²=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs were equivalent to opioids or paracetamol in the relief of acute renal colic pain at 30min. There was less vomiting and fewer requirements for rescue analgesia with NSAIDs compared with opioids. Patients treated with NSAIDs required less rescue analgesia compared with paracetamol. Despite observed heterogeneity among the included studies and the overall quality of evidence, the findings of a lower need for rescue analgesia and fewer adverse events, in conjunction with the practical advantages of ease of delivery, suggest that NSAIDs should be the preferred analgesic option for patients presenting to the emergency department with renal colic.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In kidney stone-related acute pain episodes in patients with adequate renal function, treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs offers effective and most sustained pain relief, with fewer side effects, when compared with opioids or paracetamol.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and non-opioids for acute renal colic

BACKGROUND

Renal colic is acute pain caused by urinary stones. The prevalence of urinary stones is between 10% and 15% in the United States, making renal colic one of the common reasons for urgent urological care. The pain is usually severe and the first step in the management is adequate analgesia. Many different classes of medications have been used in this regard including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and narcotics.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess benefits and harms of different NSAIDs and non-opioids in the treatment of adult patients with acute renal colic and if possible to determine which medication (or class of medications) are more appropriate for this purpose. Clinically relevant outcomes such as efficacy of pain relief, time to pain relief, recurrence of pain, need for rescue medication and side effects were explored.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 27 November 2014) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised or quasi randomised studies were included. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of renal colic due to urolithiasis, at least one treatment arm included a non-narcotic analgesic compared to placebo or another non-narcotic drug, and reporting of pain outcome or medication adverse effect. Patient-rated pain by a validated tool, time to relief, need for rescue medication and pain recurrence constituted the outcomes of interest. Any adverse effects (minor or major) reported in the studies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Abstracts were reviewed by at least two authors independently. Papers meeting the inclusion criteria were fully reviewed and relevant data were recorded in a standardized Cochrane Renal Group data collection form. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. For continuous outcomes the weighted mean difference was estimated. Both fixed and random models were used for meta-analysis. We assessed the analgesic effects using four different outcome variables: patient-reported pain relief using a visual analogue scale (VAS); proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction in pain; need for rescue medication; and pain recurrence. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 50 studies (5734 participants) were included in this review and 37 studies (4483 participants) contributed to our meta-analyses. Selection bias was low in 34% of the studies or unclear in 66%; performance bias was low in 74%, high in 14% and unclear in 12%; attrition bias was low in 82% and high in 18%; selective reporting bias low in 92% of the studies; and other biases (industry funding) was high in 4%, unclear in 18% and low in 78%.Patient-reported pain (VAS) results varied widely with high heterogeneity observed. For those comparisons which could be pooled we observed the following: NSAIDs significantly reduced pain compared to antispasmodics (5 studies, 303 participants: MD -12.97, 95% CI -21.80 to - 4.14; I² = 74%) and combination therapy of NSAIDs plus antispasmodics was significantly more effective in pain control than NSAID alone (2 studies, 310 participants: MD -1.99, 95% CI -2.58 to -1.40; I² = 0%).NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing pain by 50% within the first hour (3 studies, 197 participants: RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.51; I² = 15%). Indomethacin was found to be less effective than other NSAIDs (4 studies, 412 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.60; I² = 55%). NSAIDs were significantly more effective than hyoscine in pain reduction (5 comparisons, 196 participants: RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.70; I² = 28%). The combination of NSAIDs and antispasmodics was not superior to NSAIDs only (9 comparisons, 906 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; I² = 59%). The results were mixed when NSAIDs were compared to other non-opioid medications.When the need for rescue medication was evaluated, Patients receiving NSAIDs were significantly less likely to require rescue medicine than those receiving placebo (4 comparisons, 180 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60; I² = 24%) and NSAIDs were more effective than antispasmodics (4 studies, 299 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84; I² = 65%). Combination of NSAIDs and antispasmodics was not superior to NSAIDs (7 comparisons, 589 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.57; I² = 10%). Indomethacin was less effective than other NSAIDs (4 studies, 517 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.94; I² = 14%) except for lysine acetyl salicylate (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.65).Pain recurrence was reported by only three studies which could not be pooled: a higher proportion of patients treated with 75 mg diclofenac (IM) showed pain recurrence in the first 24 hours of follow-up compared to those treated with 40 mg piroxicam (IM) (60 participants: RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81); no significant difference in pain recurrence at 72 hours was observed between piroxicam plus phloroglucinol and piroxicam plus placebo groups (253 participants: RR 2.52, 95% CI 0.15 to12.75); and there was no significant difference in pain recurrence within 72 hours of discharge between IM piroxicam and IV paracetamol (82 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54).Side effects were presented inconsistently, but no major events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although due to variability in studies (inclusion criteria, outcome variables and interventions) and the evidence is not of highest quality, we still believe that NSAIDs are an effective treatment for renal colic when compared to placebo or antispasmodics. The addition of antispasmodics to NSAIDS does not result in better pain control. Data on other types of non-opioid, non-NSAID medication was scarce.Major adverse effects are not reported in the literature for the use of NSAIDs for treatment of renal colic.

Therapeutic approaches for renal colic in the emergency department: a review article

Context:

Renal colic is frequently described as the worst pain ever experienced, and management of this intense pain is necessary. The object of our review was to discuss different approaches of pain control for patients with acute renal colic in the emergency department.

Evidence Acquisition:

Studies that discussed the treatment of renal colic pain were included in this review. We collected articles from reputable internet databases.

Results:

Our study showed that some new treatment approaches, such as the use of lidocaine or nerve blocks, can be used to control the severe and persistent pain of renal colic.

Conclusions:

Some new approaches are discussed and their impact on renal colic pain control was compared with traditional therapies. The effectiveness of the new approaches in this review is similar or even better than in traditional treatments.

Role of papaverine hydrochloride administration in patients with intractable renal colic: randomized prospective trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of papaverine hydrochloride in the treatment of patients with renal colic pain unresponsive to conventional treatment.

METHODS

From March 2007 to January 2008, a total of 561 patients with severe renal colic pain due to a ureteral stone were treated with conventional agents (hyoscine-N-butylbromide and diclofenac sodium) in the emergency and urology departments. Of these 561 patients, 110, with no response to the treatment and persistent severe pain, were randomized into 3 groups for additional treatment. The patients in group 1 (n = 37) received intravenous hyoscine-N-butylbromide, those in group 2 (n = 37) received papaverine hydrochloride, and those in group 3 (n = 36) received pethidine. Before and after treatment, all patients completed a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire, with a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal complaint), to measure their subjective pain. The mean VAS score of each group was compared with that of the other groups.

RESULTS

The pretreatment mean VAS scores of all 3 groups were not significantly different statistically from each other (4.02 +/- 1.20, 4.36 +/- 1.97, and 4.27 +/- 1.50; P > .05). However, after treatment, the mean VAS scores of the patients treated with papaverine (0.93 +/- 0.29) and pethidine (0.81 +/- 0.38) were significantly different from those of the hycosine group (3.67 +/- 2.21; P < .001). However, the mean VAS scores of groups 2 and 3 were comparable (P = .67). Unlike opioids, no papaverine-related severe side effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that papaverine hydrochloride can used in an effective manner in the management of renal colic pain in patients unresponsive to commonly used conventional agents.