Comparison of rofecoxib and oxycodone plus acetaminophen in the treatment of acute pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain in the third molar extraction model

Oxycodone-acetaminophen versus celecoxib for postoperative pain in knee osteoarthritis patients after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled study

PURPOSE

Oxycodone-acetaminophen is a synergic combination of semisynthetic opioid agonis and analgesic/antipyretic agent, which improves analgesic efficacy. This randomized, controlled study intended to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and tolerance of oxycodone-acetaminophen compared to celecoxib alone in post-total knee arthroplasty (TKA) knee osteoarthritis patients.

METHODS

One hundred and six knee osteoarthritis patients were randomized into oxycodone-acetaminophen group (N = 54) and celecoxib group (N = 52) at a 1:1 ratio. Each patient orally received oxycodone-acetaminophen (5 mg/325 mg, four times per day) or celecoxib (200 mg, twice per day) from 2 h to day (D) 3 after TKA; meanwhile, each patient received 2-day patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). The primary outcome was pain visual analog scale (VAS) score at rest; other assessments were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Pain VAS scores at rest at D1, D2, D3, and pain VAS scores at flexion at D0.5, D1, D2, D3 were lower in oxycodone-acetaminophen group compared to celecoxib group (all P < 0.050). Besides, extra (P < 0.001) and total (P < 0.001) PCA consumption were declined in oxycodone-acetaminophen group compared with celecoxib group. Furthermore, patients' satisfaction score at D3 (P = 0.012) and D7 (P = 0.043) was higher in oxycodone-acetaminophen group versus celecoxib group. Hospital for special surgery knee score (HSS) at preoperation, M1, and M3 did not differ between the two groups (all P > 0.050). The incidences of all adverse events were not varied between oxycodone-acetaminophen and celecoxib groups (all P > 0.050).

CONCLUSION

Oxycodone-acetaminophen exerts superior analgesic efficacy, patients' satisfaction, and similar tolerance compared to celecoxib in post-TKA knee osteoarthritis patients.

Efficacy of oxycodone for postoperative dental pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Dental pain is a commonly managed presentation in medicine and dentistry, where oxycodone is often prescribed. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine and quantify the effectiveness of oxycodone for acute dental pain.

DATA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled trials and comparative studies were included involving patients >12 years, where oxycodone was trialled for dental pain.

SOURCES

Three databases were searched: Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid and Web of Science. Two authors independently screened title and abstracts for relevance, extracted data and performed bias assessments.

STUDY SELECTION

Of 148 potentially relevant studies, 13 articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and of the 13, nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. All studies were single-dose analgesia for surgical third molar extractions.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxycodone produced more effective analgesia in combination with paracetamol. In the meta-analysis, monotherapy etoricoxib and rofecoxib showed significant pain relief compared to combination oxycodone/paracetamol (SPID6 mean difference=-2.13, CI=-3.29, -0.98; TOTPAR6 mean difference=-2.98, CI=-4.90, -1.06). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were more effective than oxycodone/paracetamol combinations, however, the evidence would become weak in a future study with a similar patient setting due to substantial statistical heterogeneity (SPID6 and TOTPAR6 prediction interval -4.471, 0.207 and -7.28, 1.32 respectively).

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were superior than oxycodone/paracetamol combinations, although some patient populations may experience similar effects to the combined oxycodone/paracetamol combination.

Potential Novel Strategies for the Treatment of Dental Pulp-Derived Pain: Pharmacological Approaches and Beyond

The diagnosis and management of pain is an everyday occurrence in dentistry, and its effective control is essential to ensure the wellbeing of patients. Most tooth-associated pain originates from the dental pulp, a highly vascularized and innervated tissue, which is encased within mineralized dentin. It plays a crucial role in the sensing of stimuli from the local environment, such as infections (i.e. dental caries) and traumatic injury, leading to a local inflammatory response and subsequently to an increase in intra-pulp pressure, activating nerve endings. However, thermal, chemical, and mechanical stimuli also have the ability to generate dental pulp pain, which presents mechanisms highly specific to this tissue and which have to be considered in pain management. Traditionally, the management of dental pulp pain has mostly been pharmacological, using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, or restorative (i.e. removal of dental caries), or a combination of both. Both research areas continuously present novel and creative approaches. This includes the modulation of thermo-sensitive transient receptor potential cation channels (TRP) by newly designed drugs in pharmacological research, as well as the use of novel biomaterials, stem cells, exosomes and physical stimulation to obtain pulp regeneration in regenerative medicine. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present an up-to-date account of causes underlying dental pain, novel treatments involving the control of pain and inflammation and the induction of pulp regeneration, as well as insights in pain in dentistry from the physiological, pharmacological, regenerative and clinical perspectives.

The opioid prescribing practices of surgeons: A comprehensive review of the 2015 claims to Medicare Part D

Background

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have declared that the United States is amidst a continuing opioid epidemic, with drug overdose–related death tripling between 1999 and 2014. Among the 47,055 overdose-related deaths that occurred in 2014, 28,647 (60.9%) of them involved an opioid.

Methods

To determine if there are specific trends in opioid prescribing practices of specific groups of surgeons to better describe any regional or subspecialty trends that exist, the Part D Prescriber Public Use File was used to evaluate all prescription drug orders for Medicare beneficiaries with a Part D prescription drug plan for the 2015 calendar year. Only those providers with the specialty description corresponding to a surgical specialty were included in this study, using the provider's Part B claims.

Results

A total of 65,277,932 claims made to Part D by 90,253 surgeons in the 2015 service year were analyzed in this study, demonstrating statistically significant differences in the opioid prescribing practices of surgeons from different states, cities, practice settings, and subspecialties (P < .05). During this year, these surgeons' opioid medication claims cost the health care system $133,091,997.81 in drug benefits.

Conclusion

All health professionals with opiate prescribing privileges are entrusted with and responsible for the use of these medications; therefore, physicians have a crucial role in ensuring safe and effective use of this treatment option and the deterrence of its abuse. This is true in particular for surgeons given the acuity level and context of their practice.

•

A total of 47,055 overdose deaths occurred in 2014; 28,647 (60.9%) of them involved an opioid.

•

Medicare Part D was queried for information on prescription drug events.

•

A total of 65,277,932 claims by 90,253 surgeons in the 2015 service year were analyzed.

•

Prescribing practices differed from surgeons based on states and subspecialties.

•

Opioid medication claims cost the health care system $133,091,997.81 in benefits.

Gabapentin Differentially Modulate c-Fos Expression in Hypothalamus and Spinal Trigeminal Nucleus in Surgical Molar Extraction

The study on the efficacy of oral analgesics reported that no single class of drug is effective in post-surgical dental pain. Pain following removal of third molar is most commonly used and widely accepted acute pain model for assessing the analgesic effect of drugs in humans. Reports demonstrated that analgesic efficacy in the human dental model is highly predictive. The high incidence of false-negative findings in analgesic investigations hinders the process of molecular discovery. Molecular mechanism of post-surgical pain is not known. More importantly, the animal model for postoperative dental pain is not well established. In an attempt to discover an effective post-surgical dental pain blocker with acceptable side effects, it is essential to elucidate the molecular mechanism of post-operative dental pain. The present study investigated mandibular molars extraction in rat as an animal model for the post-operative dental pain in central nervous system. Using c-Fos immunohistochemistry, we demonstrated that pre administration of GBP (150 mg/kg. i.p) significantly (p< 0.01) neutralized the surgical molar extraction induced c-Fos expression bilaterally in rat hypothalamus. Present results indicate that pain after surgical molar extraction might follow novel neural pathways therefore difficult to treat with existing anti-nociceptive drugs.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of biphasic immediate-release/extended-release hydrocodone bitartrate/acetaminophen (MNK-155) compared with immediate-release hydrocodone bitartrate/ibuprofen and immediate-release tramadol HCl/acetaminophen

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the single-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of biphasic immediate-release/extended-release hydrocodone bitartrate/acetaminophen (IR/ER HB/APAP), IR HB/ibuprofen, and IR tramadol HCl/APAP.

METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, randomized, four-period crossover study, healthy participants received four treatments under fasted conditions: 1) a single dose of two IR/ER HB/APAP 7.5/325 mg tablets (15/650 mg total dose) on day 1, followed by two tablets every 12 hours (q12h) beginning on day 3; 2) a single dose of IR HB/ibuprofen 15/400 mg (divided as one 7.5/200 mg tablet at hour 0 and 6), followed by one tablet every 6 hours (q6h) beginning on day 3; 3) a single dose of IR tramadol HCl/APAP 75/650 mg (divided as one 37.5/325 mg tablet at hour 0 and 6), followed by one tablet q6h beginning on day 3; and 4) a single dose of three IR/ER HB/APAP 7.5/325 mg tablets (22.5/975 mg total dose) on day 1, a three-tablet initial dose at 48 hours followed by two-tablet doses q12h beginning on day 3. Hydrocodone and APAP single-dose and steady-state PK were assessed. Adverse events were monitored.

RESULTS

The PK analysis was carried out on 29 of 48 enrolled participants who completed all treatment periods. Single-dose hydrocodone exposure was similar for IR/ER HB/APAP 22.5/975 mg and IR HB/ibuprofen 15/400 mg; time to maximum observed plasma concentration was shorter and half-life was longer for IR/ER HB/APAP (22.5/975 mg and 15/650 mg) vs IR HB/ibuprofen. Single-dose APAP exposure was similar for IR/ER HB/APAP 15/650 mg and IR tramadol HCl/APAP 75/650 mg. Steady-state hydrocodone and APAP exposures were similar between treatments. Adverse events were similar for each treatment and typical of low-dose combination opioid analgesics. With dosing q12h, IR/ER HB/APAP had half as many concentration peaks and troughs as the comparators treated q6h.

CONCLUSION

With dosing q12h, IR/ER HB/APAP provided similar peak and total steady-state hydrocodone and APAP exposure vs IR comparators.

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.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of biphasic immediate-release/extended-release hydrocodone bitartrate/acetaminophen tablets for acute postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

A fixed-dose combination biphasic immediate-release (IR)/extended-release (ER) hydrocodone bitartrate (HB)/acetaminophen (APAP) tablet is being developed for the management of acute pain severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate.

METHODS

This Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and safety of IR/ER HB/APAP (n = 201) versus placebo (n = 202) over a period of 48 hours in patients with acute moderate to severe pain following unilateral bunionectomy. Patients received three tablets of placebo or IR/ER HB/APAP as an initial dose (hour 0) followed by two tablets every 12 hours for a total daily dose of 37.5/1625 mg HB/APAP on day 1 and 30/1300 mg HB/APAP thereafter. The primary efficacy outcome was the summed pain intensity difference (SPID) over the first 48 hours (SPID48) after the first dose.

RESULTS

SPID48 was significantly greater with IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo (p < 0.001). SPID dosing interval analyses demonstrated consistent, superior pain relief with IR/ER HB/APAP for each dosing interval (all p < 0.001). Mean PID was greater with IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo beginning 30 minutes after the first dose (p < 0.05), and IR/ER HB/APAP demonstrated faster median time to the onset of perceptible, meaningful, and confirmed pain relief (all p < 0.001). Mean total pain relief scores also indicated greater pain relief with IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo throughout the 48-hour period (p = 0.012) for all comparisons. A greater proportion of IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo patients was either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their pain relief (69.3% vs 49.4%; p < 0.001). Nausea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE; IR/ER HB/APAP, 25%; placebo, 7.9%). All TEAEs in IR/ER HB/APAP-treated patients were mild or moderate in severity.

CONCLUSION

IR/ER HB/APAP provided rapid, significant, and consistent analgesic efficacy over a period of 48 hours in an established model of acute pain and was tolerated with a safety profile similar to other low-dose opioids.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of oxycodone and acetaminophen following single-dose administration of MNK-795, a dual-layer biphasic IR/ER combination formulation, under fed and fasted conditions

BACKGROUND

XARTEMIS™ XR (formerly MNK-795) is a combination oxycodone (OC) and acetaminophen (APAP) analgesic with both immediate-release and extended-release (ER) components (ER OC/APAP). The tablets are designed with gastric-retentive ER oral delivery technology that releases the ER component at a controlled rate in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Because consumption of food has demonstrated an impact on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of some marketed products using gastric-retentive ER oral delivery technology, a characterization of the effects of fed (high- and low-fat diets) versus fasted conditions on the PK of ER OC/APAP was performed.

METHODS

This Phase I study used an open-label randomized single-dose three-period six-sequence crossover single-center design. Healthy adult participants (n=48) were randomized to receive two tablets of ER OC/APAP under three conditions: following a high-fat meal; following a low-fat meal; and fasted. Plasma concentration versus time data from predose throughout designated times up to 48 hours postdose was used to estimate the PK parameters of oxycodone and APAP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one participants completed all three treatment periods. Both oxycodone and APAP were rapidly absorbed under fasted conditions. Total oxycodone and APAP exposures (area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve [AUC]) from ER OC/APAP were not significantly affected by food, and minimal changes to maximum observed plasma concentration for oxycodone and APAP were also noted. However, food marginally delayed the time to maximum observed plasma concentration of oxycodone and APAP. There was no indication that tolerability was affected by food.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study suggest that ER OC/APAP can be administered with or without food.

Sildenafil citrate in the treatment of pain in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is a vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate capable of alleviating acute menstrual pain in patients with primary dysmenorrhea (PD)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate is capable of alleviating acute menstrual pain in patients with PD with no observed adverse effects.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Oral preparations of nitric oxide (NO) donor drugs augment relaxant effects of NO on myometrial cells, reverse the vasoconstriction caused by prostaglandins and successfully alleviate pain, but the incidence of side effects is too high for routine clinical use. Sildenafil citrate inhibits type 5-specific phosphodiesterase (PDE5), thus preventing the degradation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) in the muscle and augmenting the vasodilatory effects of NO. Therefore, by inhibiting PDE5, the tissue remains relaxed and more blood can circulate through. It has been used previously in a vaginal form with no observed side effects, and it enhances endometrial blood flow.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate (100 mg single dose) to a placebo in 62 PD patients at the time of painful menstruation was conducted. The primary outcome was total pain relief over 4 consecutive hours (TOPAR4) comparing sildenafil citrate to placebo, where higher TOPAR4 scores represent better pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain relief as measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) and uterine artery pulsatility index (PI). Subjects were recruited from December 2007 to January 2011. The trial was stopped due to closeout of the funding for the study.

PARTICIPANTS, SETTINGS, METHODS

Participants were women in good health, were aged 18-35 years and suffered from moderate to severe PD. They were randomized to either vaginal placebo or 100 mg vaginal sildenafil citrate in a 1:1 ratio using random permuted blocks having a block size of 4. At baseline and 1, 2, 3, and 4 h post-treatment, patients were asked to provide assessment of their degree of pain using two scales: (i) pain on the 5-level ordinal scale used for TOPAR4 calculation and (ii) pain level on the VAS. The study ended 4 h after treatment initiation.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Twenty-five subjects completed the study. Using the TOPAR4 score, the sildenafil citrate group had significantly better pain relief compared with the placebo group [mean (SD): 11.9 (3.2) versus 6.4 (2.1), respectively; difference in means = 5.3; 95% CI: (2.9,7.6); P < 0.001)]. On the VAS, sildenafil citrate provided better pain relief than placebo at each time point. At the 2-h time point, the PI was significantly lower in the sildenafil citrate group compared with the placebo group [mean (SD): 1.6 (0.6) versus 2.3 (0.5), respectively; difference in means = -0.7; 95% CI: (-1.2, -0.1); P = 0.01)].

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Since we did not meet our sample size due to the loss of funding and could not confirm our primary hypothesis, larger studies of longer duration, likely multi-center, are needed to confirm the findings from this study.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A number of medications have been investigated to improve the treatment options for PD, but most have proven unsuccessful or to have an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio. Since PD is a condition that most women suffer from and seek treatment for at some point in their lives, our study offers hope that vaginal sildenafil citrate is a safe and effective option for patients who do not desire or are unresponsive to treatments now available on the market.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

Funding for this study was provided by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants RO3 TW007438 and K24 HD01476. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00123162 (Clinical trials.gov).

Oxycodone combinations for pain relief

No single analgesic drug provides the perfect therapeutic/adverse effect profile for every pain condition. In addition to convenience and possibly improved compliance, a combination of analgesic drugs offers the potential, requiring verification, of providing greater pain relief and/or reduced adverse effects than the constituent drugs when used individually. We review here analgesic combinations containing oxycodone. We found surprisingly little preclinical information about the analgesic or adverse effect profiles of the combinations (with acetaminophen, paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, morphine, gabapentin or pregabalin). Clinical experience and studies suggest that the combinations are safe and effective and may offer certain advantages. As with all combinations, the profile of adverse effects must also be determined in order to provide the clinician with the overall benefit/risk assessment.

Single dose oral rofecoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Editor's note: The anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market at the end of September 2004 after it was shown that long-term use (greater than 18 months) could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke in a study of secondary prevention of adenoma recurrence. Further information is available at www.vioxx.com.Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor previously licensed for treating acute and chronic pain; it was associated with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events than conventional NSAIDs. An earlier Cochrane review (Barden 2005) showed that rofecoxib is at least as effective as conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of rofecoxib in single oral doses for moderate and severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to June 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered rofecoxib in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty new studies and seven from the earlier review met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-four studies were in dental surgery and three in other types of surgery. In total, 2636 participants were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, 20 with rofecoxib 500 mg, and 1251 with placebo. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours with rofecoxib 50 mg was 2.2 (2.0 to 2.3) in all studies combined, 1.9 (1.8 to 2.0) in dental studies, and 6.8 (4.6 to 13) in other types of surgery. The median time to use of rescue medication was 14 hours for rofecoxib 50 mg and 2 hours for placebo. Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication following rofecoxib 50 mg than with placebo. Adverse events did not differ from placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib 50 mg (two to four times the standard daily dose for chronic pain) is an effective single dose oral analgesic for acute postoperative pain in adults, with a relatively long duration of action.

Single dose oral oxycodone and oxycodone plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Oxycodone is a strong opioid agonist used to treat severe pain. It is commonly combined with milder analgesics such as paracetamol. This review updates a previous review that concluded, based on limited data, that all doses of oxycodone exceeding 5 mg, with or without paracetamol, provided analgesia in postoperative pain, but with increased incidence of adverse events compared with placebo. Additional new studies provide more reliable estimates of efficacy and harm.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy, duration of action, and associated adverse events of single dose oral oxycodone, with or without paracetamol, in acute postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Oxford Pain Relief Database, searched in May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered oxycodone, with or without paracetamol, in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk and number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants remedicating over specified time periods, and time-to-use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Adverse events and withdrawals information was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 20 studies, with 2641 participants. For oxycodone 15 mg alone compared with placebo, the NNT for at least 50% pain relief was 4.6 (95% Confidence Interval 2.9 to 11). For oxycodone 10 mg plus paracetamol 650 mg, the NNT was 2.7 (2.4 to 3.1). A dose response was demonstrated for this outcome with combination therapy. Duration of effect was 10 hours with oxycodone 10 mg plus paracetamol 650 mg, and 4 hours with half that dose. Fewer participants needed rescue medication over 6 hours at the higher dose. Adverse events occurred more frequently with combination therapy than placebo, but were generally described as mild to moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single dose oxycodone is an effective analgesic in acute postoperative pain at doses over 5 mg; oxycodone is two to three times stronger than codeine. Efficacy increases when combined with paracetamol. Oxycodone 10 mg plus paracetamol 650 mg provides good analgesia to half of those treated, comparable to commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with the benefit of longer duration of action.

Association between nonnaproxen NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors and hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction among the elderly: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between rofecoxib, celecoxib, diclofenac, and ibuprofen and the risk of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in an elderly population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using data from the government of Quebec health insurance agency databases, among patients 65-80 years of age who filled a prescription for any of the study drugs during 1999-2002. Cox regression models with time-dependent exposure were used to compare the incidence rates of hospitalization for AMI adjusting for patients' baseline characteristics. Analyses stratified by dose and number of supplied days were also conducted.

RESULTS

At the index date, a total of 91 062 patients were taking rofecoxib, 127 928 celecoxib, 49 193 diclofenac, and 15 601 ibuprofen. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95%CI) of hospitalization for AMI were: celecoxib versus rofecoxib: 0.90 (0.79, 1.01); ibuprofen versus rofecoxib: 0.95 (0.65, 1.37); diclofenac versus rofecoxib: 1.01 (0.84, 1.22). In secondary analyses based on intended duration of use, neither COX-2 selective inhibitor was associated with a higher risk than ibuprofen or diclofenac. The unadjusted risk of AMI for all NSAIDs increased with dose. In the direct two way adjusted comparison of each NSAID stratified by dose, the only statistically significant difference was with rofecoxib >25 mg/day versus celecoxib >200 mg/day.

CONCLUSION

In this study there was no difference between AMI occurrence in elderly patients taking rofecoxib or celecoxib at recommended doses for chronic indications versus those taking ibuprofen/diclofenac. However, the risk of AMI was higher among patients using higher doses of rofecoxib (>25 mg/day) compared to patients using higher doses of celecoxib (>200 mg/day).

MK-0703 (a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) in acute pain associated with dental surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled dose-ranging study

MK-0703 is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor investigated for the treatment of acute pain and inflammation. The purpose of this single-dose, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was to compare MK-0703 12.5, 50, and 100 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg or placebo in patients who experienced moderate to severe pain after surgical removal of at least 2 third molars. Overall analgesic effect, duration of analgesic effect, time to onset of analgesic effect, peak analgesic effect, and tolerability were assessed over a 24-hour postdose period. The primary endpoint of this study was total pain relief over 8 hours postdose. The study included 121 patients (mean age, 23 yr); 16, 31, 28, 31, and 15 patients enrolled in the placebo, MK-0703 12.5 mg, MK-0703 50 mg, MK-0703 100 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg groups, respectively. Both MK-0703 50 and 100 mg were significantly more effective than placebo for all endpoints (P < 0.01) and comparable with ibuprofen 400 mg. The onset of analgesic effect in the MK-0703 50 mg and 100 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg groups did not differ significantly from each other (P > 0.20). MK-0703 was generally well tolerated in single doses up to 100 mg. In summary, MK-0703 50 and 100 mg were efficacious in the treatment of postoperative dental pain and were indistinguishable from the active comparator, ibuprofen 400 mg.

Pain relief following breast augmentation surgery: a comparison between incisional patient-controlled regional analgesia and traditional oral analgesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Postoperative pain is a common problem following ambulatory breast augmentation surgery. This study was performed to compare standard of care (oral analgesics) with patient-controlled incisional regional analgesia (PCRA) for postoperative pain management at home for 48 h. A second aim was to compare the analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine 0.25% vs. 0.5%.

METHODS

Surgery was performed under local anaesthesia and monitored anesthesia care. Sixty adults (ASA 1-2) were randomized to one of two groups. Patients in Group PCRA could self-administer ropivacaine 0.25% 10 mL in the left breast and ropivacaine 0.5% in the right breast. Patients in Group T (tablets) received our standard of care treatment, i.e. oral paracetamol 1 g four times a day and oral ibuprofen 500 mg three times a day. Parameters measured included: analgesic requirements (in post-anesthesia care unit, PACU and post-discharge), pain intensity (visual analogue scale), patient satisfaction, global analgesia, side-effects, and quality of recovery.

RESULTS

Pain scores were significantly lower in Group PCRA compared to Group T at all time periods (P < 0.05). No differences were found in pain scores between the right and left breasts. Significantly more patients in Group T requested analgesics in the recovery unit (27 vs. 7; P = 0.001) and also at home (20 vs. 11; P < 0.02). More patients in the tablet group had nausea and vomiting (10 vs. 3; P < 0.05). Global analgesia on day 2 was significantly better in PCRA group; however, patient satisfaction was similar in both groups. More patients in the tablet group had sleep disturbance and woke up at night due to pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain relief after ambulatory breast augmentation is superior with incisional PCRA when compared to oral analgesic combination of paracetamol and ibuprofen. Incisional PCRA was associated with minimal side-effects and less sleep disturbance. There was no difference in the analgesic efficacy between ropivacaine 0.25% and 0.5%.

Pain after elective arthroscopy of the knee: a prospective, randomised, study comparing conventional NSAID to coxib

Although outpatient knee arthroscopy is probably by far the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedure, there are limited guidelines or consensus concerning the peroral postoperative pain management. A diversity of analgesics both in potency and action is prescribed. The purpose of the present investigation was to grade the pain and need for rescue medication during the first 4 days after the knee arthroscopy, comparing a conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a selective cox-II-inhibitor (coxib) as postoperative pain medication. One hundred and twenty-two patients scheduled for primary elective knee arthroscopy in general anaesthesia were randomised to either a NSAID (lornoxicam) or a selective cox-II-inhibitor (rofecoxib) postoperatively. Pain ratings and the need for rescue medication were followed for four consecutive days. Side effects were also registered. The need for rescue analgesics was highest the evening after surgery, when 42% of patients required one, or more, oral additional analgesics. The use of rescue medication decreased with time and 30, 25, 16 and 11% of the patients required additional analgesics for day 1 to 4, respectively, still 50% of all patients required at some point one or more rescue analgesics. Overall pain ratings were low, and showed similar pattern with evening and day, 50% of all patients required at some point one or more rescue analgesics. We found, however, no differences in pain ratings, or need for rescue analgesics between the two groups, conventional NSAID and coxib as well as no difference in side-effect profile. In conclusion, patients do require proper pain management also after minor outpatient surgical procedures such as knee arthroscopy. The traditional NSAIDs seem to be the first choice for analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, when needed after elective arthroscopy of the knee.

The use of COX-2 inhibitors for acute dental pain: A second look

BACKGROUND

On the basis of their perceived better safety profile compared with other analgesic agents, cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors have been prescribed frequently as first-line agents to treat acute dental pain. However, recently identified cardiovascular adverse reactions associated with these drugs mandate a reappraisal of their use in dental practice. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED. The authors reviewed 18 clinical studies that evaluated the efficacy of a COX-2 inhibitor for the treatment of acute dental pain. All of the studies used the widely established third-molar surgical extraction model to induce postsurgical inflammatory based pain, and all were randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled. However, numerous vagaries in overall study design made direct comparisons difficult.

RESULTS

None of the studies established any of the COX-2 inhibitors as clearly better than ibuprofen, the current gold standard for the treatment of surgically induced dental pain. However, in single-dosing scenarios, the COX-2 inhibitor often demonstrated a longer duration of action compared with ibuprofen.

CLINCAL IMPLICATIONS

The evidence to date fails to demonstrate any therapeutic advantage to using a COX-2 inhibitor to treat acute dental pain compared with ibuprofen. In the rare event that a COX-2 inhibitor may be appropriate, the clinician must inform the patient of the potential risks, and the drug should be used for the shortest possible time.

Rofecoxib versus Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen for Postoperative Analgesia in Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is less invasive and more tissue sparing than extirpative techniques, with an assumed benefit of diminished postoperative pain. Oral opioids are commonly prescribed after sinus surgery but are associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms. Nonopioid analgesics have been suggested to offer similar pain control efficacy with fewer adverse effects.

STUDY DESIGN

To investigate postoperative analgesia in FESS, a prospective randomized, double-blinded comparison of hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/750 mg (an opioidderivative) with rofecoxib 50 mg (a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) was performed.

METHODS

Forty subjects were enrolled, of which 28 successfully completed the study. Subjects recorded peak pain levels and requirement for rescue analgesia on the day of surgery and for 4 days thereafter. On postoperative day 5, subjects completed an exit survey in which adverse effects and overall satisfaction with pain control were recorded.

RESULTS

In this study, there were no statistical differences in peak pain levels between the groups at any point in the postoperative period, regardless of extent of surgery. Adverse effect profiles were also similar for the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of nonopioid analgesics after FESS may provide similar pain control to oral opioids.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2004

This paper is the 27th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning over 30 years of research. It summarizes papers published during 2004 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.

Analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib compared with codeine/acetaminophen using a model of acute dental pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine analgesic efficacy of a single oral dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group study.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients (N = 390) experiencing moderate or severe pain postextraction of 2 or more third molars, with at least 1 mandibular impaction, were randomized to placebo (n = 30), rofecoxib (n = 180), or codeine/acetaminophen 60/600 mg (n = 180). Time to confirmed perceptible pain relief, and patient evaluations of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments were recorded.

RESULTS

For total pain relief over 6 hours (primary end point), rofecoxib was superior to codeine/acetaminophen (15.5 vs 10.7; P < .001). Rofecoxib was statistically significantly superior to codeine/acetaminophen with respect to TOPAR4, patient global assessment, peak pain relief, and duration of analgesic effect. Median onset of analgesia was similar for both drugs. The codeine/acetaminophen group had more patients with 1 or more adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Rofecoxib provided superior analgesic efficacy compared with codeine/acetaminophen with fewer gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events.