Double-blind evaluation of short-term analgesic efficacy of orally administered dexketoprofen trometamol and ketorolac in bone cancer pain

Management of Acute Cancer Pain in Asia: An Expert Opinion on the Role of Tramadol/Dexketoprofen Fixed-Dose Combination

Most patients experience acute cancer pain at some stage throughout their cancer journey. When inadequately managed, cancer pain has devastating consequences for the patient's quality of life. The suboptimal management of cancer pain in Asia is mainly driven by over-regulation and limited access to opioids. Concerns about adverse events and addiction have resulted in a negative perception of this group of drugs among physicians, as well as patients. There is a need to optimize the management of cancer pain across the region, through the provision of an alternative treatment option that is simple to prescribe, convenient to administer and well tolerated by patients, which will increase patients' compliance and good results. As recommended in many international guidelines, starting by the WHO analgesic ladder, cancer pain can be effectively managed with multimodal analgesia. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), in which two or more analgesic agents act synergistically to deliver a broad spectrum of pain relief, represent an effective and convenient option for delivering multimodal analgesia to patients with cancer pain. This is extremely well accepted by patients for several reasons. Any multimodal pharmacological approach to pain management should be based on the potentiality to block pain at different levels and to reduce the dosages of single analgesics, reducing their side effects. Hence, the use of NSAIDs, combined with other analgesics, is the general basis of multimodal pain management. If NSAIDs are combined with tramadol, a weak opioid that has per se a multimodal analgesic efficacy, it may be ideal. The tramadol/dexketoprofen FDC combines the centrally acting weak opioid with a peripherally acting NSAID to deliver rapid-onset, long-lasting analgesia, which has been proven efficacious and safe in the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in the postoperative setting. This expert opinion explores the role of tramadol/dexketoprofen FDC in the management of patients with moderate-to-severe acute cancer pain. It is essentially based on the incredibly high amount of existing data on the use of the drug, and on the long-lasting experience of the experts in pain management of cancer patients participating in the advisory panel.

Co-treatment of Naringenin and Ketoprofen-RGD Suppresses Cell Proliferation via Calmodulin/PDE/cAMP/PKA Axis Pathway in Leukemia and Ovarian Cancer Cells

Background

Naringenin (Nar) has anti-inflammatory and anticarcinogenic properties. Arginine-glycine- aspartate (RGD) is a tripeptidic sequence used as an integrin ligand and targeting system for delivering chemotherapeutic agents to cancer cells.

Objectives

In this study, the inhibitory effects of Nar and ketoprofen-RGD on leukemia and ovarian cancer cells (K562 and SKOV3) were explored for the first time, focusing on their proliferation activity and their anti-inflammatory capacity.

Methods

Analyses were conducted on the calmodulin (CaM)-dependent phosphodiesterase 1 (PDE1) activation by ketoprofen-RGD, Nar, and their combination. These drugs' effects on protein kinase A (PKA) activation, intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) level, and PDE1 inhibition were identified. Later, it was also evaluated if ketoprofen-RGD alone or in combination with Nar had anti-inflammatory effects.

Results

Nar improved the antagonizing consequences of ketoprofen-RGD on the CaM protein, which hinders PDE1, improving PKA activity and cAMP levels. A mixture of ketoprofen-RGD and Nar and ketoprofen-RGD alone diminished K562 and SKOV3 cell viability through the cAMP/PKA pathway by inhibiting PDE1 and CaM. These two compounds showed anti-inflammatory effects on both cell lines.

Conclusions

This study indicated for the first time that combining ketoprofen-RGD and Nar can be a promising anti-inflammatory therapeutic regimen for treating leukemia and ovarian cancer.

Revision of Pharmacological Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Pain: Clinical Guidelines from the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine

Background: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. The Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine (JSPM) first published its clinical guidelines for the management of cancer pain in 2010. Since then, more research on cancer pain management has been reported, and new drugs have become available in Japan. Thus, the JSPM has now revised the clinical guidelines using a validated methodology. Methods: This guideline was developed through a systematic review, discussion, and the Delphi method, following a formal guideline development process. Results: Thirty-five recommendations were created: 19 for the pharmacological management of cancer pain, 6 for the management of opioid-induced adverse effects, and 10 for pharmacological treatment procedures. Due to the lack of evidence that directly addressed our clinical questions, most of the recommendations had to be based on consensus among committee members and other guidelines. Discussion: It is critical to continue to build high-quality evidence in cancer pain management, and revise these guidelines accordingly.

Non-Radiation Based Early Pain Relief Treatment Options for Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Cancer Induced Bone Pain: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) is frequent in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Radiation therapy continues to be the gold standard for treatment of painful bone metastases, however only a limited number of metastases can be irradiated. We evaluated non-radiation based early CIBP relief options in NSCLC through a systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic review including all prospective articles published between 01-1994 and 06-2020 on Pubmed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov database. Inclusion: non-radiation based trials evaluating CIBP early pain relief options (initially defined as pain score evaluated within two weeks, because of no randomized trials, later inclusion broadened to pain score evaluated within six weeks) in ≥10 NSCLC patients. Radioisotope trials were excluded as these treatments have interactions with systemic anticancer therapy.

RESULTS

188 articles were found; 10 articles (6 randomized controlled (4 double blinded), 1 phase II single-arm, and 3 prospective trials) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six of these trials consisted of ≥2 treatment arms, whereas the others were single-arm studies. In total, 554 NSCLC patients were evaluated in these trials. The included trials were very heterogeneous regarding evaluated treatment options, methods of pain measuring, and endpoints. No high-level evidence for specific early pain relief treatment options was found.

DISCUSSION

Non-radiation based studies evaluating treatment options to rapidly reduce CIBP in NSCLC are scarce. This systematic review shows that there is no high-level evidence to recommend a specific treatment for early pain relief. Future research should focus on early pain relief treatment options for CIBP in NSCLC.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pain in cancer patients: a systematic review and reappraisal of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Emerging data highlights the potential role of cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors in the primary prevention of malignancy, reducing metastatic spread and improving overall mortality. Despite nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) forming a key component of the WHO analgesic ladder, their use in cancer pain management remains relatively low. This review re-appraises the current evidence regarding the efficacy of COX inhibitors as analgesics in cancer pain, providing a succinct resource to aid clinicians' decision making when determining treatment strategies.

METHODS

Medline® and Embase® databases were searched for publications up to November 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and double-blind controlled studies considering the use of NSAIDs for management of cancer-related pain in adults were included. Animal studies, case reports, and retrospective observational data were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty studies investigating the use of NSAIDs in cancer pain management were identified. There is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the analgesic efficacy of NSAIDs in cancer pain, with short study durations and heterogeneity in outcome measures limiting the ability to draw meaningful conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the renewed interest in these cost-effective, well-established medications in cancer treatment outcomes, there is a paucity of data from the past 15 yr regarding their efficacy in cancer pain management. However, when analgesic strategies in the cancer population are being formulated, it is important that the potential benefits of this class of drug are considered. Further work investigating the role of NSAIDs in cancer pain management is undoubtedly warranted.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on non-opioid analgesics in palliative medicine

Non-opioid analgesics are widely used for pain relief in palliative medicine. However, there is a lack of evidence-based recommendations addressing the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of non-opioids in this field. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on current evidence can provide a basis for sound recommendations in clinical practice. A database search for controlled trials on the use of non-opioids in adult palliative patients was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception to 18 February 2018. Endpoints were pain intensity, opioid-sparing effects, safety, and quality of life. Studies with similar patients, interventions, and outcomes were included in the meta-analyses. Our systematic search was able to only identify studies dealing with cancer pain. Of 5991 retrieved studies, 43 could be included (n = 2925 patients). There was no convincing evidence for satisfactory pain relief by acetaminophen alone or in combination with strong opioids. We found substantial evidence of moderate quality for a satisfactory pain relief in cancer by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), flupirtine, and dipyrone compared with placebo or other analgesics. There was no evidence for a superiority of one specific non-opioid. There was moderate quality of evidence for a similar pain reduction by NSAIDs in the usual dosage range compared with up to 15 mg of morphine or opioids of equianalgesic potency. The combination of NSAID and step III opioids showed a beneficial effect, without a decreased tolerability. There is scarce evidence concerning the combination of NSAIDs with weak opioids. There are no randomized-controlled studies on the use of non-opioids in a wide range of end-stage diseases except for cancer. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, flupirtine, and dipyrone can be recommended for the treatment of cancer pain either alone or in combination with strong opioids. The use of acetaminophen in the palliative setting cannot be recommended. Studies are not available for long-term use. There is a lack of evidence regarding pain treatment by non-opioids in specific cancer entities.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cancer pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to appraise the most recent evidence for the use of NSAIDS in cancer pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Cochrane review reveals the paucity of high-quality evidence for the use of NSAIDS for cancer pain, highlighting methodological considerations for future research. There is limited evidence for the role of combined NSAIDs (celecoxib and diclofenac) alongside opioids for cancer pain. Recent retrospective data suggests NSAIDS may contribute to better pain control in hospitalized patients. In elderly patients in the last weeks of life, retrospective data shows a reduction in NSAID prescribing, without significant implications for pain relief. A recent systematic review looking at the increased risk of anastomotic leaks versus the survival benefits in cancer patients prescribed NSAIDs post oncological surgery was inconclusive. Considering the prescription of PPIs for gastroprotection, studies in the general population suggest potential risks of long-term use, including renal dysfunction and greater risk of fractures. Although current evidence for the anticancer properties of NSAIDS is based on retrospective cohort studies, there may be a role for aspirin and nonaspirin NSAIDs in reducing the risk of cancer.

SUMMARY

Given the lack of quality evidence, NSAIDS should be prescribed on a case by case basis in discussion with the patient, with regular review of efficacy, whilst balancing the ongoing benefits and risks of continued use, taking into account the patient's likely prognosis.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Analgesic properties of dexketoprofen trometamol

SUMMARY Dexketoprofen trometamol is the dextrorotary enantiomer of the NSAID ketoprofen formulated as a tromethamine salt. The purpose of administering 50% of the racemic mixture is to keep the same analgesic and anti-inflammatory effect while reducing the adverse events due to both enantiomers. This article describes the pharmacological properties and evaluates the analgesic effects of dexketoprofen trometamol reported in acute and chronic pain conditions. The main conclusions are that dexketoprofen trometamol appears as effective as the double dose of the racemic drug. However, the reduction of adverse effects still has to be demonstrated. In addition, the formulation as tromethamine salt appears beneficial regarding fast onset of analgesia in acute pain conditions.

Review article: palliative care in gynecologic oncology

Patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies have a multitude of symptoms; pain, nausea, and vomiting, constipation, anorexia, diarrhea, dyspnea, as well as symptoms resulting from intestinal obstruction, hypercalcemia, ascites, and/or ureteral obstruction. Pain is best addressed through a multimodal approach. The optimum palliative management of end-stage malignant intestinal obstruction remains controversial, with no clear guidelines governing the choice of surgical versus medical management. Patient selection for palliative surgery, therefore, should be highly individualized because only carefully selected candidates may derive real benefit from such surgeries. There remains a real need for more emphasis on palliative care education in training programs.

Effect of intravenous administration of paracetamol on morphine consumption in cancer pain control

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to examine the effectiveness of intravenous administration of paracetamol added to morphine in the control of cancer pain and its possible contribution as reduction of opioid consumption and opioid-related side effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 43 patients with chronic cancer pain without neuropathic origin aged between 18 and 76 years and receiving step 2 treatment according to the World Health Organization analgesic ladder were included. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous administration of saline (control) or 1 g of paracetamol on top of morphine. Visual analog scale (VAS), patient rating index (PRI), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, patient satisfaction, and safety were evaluated.

MAIN RESULTS

Both treatments resulted in improved VAS and PRI scores compared to baseline. However, groups did not differ in terms of VAS and PRI scores, morphine consumption, side-effect frequencies, laboratory values, ECOG status, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Although safe and there are signals for a true analgesic efficacy, our results failed to confirm any benefits of add-on treatment with intravenous administration of paracetamol. However, the study was underpowered, and future studies in this important area need to be wary of background noise and the risk of a type II error.

Systematic review of dexketoprofen in acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.

RESULTS

Thirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain.All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Dexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.

Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and hepatic injury associated with dexketoprofen trometamol therapy in a previously healthy 35-year-old woman

This case report describes a previously healthy 35-year-old woman, with an episode of fever, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and elevation of biochemical markers of liver injury, 10 days after beginning drug therapy with dexketoprofen trometamol. Infectious and autoimmune causes of neutropenia, and viral or autoimmune hepatitis were excluded. The resolution following withdrawal of dexketoprofen trometamol confirms the possibility of an adverse drug reaction.

Comparison of intravenous dexketoprofen and dipyrone in acute renal colic

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a single intravenous (i.v.) bolus of dexketoprofen trometamol compared with an i.v. infusion of dipyrone in patients with moderate to severe pain due to renal colic.

METHODS

A total of 308 patients with renal colic and visual analog scale (VAS) score >/=40 mm participated in a multicenter, randomized, double blind, double-dummy, parallel, and active-controlled study and were randomized to dexketoprofen 25 mg (n = 101), dexketoprofen 50 mg (n = 104), and dipyrone 2 g (n = 103).

RESULTS

Mean [+/- standard deviation (SD)] total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores were similar in the dexketoprofen 50 mg (15.3 +/- 8.6) and dipyrone (15.5 +/- 8.6) and slighly higher than in dexketoprofen 25 mg (13.5 +/- 8.6), although significant differences were not achieved. In the same way, patients in the dexketoprofen 50 mg and dipyrone groups showed higher scores in the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) and the sum of analogue pain intensity differences (SAPID) than patients in the dexketoprofen 25 mg group, reaching statistical significance in comparison with dexketoprofen 25 mg and dipyrone for SPID and SAPID (p < 0.05). The time-effect course for pain intensity differences and pain relief showed significantly higher values for both doses of dexketoprofen during the first 30 min after drug administration (p < 0.05). Dexketoprofen 50 mg and dipyrone groups had 66% and 70%, respectively, of patients with at least 50% of maximum obtainable TOTPAR in comparison with 56% in the dexketoprofen 25 mg group. The study medications were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexketoprofen 50 mg administered as a single i.v. bolus was effective for the relief of moderate to severe pain in patients with renal colic, with a good safety profile and efficacy similar to i.v. dipyrone 2 g. Dexketoprofen produced analgesia that was faster in onset.

A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind Study Comparing the??Efficacy and Tolerability of Intramuscular Dexketoprofen versus Diclofenac in the Symptomatic Treatment of Acute Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is an important medical problem in Western industrialised countries. NSAIDs are one of the main options for symptomatic pain relief in the early management of this painful condition. Dexketoprofen is an NSAID belonging to the arylpropionic acid group that has demonstrated good analgesic efficacy and a good safety profile in different acute and chronic painful conditions.

METHODS

A randomised, double-blind, parallel, active controlled, multicentre study that included 370 outpatients with acute low back pain was conducted to compare the analgesic efficacy of dexketoprofen 50mg twice daily versus diclofenac 75mg twice daily administered intramuscularly for 2 days. Efficacy outcomes were assessment of pain intensity (PI) measured on a visual analogue scale, total PI scores from baseline to 6 hours after the first-dose administration (primary efficacy endpoint; SAPID(0-6)), score on a physical disability scale using the Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and use of rescue medication. Tolerability and safety were also assessed as secondary variables.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean (SAPID(0-6)) scores were very similar, 117.3 mm/h with dexketoprofen and 114.7 mm/h with diclofenac. The adjusted ratio of means was 1.023 and the lower 95% confidence limit was 0.81, demonstrating non-inferiority of dexketoprofen (defined by a lower limit of the 95% CI >0.80) in comparison with diclofenac (per-protocol analysis). The median change in the RDQ was -6 points for both groups (p = 0.69), showing an overall improvement on the disability scale. No significant differences between groups were observed regarding the percentage of patients needing rescue medication or in the mean values of pain after repeated doses (SAPID(0-last)). Dexketoprofen was well tolerated, with a reported incidence of adverse events similar to that of diclofenac. No serious adverse events were reported in either treatment group.

CONCLUSION

From the results of this study it can be concluded that dexketoprofen 50mg administered twice daily intramuscularly provides a clinically relevant analgesic effect with good tolerability after single and repeated doses in patients with acute severe low back pain.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenously Administered Dexketoprofen Trometamol and Ketoprofen in the Management of Pain after Orthopaedic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of dexketoprofen trometamol, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, in comparison with that of racemic ketoprofen (both administered by intravenous infusion), in patients with postoperative pain.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. 252 patients with moderate to severe pain following hip or knee replacement surgery performed under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either dexketoprofen trometamol 50 mg or ketoprofen 100 mg, both administered by intravenous infusion every 8 hours over 2 days. A level of > or =40 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain was required for inclusion in the study. Pain intensity on the VAS at different time-points after the administration of the first dose was assessed and the sum of pain intensity differences (SAPID(0-8 h)) was calculated as the primary efficacy variable. The use of rescue medication, maximum pain intensity difference (PID(max)), time to PID(max) and safety were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean (+/- SE) adjusted SAPID(0-8 h) scores in the per-protocol population were 310.9 +/- 19.2 and 326.3 +/- 19.0 mm x h after dexketoprofen trometamol and ketoprofen treatment, respectively. The 95% CI for the difference between treatments (-59.1 to 28.3) was fully included within the range of equivalence of +/-65.3 mm x h. There were no significant differences with regard to secondary variables. The need for rescue analgesia was high in both groups; 81.3% of patients receiving dexketoprofen trometamol treatment and 87.1% receiving ketoprofen treatment required rescue analgesia. The time to achieve PID(max) was 284.7 and 308.5 min after dexketoprofen and ketoprofen, respectively. Treatment- related adverse events were experienced by 16% of patients in the dexketoprofen trometamol group compared with 21.3% in the ketoprofen group. Most patients were concomitantly treated with low-molecular-weight heparin (94.4%), and no haemorrhagic events related to the surgical procedure were reported. No adverse events related to renal function were detected during the study.

CONCLUSION

The two medications were equivalent in terms of analgesic activity in the management of postoperative pain after orthopaedic surgery. The high use of rescue analgesics indicates a need for a multimodal approach to analgesia in this type of surgery. Dexketoprofen trometamol appeared to show a trend towards a better tolerability profile compared with the racemic compound.