Comparison of ketorolac tromethamine, diclofenac sodium, and moist drops for ocular pain after radial keratotomy

Comparing the Efficacy of Ophthalmic NSAIDs in Common Indications

Objective: To review the commercially available ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), identify opportunities for therapeutic substitutions within and outside of their Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications, and identify clinically superior drugs within the class for specific indications. Data Source: A PubMed search (1992 through January 2014) was performed on the terms diclofenac, ketorolac, flurbiprofen, bromfenac, and nepafenac. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Clinical trials, meta-analyses, and review articles were evaluated if they were written in English and pertained to human subjects. Studies were excluded if they were in vitro studies, solely evaluated pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties, did not relate to the topical ophthalmic route, did not evaluate the FDA-approved indications of any available ophthalmic NSAID, or compared a reviewed drug with a nonreviewed drug (without placebo comparison). Data Synthesis: A total of 67 articles met the criteria for evaluation. Article quality, study design, and dosing of the medications were assessed to determine the clinical applicability of the results. The quality of the article was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence 1. Conclusions: Many formulations of the 5 reviewed NSAIDs have been studied across the 4 primary indications. These indications are (1) pain and inflammation associated with cataract surgery, (2) pain associated with corneal refractive surgery, (3) inhibition of intraoperative miosis, and (4) seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Several studies have directly compared drugs within this class and have identified instances in which certain selections are therapeutically superior or equivalent to another. This information provides practitioners with guidance in selecting an optimal medication.

Analgesic effects of tramadol during panretinal photocoagulation

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of tramadol for the reduction of pain in panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).

Methods

A double-masked randomized controlled study was performed. Fifty-eight eyes in 29 patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy were enrolled. The eyes of the patients were randomized into two groups. Group A received an empty capsule. Group B received an oral intake of 100 mg tramadol. The capsule used in Group A had the same appearance as that used in Group B. Pain during PRP was assessed using a visual analog scale. Vital signs, including blood pressure and heart rate, were measured.

Results

The mean pain scores for groups A and B were 4.80±2.10 and 3.83±1.82 (p=0.09). There were no significant differences in the mean pain scores between the two groups. More patients in group A complained of greater pain than moderate intensity (visual analogue scale=4). Systemic blood pressure increased significantly in group A after laser treatment. However, there were no significant differences in the diastolic blood pressure changes between the two groups. We found no statistical correlation in the heart rate changes.

Conclusions

We failed to prove that tramadol is effective for pain relief because of the small sample size. However, tramadol was effective for the relief of more severe pain. It was also found to stabilize vital sign changes, such as systolic blood pressure during PRP.

Topical Ketorolac 0.5% for Ocular Pain Relief During Scatter Laser Photocoagulation with 532 nm Green Laser

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of topical ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% during scatter laser photocoagulation procedure in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients.

METHODS

60 eyes of 30 consecutive proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients were included to this prospective, randomized, double-masked, controlled study. One (1) h before laser treatment session, ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% was instilled to 1 eye and artificial tear drop to the fellow eye. Just after treatment, the patients were asked for the severity of pain in both eyes. Visual analog scale was used to assess the level of pain.

RESULTS

Mean pain level for placebo-instilled eyes was 4.88+/-2.56 and ketorolac instilled eyes were 4.45+/-2.25. There was no significant difference for pain levels between placebo and ketorolac-instilled eyes (P=0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical ketorolac tromethamine usage is no more effective than artificial tears for pain relief during posterior segment laser procedures in proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients.

Evaluation of 0.4% ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution versus 0.5% ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and patient tolerance of 0.4% ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution and 0.5% ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution after routine phacoemulsification and lens implantation.

SETTING

The setting for this study was the Storm Eye Institute and Magill Research Center for Vision Correction, Medical University of South Carolina (Charleston, SC).

METHODS

This work was a prospective, double-masked study that included 40 eyes of 40 patients randomly assigned to receive topical treatment with 0.4% ketorolac or 0.5% ketorolac, starting 15 min prior to routine phacoemulsification and foldable posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. Following the procedure, patients were instructed to use the assigned treatment agent 4 times a day after surgery for 1 week and twice a day for 3 weeks, when drops were discontinued. Slit-lamp examination, intraocular pressure (IOP), laser cell and flare measurements, and subjective patient tolerance were evaluated postoperatively at 1, 7, and 30 d. Comparisons between the 2 groups were made at each visit, as well as comparisons to baseline. A P=value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

At day 1, a higher percentage of patients (70% vs. 40%) reported symptoms (mainly foreign body sensation and stinging/burning) in the 0.5% ketorolac group, compared to the 0.4% ketorolac group. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups over time regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), IOP, slit-lamp assessment of cells, and cell and flare measured using the laser cell/flare meter.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with 0.4% ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution is as effective as 0.5% ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution in reducing inflammation after routine cataract surgery. Patients reported less discomfort using 0.4% ketorolac.

A randomised, double-blind trial of topical ketorolac vs artificial tears for the treatment of episcleritis

PURPOSE

To determine whether topical ketorolac (Acular) is more effective than artificial tears in treating the signs and symptoms of idiopathic episcleritis.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, double-blind study, 38 eyes of 37 patients presenting with idiopathic episcleritis were allocated to receive either topical ketorolac (0.5%) or artificial tears three times a day for 3 weeks. The severity of patients' signs (episcleral injection and the number of clock hours affected) were recorded at weekly intervals. Patients' symptoms (perceived redness and pain scores) were recorded using a daily diary.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the ophthalmic signs between the two groups at each assessment, including intensity of episcleral injection and the number of clock hours affected. No significant difference was found in the time to halve the baseline redness intensity scores (4.4 vs 6.1 days, P=0.2) or pain scores (3.6 vs 4.3 days, P=0.55). Significantly more patients on ketorolac reported stinging at the first follow-up visit (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Topical ketorolac is not significantly better than artificial tears in treating the signs or symptoms of idiopathic episcleritis.

Systemic lidocaine infusion as an analgesic for intraocular surgery in dogs: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To determine if systemic administration of lidocaine during intraocular surgery reduces post-operative ocular pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, masked, controlled experimental trial.

ANIMALS

Twelve dogs weighing 15.5 +/- 1.7 kg (mean +/- SD) and aged 2.5 +/- 0.6 years.

METHODS

All dogs underwent a baseline ophthalmic examination and subjective pain score. Anesthesia consisted of acepromazine (0.1 mg kg(-1), i.m.), propofol (4-6 mg kg(-1), i.v.), and isoflurane in oxygen. There were three groups each receiving a bolus followed by an infusion (n=4): saline (0.3 mL kg(-1) i.v. + 0.2 mL kg(-1) hour(-1) i.v.); morphine (0.15 mg kg(-1) i.v. + 0.1 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) i.v.); and lidocaine (1.0 mg kg(-1) i.v. + 0.025 mg kg(-1) minute(-1) i.v.). All treatments began 15 minutes prior to starting of phacoemulsification and lens removal from the right eye. Pain scores were recorded at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 16, and 24 hours after t=0 (extubation). Rescue morphine was administered (1.0 mg kg(-1) i.m.) if the subjective pain score > or =9 (maximum=24), and the dog was excluded from further data analysis. Differences in pain scores and time-to-treatment failure (TTF) were analyzed using the Wilcoxon's rank sum test. Differences in incidence of treatment failure were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Physiologic data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significance was defined as P<0.05.

RESULTS

Incidence of treatment failure was 100% in saline-treated dogs and 50% in morphine- or lidocaine-treated dogs. There was no difference in intraocular pressure, aqueous flare, cell count (or protein) between groups in the operated eye at any time following extubation.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This pilot study suggests that intraoperative lidocaine may provide analgesic benefits similar to morphine for intraocular surgery in dogs, but more definitive research is needed. This model appears to be appropriate for pain assessment studies as the negative control group demonstrated 100% failure rate.

Prospective, Randomized Trial of Diclofenac and Ketorolac After Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of diclofenac and ketorolac in relieving corneal pain after refractive surgery, and determine if there is a difference in stinging on instillation.

METHODS

Thirty patients were randomized prospectively to postoperative diclofenac in one eye and ketorolac in the other. Patients and surgeon did not know which medications were used. Ocular postoperative pain and discomfort on instillation of medication were measured after radial keratotomy with a visual analog scale and a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Both medications were highly effective in relieving pain. There was no significant difference in pain relief, or stinging on instillation (P = .29).

CONCLUSION

There was no statistical difference in the effectiveness of the medications on pain relief, or in stinging on instillation.

Corneal flap complications in refractive surgery: Part 2: postoperative treatments of diffuse lamellar keratitis in an experimental animal model

PURPOSE

To induce diffuse lamellar keratitis (DLK) and investigate a prophylactic treatment with pharmacological agents.

SETTING

Magill Research Center for Vision Correction, Storm Eye Institute, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

METHODS

In 100 eyes of 50 Dutch Belted rabbits, a nasal corneal flap was cut and the interface inoculated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa lipopolysaccharide endotoxin (n = 50) or Palmolive Ultra soap (n = 50). The eyes were randomly assigned to treatment with a mast-cell stabilizer, a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID), a fluoroquinolone antibiotic agent, a corticosteroid, or left without treatment as a control. Slitlamp examinations and photographs were performed 1, 3, 5, and 7 days postoperatively, and DLK was graded by a masked observer from 0 (no DLK) to stage 4.

RESULTS

At the end of the study, 80 eyes were available for evaluation. Ninety-four percent of the untreated eyes developed DLK compared to 56% of eyes treated with NSAIDs and 63% of eyes treated with steroids (P<.05, Fisher exact test). The DLK rates with the mast-cell stabilizer and fluoroquinolone antibiotic agent were 86% and 76%, respectively. The DLK incidence in the latter 2 groups was not significantly different from that in the control eyes (P>.05, Fisher exact test).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative prophylactic treatment with NSAIDs and corticosteroids led to a statistically significantly lower incidence of postoperative DLK. The study demonstrated that corticosteroids and NSAIDs can be used to treat DLK after LASIK. While steroids are a generally accepted treatment for DLK, NSAIDS may offer an additional potent modality.

Effect of Topical Diclofenac and Ketorolac on Patient Discomfort and Corneal Sensitivity

PURPOSE

To determine if at clinical dosages, the topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs diclofenac and ketorolac decrease corneal sensitivity, and if there is a difference in discomfort on instillation.

METHODS

In a double-masked study, 30 patients were randomized to receive two of three topical drops, Endosol, diclofenac sodium, and ketorolac tromethamine. A microaesthesiometer was used to evaluate corneal sensation. Baseline corneal sensitivity was obtained on each patient. Corneal sensory thresholds were remeasured at 7 and 15 minutes following eyedrop application. Patients also completed a questionnaire that graded the burning caused by the medications.

RESULTS

No significant decrease in corneal sensory thresholds was found with diclofenac or ketorolac compared with control at baseline (P = .50), 7 minutes (P = .41), or 15 minutes (P = .82). There was significantly more burning with diclofenac and ketorolac compared to control. There was a small but not statistically significant (P = .28) trend of more burning with ketorolac than diclofenac.

CONCLUSION

Neither diclofenac nor ketorolac were found to decrease corneal sensation compared to control. There was no significant difference in burning upon instillation reported by patients.

Pain Reduction After Laser in situ Keratomileusis With Ketorolac Tromethamine Ophthalmic Solution 0.5%: A Randomized, Double-masked, Placebo-controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution 0.5% after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

METHODS

In this two-center, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, 39 patients underwent bilateral simultaneous LASIK. Patients received study drops (Acular PF or Lens Plus) in both eyes 15 to 30 minutes before surgery, again immediately before passing of the microkeratome, and again after flap repositioning. Proparacaine was used during surgery, but no additional therapeutics were used for the next 24 hours, except acetaminophen or propoxyphene napsylate acetaminophen allowed as escape medication. Patients rated their eye pain hourly through 6 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

Ketorolac significantly reduced eye pain at every time point compared to placebo (P<.01). Escape medication use declined significantly; 16% (3/19) of those who received ketorolac required escape medication compared to 50% (8/16) of placebo-treated patients (P=.03). Ketorolac-treated eyes were pain-free significantly sooner (P<.01), with 47% (18/38) having pain cessation by hour 4, compared to 15% (5/33) of placebo-treated eyes. No treatment-related adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the use of topical ketorolac for control of early postoperative pain following LASIK, significantly increasing patient comfort and reducing usage of other pain medications.

Comparison of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% and loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for inflammation after phacoemulsification: prospective randomized double-masked study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of a topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agent (ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution 0.5%) and a topical steroid (loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension 0.5%) in controlling inflammation after cataract surgery.

SETTING

Magill Research Center for Vision Correction, Storm Eye Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

METHODS

Sixty patients were prospectively and randomly assigned to receive topical treatment with ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution 0.5% or loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension 0.5% starting the day after routine phacoemulsification for cataract extraction. Both patient and investigator were masked to treatment. All patients had uneventful small-incision phacoemulsification with placement of a foldable posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL). Patients used 1 of the 2 antiinflammatory agents 4 times a day starting 24 hours after surgery. Signs and symptoms of inflammation as documented by external slitlamp examination, intraocular pressure (IOP), and Kowa cell and flare measurements were evaluated on postoperative days 1, 4, 7, and 30.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in any measurement of postoperative inflammation between the 2 groups. There was no difference in objective or subjective cell and flare measurements or in IOP between groups. No patient in either group was removed from the study for lack of treatment efficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution 0.5% was as effective as loteprednol etabonate ophthalmic suspension 0.5% in reducing inflammation after routine phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. These results suggest that ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% is a safe and effective antiinflammatory alternative to steroids after cataract extraction.