Use of Tramadol Drip in Controlling Renal Colic Pain

Expert review and recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain in Qatar

BACKGROUND

Pain management is an evolving area of expertise in Qatar. Gaps in knowledge, inadequate training for physicians and nurses, and the absence of policies/guidelines are the main barriers to effective pain management in Qatar. In addition, the use of certain pain medication, especially opioids, is highly regulated, limiting their availability in outpatient pain management. These factors are responsible for the undertreatment of pain in Qatar. This study aimed to standardize evidence-based local recommendations for pharmacological treatment of pain in Qatar.

METHODS

An expert panel of physicians from different disciplines, with experience in diagnosis and treatment of the three pain types (i.e., acute, chronic, and neuropathic), was convened for two face-to-face meetings in Doha, Qatar, on November 29, 2019, and on February 22, 2020, with subsequent virtual meetings. A literature search was performed on Medline and Google Scholar databases from inception till December 2019, and all relevant articles were selected. Based on these articles and repeated feedback from the authors, the final pain treatment protocols were developed.

RESULTS

Recommendations for the treatment of acute pain, based on pain severity, followed three approaches: acetaminophen/paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and moderate pain and referral to a pain specialist for severe pain. Acetaminophen/paracetamol or NSAIDs is recommended for chronic pain, and the use of opioids was strongly discouraged because of its long-term side effects. For neuropathic pain, tricyclic antidepressants or gabapentin or pregabalin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors were recommended first-line agents. Non-responders must be referred to neurologists or a pain specialist.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel provides recommendations for the management of acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain based on international guidelines adapted to local practice and treatment availability in Qatar. More importantly, the panel has recommended taking extreme caution in the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic pain and to refer the patient to a pain specialist clinician as required.

The BUSCOPAN study: a randomized-controlled non-inferiority trial of a continuous butylscopolamine infusion versus placebo in patients with a renal colic not responding to oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

PURPOSE

To investigate whether placebo is non-inferior to continuous infusion of butylscopolamine in patients with renal colic.

METHODS

We conducted a placebo-controlled, multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT) including 128 patients with renal colic (confirmed by ultrasound or CT-scan). Patients were randomized to receive either continuous IV butylscopolamine 100 mg/24 h or placebo (saline). Primary outcome is the amount of opioid escape medication used, measured in doses administered. Secondary outcomes are pain measured on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), side effects, and time of drug administration. Non-inferiority was assessed using linear regression with robust standard errors, with non-inferiority limit set at 0.5 units of escape medication.

RESULTS

Median number of doses of escape medication was one in both groups. The number of extra doses in the placebo group compared with the butylscopolamine group was 0.05, with a 95% robust confidence interval (CI) of 0.38-0.47. Upper limit of the CI remained below the non-inferiority limit of 0.5 (p = 0.04). No differences in secondary endpoints were seen between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Placebo is non-inferior to continuous IV butylscopolamine for pain relief in patients with renal colic. Based on this study and previous evidence, there is no role for continuous butylscopolamine IV in the treatment of renal colic. Trial NL7819.

Pain Management in the Emergency Department: a Review Article on Options and Methods

CONTEXT

The aim of this review is to recognizing different methods of analgesia for emergency medicine physicians (EMPs) allows them to have various pain relief methods to reduce pain and to be able to use it according to the patient's condition and to improve the quality of their services.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

In this review article, the search engines and scientific databases of Google Scholar, Science Direct, PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane for emergency pain management methods were reviewed. Among the findings, high quality articles were eventually selected from 2000 to 2018, and after reviewing them, we have conducted a comprehensive comparison of the usual methods of pain control in the emergency department (ED).

RESULTS

For better understanding, the results are reported in to separate subheadings including "Parenteral agents" and "Regional blocks". Non-opioids analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are commonly used in the treatment of acute pain. However, the relief of acute moderate to severe pain usually requires opioid agents. Considering the side effects of systemic drugs and the restrictions on the use of analgesics, especially opioids, regional blocks of pain as part of a multimodal analgesic strategy can be helpful.

CONCLUSION

This study was designed to investigate and identify the disadvantages and advantages of using each drug to be able to make the right choices in different clinical situations for patients while paying attention to the limitations of the use of these analgesic drugs.

The Effect of Lavender Oil in Patients with Renal Colic: A Prospective Controlled Study Using Objective and Subjective Outcome Measurements

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usability of lavender oil as an adjuvant in the medical treatment of pain due to renal stones.

METHODS

One hundred patients age 19-64 years diagnosed with renal colic were included in the study. Group 1 (n=50) received standard medical therapy (diclofenac sodium, 75 mg intramuscularly); group 2 (n=50) received aromatherapy (lavender oil) in addition to the standard medical treatment. In both groups, the severity of the pain was graded between 0 (no pain) and 10 (severe pain) by using the visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The VAS values at the beginning and at 10 and 30 minutes in group 1 were 7.70±1.61, 5.02±2.20, and 2.89±1.96, respectively; in group 2, the values were 7.83±2.02, 4.42±2.46, and 2.20±1.74, respectively. The VAS values for the male patients in group 1 at the beginning and at 10 and 30 minutes were 7.61±1.47, 4.80±2.00, and 2.67±1.74; in the female patients, the values were 7.81±1.80, 5.40±2.41, and 3.72±1.94. For the male patients in group 2, the VAS values at the beginning and at 10 and 30 minutes were 8.25±2.01, 4.93±2.72, and 2.96±1.90, respectively; for the female patients, the values were 7.52±1.94, 4.15±1.95, and 1.21±0.91, respectively. Results are presented as mean±SD. Although there was no significant difference between the VAS values at the beginning and at 10 minutes in both groups, the VAS values at 30 minutes in the group receiving aromatherapy plus conventional treatment were statistically significantly low.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the use of aromatherapy, which is a nonpharmacologic treatment method, as an adjuvant to conventional treatment methods will help decrease pain, particularly in female patients.

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.

Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Since pain is a primary impetus for patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), its treatment should be a priority for acute care providers. Historically, the ED has been marked by shortcomings in both the evaluation and amelioration of pain. Over the past decade, improvements in the science of pain assessment and management have combined to facilitate care improvements in the ED. The purpose of this review is to address selected topics within the realm of ED pain management. Commencing with general principles and definitions, the review continues with an assessment of areas of controversy and advancing knowledge in acute pain care. Some barriers to optimal pain care are discussed, and potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers are offered. While the review is not intended as a resource for specific pain conditions or drug information, selected agents and approaches are mentioned with respect to evolving evidence and areas for future research.

Investigating the effect of aromatherapy in patients with renal colic

AIM

The aim of the present study was to investigate the usefulness of rose essential oil as a supplementary and adjunctive therapy for the relief of renal colic, specifically because rose essential oil is soothing and can act as a muscle relaxant.

MATERIALS

Eighty patients who were diagnosed with renal colic in the emergency room were included in the study, with ages ranging from 19 to 64 years. Half of the patients (n=40) were treated with conventional therapy (diclofenac sodium, 75 mg intramuscularly) plus placebo (physiological serum, 0.9% NaCl), while the other half (n=40) were given aromatherapy (rose essential oil) in addition to conventional therapy. In each patient, the severity of pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (0 [no pain] to 10 [very severe pain]).

FINDINGS

The VAS values prior to the start of therapy, and 10 and 30 minutes after therapy were 8.18 ± 1.36, 5.60 ± 2.02, and 3.75 ± 2.08 for the conventional therapy plus placebo group, while for the conventional therapy plus aromatherapy group, the VAS values were 8.63 ± 1.03, 4.25 ± 1.72, and 1.08 ± 1.07, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the starting VAS values of the two groups, but the VAS values 10 or 30 minutes after the initiation of therapy were statistically lower in the group that received conventional therapy plus aromatherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that rose essential oil therapy in addition to conventional therapy effectively reduces renal colic pain.

Advances in perioperative pain management: use of medications with dual analgesic mechanisms, tramadol & tapentadol

Recovery from ambulatory surgical procedures can be limited by postoperative pain. Inadequate analgesia may delay or prevent patient discharge and can result in readmission. More frequently, postoperative pain produces discomfort and interrupts sleep, contributing to postoperative fatigue. The development of effective analgesic regimens for the management of postoperative pain is a priority especially in patients with impaired cardiorespiratory, hepatic, or renal function. Tramadol and tapentadol hydrochloride are novel in that their analgesic actions occur at multiple sites. Both agents are reported to be mu-opioid receptor agonists and monoamine-reuptake inhibitors. In contrast to pure opioid agonists, both drugs are believed to have lower risks of respiratory depression, tolerance, and dependence. The Food and Drug Administration has approved both drugs for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain in adults. This article provides an evidence-based account of the role of tramadol and tapentadol in modern clinical practice.

Hyoscine butylbromide - a review on its parenteral use in acute abdominal spasm and as an aid in abdominal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures

BACKGROUND

Being a quaternary ammonium compound derived from scopolamine, the alkaloid hyoscine butylbromide (HBB) exerts anticholinergic effects without side effects related to the central nervous system because it does not pass the blood-brain barrier. Clinical experience with this antispasmodic dates back to the 1950s and led to its registration for treating abdominal cramps/spasm and for diagnostic imaging purposes. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE: This review focuses on the therapeutic efficacy and safety of the parenteral administration of HBB for treating biliary and renal colic and acute spasm in the genito-urinary tract. In addition, its value for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in the abdomen, as well as for labour and palliative care, is reviewed. With the generic and trade name of the drug combined with various search terms related to the relevant clinical applications, a thorough literature search was performed in the Medline and EMBASE databases in April 2008.

FINDINGS

In most clinical studies, recommended doses of 20-40 mg HBB were injected, mainly intravenously. Fast pain reduction was achieved by HBB in renal colic; about 90% of the patients showed good to moderate analgesic responses after 30 min and the onset of action was noticeable within 10 min. Similarly, a pain reduction of 42-78% was observed in patients with biliary colic within 30 min after a single intravenous injection of 20 mg. In contrast, no analgesic efficacy of a single injection of 20 mg was found after surgical or shock-wave procedures in the urogenital area. Administration of HBB prior to, or during, radiological imaging distended the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in double-contrast barium and computed tomographic colonography studies and reduced motion artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging. This improved diagnostic image quality and organ visualisation. Pre-medication led to shorter and easier endoscopy in some, but not all, studies. Because of cervical relaxation, HBB shortened total labour duration with 17-67%. It also relieved pain and reduced GI secretions in terminal cancer patients with inoperable bowel obstruction. With regard to its safety profile, parenteral administration of HBB is associated with mild and self-limiting adverse events, typical for anticholinergic drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical results of rapid action and beneficial efficacy combined with good tolerability support the use of HBB in a range of indications related to acute abdominal spasm, in labour and palliative care and for supporting diagnostic and therapeutic abdominal procedures, where spasm may be a problem.