Comparison of morphine and ketorolac for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia in postoperative cancer patients

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for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005.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.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events.The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Ketorolac Use and Postoperative Complications in Gastrointestinal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To study the association between ketorolac use and postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may impair wound healing and increase the risk of anastomotic leak in colon surgery. Studies to date have been limited by sample size, inability to identify confounding, and a focus limited to colon surgery.

METHODS

Ketorolac use, reinterventions, emergency department (ED) visits, and readmissions in adults (≥ 18 years) undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) operations was assessed in a nationwide cohort using the MarketScan Database (2008-2012).

RESULTS

Among 398,752 patients (median age 52, 45% male), 55% underwent colorectal surgery, whereas 45% had noncolorectal GI surgery. Five percent of patients received ketorolac. Adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, surgery type/indication, and preoperative medications, patients receiving ketorolac had higher odds of reintervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.32), ED visit (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.37-1.51), and readmission within 30 days (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.18) compared to those who did not receive ketorolac. Ketorolac use was associated with readmissions related to anastomotic complications (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36). Evaluating only admissions with ≤ 3 days duration to exclude cases where ketorolac might have been used for complication-related pain relief, the odds of complications associated with ketorolac were even greater.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of intravenous ketorolac was associated with greater odds of reintervention, ED visit, and readmission in both colorectal and noncolorectal GI surgery. Given this confirmatory evaluation of other reports of a negative association and the large size of this cohort, clinicians should exercise caution when using ketorolac in patients undergoing GI surgery.

WITHDRAWN: NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain

This review is out of date, although it is correct at the date of publication. The review may be misleading as new studies could alter the original conclusions. All previous versions of the review can be found in the ‘Other versions’ tab. A new author team intends to develop four new reviews on this topic, which will serve to update and supersede this review. The new reviews will cover paracetamol, paracetamol plus opioids, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs plus opioids, for cancer pain. For more information, contact the PaPaS Review Group.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is the second updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (June 2013); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5, May); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2013); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten new studies (638 participants) were identified for this update, bringing the total of included studies to 62, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In this update a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse effects were common and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and anastomotic dehiscence in bowel surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are a key component of contemporary perioperative analgesia. Recent experimental and observational clinical data suggest an associated increased incidence of anastomotic dehiscence in bowel surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of anastomotic dehiscence in randomized, controlled trials of perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

DATA SOURCES

Published and unpublished trials in any language reported 1990 or later were identified by searching electronic databases, bibliographies, and relevant conference proceedings.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials of adults undergoing bowel surgery randomly assigned to perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or control were included. The number of patients with a bowel anastomosis and the incidence of anastomotic dehiscence had to be reported or be available from authors for the study to be included.

INTERVENTION

At least 1 dose of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug was given perioperatively within 48 hours of surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured was 30-day incidence of anastomotic dehiscence as defined by authors.

RESULTS

Six trials comprising 480 patients having a bowel anastomosis met inclusion criteria. In 4 studies, anastomotic dehiscence rates were higher in the intervention groups. Overall rates were 14/272 participants (5.1%) in intervention arms vs 5/208 (2.4%) in control arms. Peto OR was 2.16 (95% CI 0.85, 5.53; p = 0.11), and there was no heterogeneity between studies (I statistic 0%).

LIMITATIONS

Sizes of available trials were small, preventing firm conclusions and subset analysis of drugs of different cyclooxygenase specificity. A precise and consistent definition of anastomotic dehiscence was not used across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

A statistically significant difference in incidence of anastomotic dehiscence was not demonstrated. However, the Peto OR of 2.16 (0.85, 5.53) and lack of heterogeneity between trials suggest that this finding may be due to a lack of power of the available data rather than a lack of effect.

The efficiency of IV PCA with remifentanil and ketorolac after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

This randomized, double-blinded clinical study was designed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of remifentanil with ketorolac for IV PCA after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy.

METHODS

Eighty patients were randomly allocated into four groups. Group R received IV PCA using only remifentanil at a basal rate of 0.025 µg/kg/min and a bolus of 0.375 µg/kg. Group RK1 received IV PCA using remifentanil at a basal rate of 0.015 µg/kg/min and a bolus of 0.225 µg/kg. Group RK2 received IV PCA using remifentanil at a basal rate of 0.0075 µg/kg/min and a bolus of 0.1125 µg/kg. Group F received IV PCA using fentanyl at a basal rate of 0.3 µg/kg/h and a bolus of 0.075 µg/kg. In addition, ketorolac at a basal rate of 0.04 mg/kg/h and a bolus of 0.01 mg/kg was added to Group RK1, RK2, and F. All PCA conditions had a lock out period of 15 minutes. Pulse rate, systolic and diastolic BP, sedation score, visual analogue scale (VAS), and PONV score were recorded at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after the operation. Total opioid use and the patients' number for rescue analgesic drug were also collected.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ in PONV score and hemodynamic changes. The VAS in Group RK2 was high compared with the other groups. In addition, the sedation score was high in Group R.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional ketorolac administration in remifentanil IV PCA had remifentanil sparing effects and reduced sedation among the side effects. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the precise and adequate dosage of ketorolac.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (December 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006); and EMBASE (1974 to December 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data, which was checked by the other review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, nine new studies with 688 participants were added. Fifty-four studies (3749 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies compared oral modified release morphine (Mm/r) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Twelve studies compared Mm/r in different strengths, five of these included 24-hour modified release products. Thirteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Two studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration were undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in crossover design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. Studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence for effectiveness of oral morphine which compares well to other available opioids. There is limited evidence to suggest that transmucosal fentanyl provides more rapid pain relief for breakthrough pain compared to morphine.

Optimizing recovery after laparoscopic colon surgery (ORAL-CS)

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to determine if intravenous ketorolac can reduce ileus following laparoscopic colorectal surgery, thus shortening hospital stay.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection and receiving morphine patient controlled analgesia (PCA) and either intravenous ketorolac (group A) or placebo (group B), for 48 h after surgery. Daily assessments were made by a blinded assistant for level of pain control. Diet advancement and discharge were decided according to strictly defined criteria.

RESULTS

From October 2002 to March 2005, 190 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Of this total, 84 patients were eligible for this study and 70 consented. Another 26 patients were excluded, leaving 22 patients in each group. Two patients who suffered anastomotic leaks in the early postoperative period were excluded from further analysis. Median length of stay for the entire study was 4.0 days, with significant correlation between milligrams of morphine consumed and time to first flatus (r = 0.422, p = 0.005), full diet (r = 0.522, p < 0.001), and discharge (r = 0.437, p = 0.004). There we no differences between groups in age, body mass index, or operating time. Patients in group A consumed less morphine (33 +/- 31 mg versus 63 +/- 41 mg, p = 0.011), and had less time to first flatus (median 2.0 days versus 3.0 days, p < 0.001) and full diet (median 2.5 days versus 3.0 days, p = 0.033). The reduction in length of stay was not significant (mean 3.6 days versus 4.5 days, median 4.0 days versus 4.0 days, p = 0.142). Pain control was superior in group A. Three patients required readmission for treatment of five anastomotic leaks (4 in group A versus 1 in group B, p = 0.15). Two of them underwent reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous ketorolac was efficacious in improving pain control and reducing postoperative ileus when anastomotic leaks were excluded. This simple intervention shows promise in reducing hospital stay, although the outcome was not statistically significant. The high number of leaks is inconsistent with this group's experience and is of concern.

Enhancement of fentanyl antinociception by subeffective doses of nitroparacetamol (NCX-701) in acute nociception and in carrageenan-induced monoarthritis

We have reported that subanalgesic doses of new generation non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) enhance the antinociceptive activity of the mu-opiate fentanyl, and the duration of its effect, in acute nociception. Since this therapy is intended for situations of hyperalgesia, we have compared the antinociceptive activity of fentanyl in the absence and in the presence of subeffective doses of NCX-701 (nitroparacetamol) in normal animals and in animals with carrageenan-induced monoarthritis. Subanalgesic dose of NCX-701 did not modify any of the nociceptive responses on its own but reduced the ID50 of fentanyl more than two-fold in both the normal and sensitized states. When administered alone, full recovery from fentanyl was always observed within 15 to 20 minutes, however, full recovery was not observed in the presence of NCX-701. Naloxone was unable to reverse the effect, suggesting a possible reduction of other opiate-mediated secondary effects. We therefore studied the possibility that combining administration of fentanyl and nitroparacetamol (NCX-701) would reduce the development of acute tolerance to fentanyl in behavioral experiments. Acute tolerance to fentanyl in behavioral nociceptive reflexes was developed within 72 h after the constant infusion of the drug, whereas in animals treated with small doses of NCX-701 tolerance was not observed. In summary, our results, both in normal animals and in animals with hyperalgesia, show that fentanyl antinociception can be strongly potentiated with subanalgesic doses of the NSAID NCX-701 and that the development of acute tolerance to fentanyl in normal animals is prevented by this combination of drugs.

NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

NSAIDs are widely applied to treat cancer pain and are frequently combined with opioids in combination preparations for this purpose. However, it is unclear which agent is most clinically efficacious for relieving cancer-related pain, or even what may be the additional benefit of combining an NSAID with an opioid in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of NSAIDs, alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2001), LILACS (January 1984 to December 2001) and reference list of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared NSAID versus placebo; NSAID versus NSAID; NSAID versus NSAID plus opioid; opioid versus opioid plus NSAID; or NSAID versus opioid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse event information was collected from trials. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, the opinion of an additional reviewer was sought to resolve the issue.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials involving 3084 patients were included. Clinical heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses and only supported a qualitative systematic review. Seven of eight papers that compared NSAID with placebo demonstrated superior efficacy of NSAID with no difference in side effects. Thirteen papers compared one NSAID with another; four reported increased efficacy of one NSAID over another. Four different studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Twenty-three studies compared NSAIDs and opioids in combination or alone with NSAID/opioid combinations. Thirteen out of 14 studies found no difference, or low clinical difference, when combining an NSAID plus an opioid versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID/opioid combinations were inconclusive. Nine studies assessed the association between dose and efficacy and safety. Four papers demonstrated increased efficacy with increased dose, but no dose-dependent increase in side effects within the dose ranges studied. Study duration ranged from single dose studies performed over six hours to crossover studies lasting six weeks; however the majority of studies were of less than seven days duration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID over another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no difference (4 out of 14 papers), a statistically insignificant trend towards superiority (1 out of 14 papers), or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage (9 out of 14 papers), compared with either single entity. The short duration of studies undermines generalization of their findings on efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for cancer pain.

Subanalgesic doses of dexketoprofen and HCT-2037 (nitrodexketoprofen) enhance fentanyl antinociception in monoarthritic rats

Subanalgesic doses of the non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) dexketoprofen trometamol and nitroparacetamol (NCX-701) enhance mu-opiate fentanyl effect in acute nociception. It is not known if a similar combination of drugs is effective in situations of spinal cord sensitization. The aim of this study was to assess if the enhancement of fentanyl antinociception can be observed in carrageenan-induced monoarthritis, when combined with dexketoprofen (DKT) or nitrodexketoprofen (HCT-2037). Withdrawal reflexes were recorded as single motor units in male Wistar rats anesthetized with alpha-chloralose. Fentanyl was studied alone and in the presence of 0.4, 0.8 micromol/kg of DKT or 0.3 micromol/kg of HCT-2037. In responses to noxious mechanical stimulation, the ID50 of fentanyl was enhanced twofold by 0.8 micromol/kg DKT and more than fourfold by HCT-2037 and no significant recovery was observed 45 min later. DKT 0.4 micromol/kg was, however, very little effective. The opioid antagonist naloxone did not reverse the effect. Enhancement of fentanyl effect on wind-up was only observed with HCT-2037 but not with DKT. We conclude that the combined administration of subanalgesic doses of dexketoprofen derivatives, specially its nitroderivative, and the mu-opiate fentanyl is an effective antinociceptive therapy in situations of articular inflammation involving a naloxone-independent mechanism of action.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, Alone or Combined With Opioids, for Cancer Pain

Purpose

To assess the safety and efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain.

Patients and Methods

Forty-two trials involving 3,084 patients met inclusion criteria: eight compared NSAID with placebo; 13 compared one NSAID with another; 23 compared NSAID with opioid, NSAID or opioid versus NSAID plus opioid combinations, or NSAID plus opioid combinations versus NSAID plus opioid combinations; and nine studies assessed the effect of increasing NSAID dose.

Results

Sixteen studies lasted 1 week or longer and 11 evaluated a single dose. Seven of eight trials demonstrated superior efficacy of single doses of NSAID compared with placebo. Only four of 13 studies reported increased efficacy of one NSAID compared with another; four other studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Thirteen of 14 studies found no difference, or minimal clinical difference, when comparing an NSAID plus opioid combination versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID plus opioid combinations were inconclusive. Four studies demonstrated increased efficacy with increased NSAID dose, without dose-dependent increases in side effects.

Conclusion

Heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses. Short duration of studies undermines generalization of findings on efficacy and safety. On the basis of limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID compared with another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no significant difference, or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage, compared with either single entity.

Antinociception and the new COX inhibitors: research approaches and clinical perspectives

New generations of cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors are more potent and efficacious than their traditional parent compounds. They are also safer than the classic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and are starting to be used not only for low to moderate intensity pain, but also for high intensity pain. Three different strategies have been followed to improve the pharmacological profile of COX inhibitors: 1. Development of COX-2 selective inhibitors. This is based on the initial hypothesis that considered COX-2 as the enzyme responsible for the generation of prostaglandins only in inflammation, and, therefore, uniquely responsible for inflammation, pain and fever. Initial expectations gave rise to controversial results, still under discussion. The second generation of these compounds is being developed and should contribute to clarifying both their efficacy and the specific functions of the COX enzymes. 2. Modified non-selective COX inhibitors. Molecules like nitro-NSAIDs or tromethamine salt derivatives have been synthesized considering that both COX-1 and COX-2 are responsible for the synthesis of prostaglandins involved either in homeostatic functions or inflammation. Nitroaspirin, nitroparacetamol or dexketoprofen trometamol are some examples of molecules that are already showing an important clinical efficacy. The modifications performed in their structures seem to lower the unwanted side effects as well as to enhance their analgesic efficacy. 3. Combined therapy of classic NSAIDs with other drugs. This strategy looks for improvements in the incidence of adverse effects or to take advantage of the synergistic enhancement of their therapeutic effects. Some of the molecules resulting from these strategies are very valuable as therapeutic agents and open a wide range of possibilities in the treatment of high intensity pain, including neuropathic pain, and opiate sparing therapy.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Morphine has been used to relieve pain for many years. Oral morphine in either immediate release or sustained release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain. To assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2002; the trials register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care group (February 2002); MEDLINE 1966 to December 2002; EMBASE 1988 to December 2002; and the Oxford Pain Relief database 1950 to 1994.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published randomised controlled trials (full reports) reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Any comparator trials were considered. Trials with fewer than 10 subjects were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data, and the findings were checked by two other reviewers. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken, or to produce numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for the analgesic effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty five studies (3061 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies compared oral sustained release morphine (MSR) preparations with immediate release morphine (MIR). Eight studies compared MSR and MSR in different strengths. Nine studies compared MSR with other opioids. Five studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral MSR with rectal MSR. One study was found comparing each of the following: MSR tablet with MSR suspension; MSR with MSR at different dose frequencies; MSR with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; oral morphine with epidural morphine; and MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Morphine was shown to be an effective analgesic. Pain relief did not differ between MSR and MIR. Sustained release versions of morphine were effective for 12 or 24 hour dosing depending on the formulation. Adverse effects were common but only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants, and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing subjects over in crossover design studies. It is not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs.

Postoperative pain management: morphine versus ketorolac

Without proper management, postoperative pain can grow to intolerable levels and interfere with functioning and healing. Historically, morphine had no equal for postoperative pain management. Its side effects, however, are troubling. Recently, researchers have developed many analgesics that do not induce the same side effects as morphine. Ketorolac is one example. Nevertheless, a single drug with an efficacy comparable with morphine remains elusive. In this article, the physiology of pain is reviewed and ketorolac is compared with morphine. Perianesthesia nurses are given pertinent information to enhance their ability to provide the best pain relief available for the patients in their care.

Ketorolac in the Era of Cyclo-Oxygenase-2 Selective Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: A Systematic Review of Efficacy, Side Effects, and Regulatory Issues

OBJECTIVE

The recent introduction of oral COX-2 selective NSAIDs with potential for perioperative use, and the ongoing development of intravenous formulations, stimulated a systemic review of efficacy, side effects, and regulatory issues related to ketorolac for management of postoperative analgesia.

DESIGN

To examine the opioid dose sparing effect of ketorolac, we compiled published, randomized controlled trials of ketorolac versus placebo, with opioids given for breakthrough pain, published in English-language journals from 1986-2001. Odds ratios were computed to assess whether the use of ketorolac reduced the incidence of opioid side effects or improved the quality of analgesia.

RESULTS

Depending on the type of surgery, ketorolac reduced opioid dose by a mean of 36% (range 0% to 73%). Seventy percent of patients in control groups experienced moderate-severe pain 1 hour postoperatively, while 36% of the control patients had moderate to severe pain 24 hours postoperatively. Analgesia was improved in patients receiving ketorolac in combination with opioids. However, we did not find a concomitant reduction in opioid side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting). This may be due to studies having inadequate (to small) sample sizes to detect differences in the incidence of opioid related side effects. The risk for adverse events with ketorolac increases with high doses, with prolonged therapy (>5 days), or invulnerable patients (e.g. the elderly). The incidence of serious adverse events has declined since dosage guidelines were revised.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac should be administered at the lowest dose necessary. Analgesics that provide effective analgesia with minimal adverse effects are needed.

Cost effectiveness analysis of intravenous ketorolac and morphine for treating pain after limb injury: double blind randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the cost effectiveness of intravenous ketorolac compared with intravenous morphine in relieving pain after blunt limb injury in an accident and emergency department.

DESIGN

Double blind, randomised, controlled study and cost consequences analysis.

SETTING

Emergency department of a university hospital in the New Territories of Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

148 adult patients with painful isolated limb injuries (limb injuries without other injuries).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was a cost consequences analysis comparing the use of ketorolac with morphine; secondary outcome measures were pain relief at rest and with limb movement, adverse events, patients' satisfaction, and time spent in the emergency department.

RESULTS

No difference was found in the median time taken to achieve pain relief at rest between the group receiving ketorolac and the group receiving morphine, but with movement the median reduction in pain score in the ketorolac group was 1.09 per hour (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.02) compared with 0.87 (0.84 to 1.06) in the morphine group (P=0.003). The odds of experiencing adverse events was 144.2 (41.5 to 501.6) times more likely with morphine than with ketorolac. The median time from the initial delivery of analgesia to the participant leaving the department was 20 (4.0 to 39.0) minutes shorter in the ketorolac group than in the morphine group (P=0.02). The mean cost per person was $HK44 ( pound4; $5.6) in the ketorolac group and $HK229 in the morphine group (P<0.0001). The median score for patients' satisfaction was 6.0 for ketorolac and 5.0 for morphine (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous ketorolac is a more cost effective analgesic than intravenous morphine in the management of isolated limb injury in an emergency department in Hong Kong, and its use may be considered as the dominant strategy.

The opioid-sparing effects of intravenous ketorolac as an adjuvant analgesic in cancer pain: application in bone metastases and the opioid bowel syndrome

Side effects of morphine are common when given in titrated doses to control severe pain in advanced cancer. We report a case series of acutely ill cancer patients suffering from pain, complications of advanced disease, and opioid side effects. They were treated with intravenous (i.v.) ketorolac along with i.v. morphine using repeated dosing. Excellent pain relief with improvement in the opioid bowel syndrome was achieved. We found it possible to switch from IV ketorolac to oral ketorolac along with oral morphine for long-term pain control. Ketorolac can be well tolerated in high-dose, long-term use even in this frail patient population. An algorithm is presented for the suggested use of ketorolac as a morphine sparing agent. Potential methods for studying ketorolac further in this role are discussed.

The effect of intravenous ketorolac given intraoperatively versus postoperatively on outcome from gynecologic abdominal surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of timing of an intravenous (i.v.) dose (intraoperative vs. postoperative) of ketorolac tromethamine on pain scores and overall outcome after total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and myomectomy.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

PATIENTS

248 ASA physical status I and II adult female patients scheduled for elective hysterectomy or myomectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

General anesthesia was administered that consisted of thiopental sodium for induction, enflurane or isoflurane in nitrous oxide-oxygen for maintenance, and small doses of fentanyl and midazolam. Patients were randomized into three groups to receive toradol/placebo on a dosing schedule of dose 1 given one-half hour prior to expected end of surgery, dose 2 given on awakening in the postanesthesia care unit, and doses 3, 4, and 5 given at 6, 12, and 18 hours, respectively, after dose 2; Group 1 patients received placebo (saline) for dose 1, ketorolac 60 mg i.v. for dose 2, and ketorolac 30 mg i.v. for doses 3, 4, and 5. Group 2 patients received ketorolac 60 mg i.v. for dose 1, placebo for dose 2, and ketorolac 30 mg i.v. for doses 3, 4, and 5. Group 3 patients received placebo for all doses. All patients were given i.v. morphine PCA postoperatively, and morphine usages, visual analog pain intensity (VAS) scores, as well as adverse events and median times to recovery milestones were recorded.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

VAS scores (mean) before dose 2 were significantly lower in Group 2 than Group 1, as were at-rest evaluations at 15 minutes and one hour. Group 2 patients also had decreased morphine requirements as compared to placebo. Both ketorolac groups (Groups 1 and 2) had significantly higher values for patient and observer overall ratings, case of nursing care, and tolerability as compared to placebo (Group 3). There were no significant differences among groups in adverse events or median times to recovery milestones.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is possible to demonstrate an improvement in early postoperative pain scores with intraoperative ketorolac and better overall ratings of ketorolac both intraoperatively and postoperatively as compared with placebo, the lack of clinically significant differences in analgesic efficacy in the two active study groups indicates the need for a careful consideration by the clinician of the risks versus benefits involved in the administration of antiplatelet medication in the perioperative period.

Ketorolac. A reappraisal of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use in pain management

Ketorolac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with strong analgesic activity. The analgesic efficacy of ketorolac has been extensively evaluated in the postoperative setting, in both hospital inpatients and outpatients, and in patients with various other acute pain states. After major abdominal, orthopaedic or gynaecological surgery or ambulatory laparoscopic or gynaecological procedures, ketorolac provides relief from mild to severe pain in the majority of patients and has similar analgesic efficacy to that of standard dosages of morphine and pethidine (meperidine) as well as less frequently used opioids and other NSAIDs. The analgesic effect of ketorolac may be slightly delayed but often persists for longer than that of opioids. Combined therapy with ketorolac and an opioid results in a 25 to 50% reduction in opioid requirements, and in some patients this is accompanied by a concomitant decrease in opioid-induced adverse events, more rapid return to normal gastrointestinal function and shorter stay in hospital. In children undergoing myringotomy, hernia repair, tonsillectomy, or other surgery associated with mild to moderate pain, ketorolac provides comparable analgesia to morphine, pethidine or paracetamol (acetaminophen). In the emergency department, ketorolac attenuates moderate to severe pain in patients with renal colic, migraine headache, musculoskeletal pain or sickle cell crisis and is usually as effective as frequently used opioids, such as morphine and pethidine, and other NSAIDs and analgesics. Subcutaneous administration of ketorolac reduces pain in patients with cancer and seems particularly beneficial in pain resulting from bone metastases. The acquisition cost of ketorolac is greater than that of morphine or pethidine; however, in a small number of studies, the higher cost of ketorolac was offset when treatment with ketorolac resulted in a reduced hospital stay compared with alternative opioid therapy. The tolerability profile of ketorolac parallels that of other NSAIDs; most clinically important adverse events affect the gastrointestinal tract and/or renal or haematological function. The incidence of serious or fatal adverse events reported with ketorolac has decreased since revision of dosage guidelines. Results from a large retrospective postmarketing surveillance study in more than 20,000 patients demonstrated that the overall risk of gastrointestinal or operative site bleeding related to parenteral ketorolac therapy was only slightly higher than with opioids. However, the risk increased markedly when high dosages were used for more than 5 days, especially in the elderly. Acute renal failure may occur after treatment with ketorolac but is usually reversible on drug discontinuation. In common with other NSAIDs, ketorolac has also been implicated in allergic or hypersensitivity reactions. In summary, ketorolac is a strong analgesic with a tolerability profile which resembles that of other NSAIDs. When used in accordance with current dosage guidelines, this drug provides a useful alternative, or adjuvant, to opioids in patients with moderate to severe pain.