Celecoxib Decreases the Need for Rescue Analgesics after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of celecoxib after total knee arthroplasty. Keywords in the PubMed and Scopus databases were used to find article abstracts. Each included clinical trial was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, and we extracted data on postoperative pain assessment using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at rest, ambulation, and active range of motion, rescue analgesic intake, and adverse effects. Inverse variance tests with mean differences were used to analyze the numerical variables. The Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and the odds ratio were used to evaluate the dichotomous data. According to this qualitative assessment (n = 482), two studies presented conclusions in favor of celecoxib (n = 187), one showed similar results between celecoxib and the placebo (n = 44), and three clinical trials did not draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of celecoxib versus the placebo (n = 251). Moreover, the evaluation of the rescue analgesic intake showed that the patients receiving celecoxib had a lower intake compared to patients receiving a placebo (n = 278, I2 = 82%, p = 0.006, mean difference = -6.89, 95% IC = -11.76 to -2.02). In conclusion, the pooled analysis shows that administration of celecoxib alone results in a decrease in rescue analgesic consumption compared to a placebo after total knee surgery.

Effects of epidurally administered dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone on postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, inflammation, and oxidative stress in thoracic surgery

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to preoperative epidural administration of local anesthetic (ropivacaine) in thoracic surgery on the postoperative level of pain, use of analgesics, inflammation, and oxidative stress. The study enrolled 42 patients who underwent elective thoracic surgery in a one-year period at the University Hospital Dubrava (Zagreb, Croatia). Based on a computer-generated randomization list the patients were assigned to the dexmedetomidine (n = 18) or dexamethasone (n = 24) group. Postoperatively, patients of dexmedetomidine group reported lower pain (VAS value 1 h post surgery, 3.4 ± 2.7 vs. 5.4 ± 1.8, dexmedetomidine vs. dexamethasone, p < 0.01) and had lower anal-gesic requirements in comparison with dexamethasone group. Thus, dexmedetomidine in comparison with dexamethasone was more efficient in lowering pain and analgesia requirements 24 h after the surgery. On the contrary, dexamethasone had better anti-inflammatory properties (CRP level 24 h post surgery, 131.9 ± 90.7 vs. 26.0 ± 55.2 mg L-1, dexmedetomidine vs. dexamethasone, p < 0.01). Both dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone exhibited antioxidant effects, however, their antioxidant properties should be further explored. The results of this study improve current knowledge of pain control in thoracic surgery.

Efficacy of Intraperitoneal 0.2% Ropivacaine With Dexmedetomidine Versus 0.2% Ropivacaine With Ketamine in Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Effective pain management modalities are the armamentarium for enhanced recovery in laparoscopic surgeries. Intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetics with adjuvants is advantageous in minimizing pain. So, we designed this study with the aim to compare the analgesic effectiveness of intraperitoneal ropivacaine with adjuvants like dexmedetomidine versus ketamine for postoperative analgesia.

OBJECTIVE

 The objective of this study is to assess the total duration of analgesia and total rescue analgesic dose requirements in the first 24 hours postoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 105 consenting patients for elective laparoscopic surgeries were enrolled and divided into three groups by computer-generated randomization as follows: Group 1: 30 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with ketamine 0.5 mg/kg diluted to 1 ml; Group 2: 30 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with dexmedetomidine 0.5 mcg/kg diluted to 1 ml; Group 3: 30 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine with 1 ml of normal saline. The postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, total duration of analgesia, and total analgesic dose were calculated and compared among the three groups.

RESULTS

The postoperative analgesic duration after intraperitoneal instillation of Group 2 was longer as compared to Group 1. The total analgesic requirement was lower in Group 2 as compared to Group 1, and the p-value was significant (p ≤ 0.001) for both parameters. Demographic parameters and VAS scores among the three groups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetics with adjuvants is effective for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic surgeries, and ropivacaine 0.2% with dexmedetomidine 0.5 mcg/kg is more effective when compared to ropivacaine 0.2% with ketamine 0.5 mg/kg.

A clinical study of C arm-guided selective spinal nerve block combined with low-temperature plasma radiofrequency ablation of dorsal root ganglion in the treatment of zoster-related neuralgia

Background

This study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and psychological response of low-temperature plasma ablation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) combined with selective spinal nerve block in patients with acute or subacute zoster-related neuralgia (ZRN).

Methods

Totally 90 ZRN patients were randomly and evenly divided into three groups. Treatment was given to Group A using C arm-guided selective spinal nerve block (C-SSVB), Group B using C-SSVB and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), and Group C using C-SSVB and low-temperature plasma ablation of the DRG. The outcomes were examined using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Anxiety and depression of patients were evaluated using the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). Quality of life was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and postoperative Satisfaction scale. In addition, data on adverse events and medication usage rates were collected.

Results

The 90 patients were eligible for this study. The three treatments reduced VAS scores with no significant difference between groups A and B at the same time points; however, group B tended to have numerically lower VAS scores. Comparatively, group C had significantly reduced VAS scores on day 1 and 1 month after treatment compared with the other two groups. In terms of the decreasing SAS, SDS and PSQI scores, all the three treatments improved the anxiety, depression and sleep quality of the patients. In addition, significant alleviation in anxiety was found in group C compared with group A at all- time points. However, there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups in treatment-related adverse events that mainly focused on puncture pain at the surgical-site, skin numbness and medication usage rates.

Conclusions

C-SSVB and LTPRA of DRG will be considered as a promising treatment option for ZRN patients if those results can be confirmed after further validation.

Should corticosteroids be administered for local infiltration analgesia in knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis and systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The benefits of local infiltration analgesia (LIA) in knee arthroplasty (KA) have been well-documented. However, it is unknown whether adding a corticosteroid to the composition of the LIA is beneficial. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of administering periarticular steroids intraoperatively in patients who underwent KA through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases up to January 19th, 2021 to perform a meta-analysis. Outcome variables included pain scores, total opioid consumption, knee range of motion (ROM) and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Corticosteroid injections did not reduce pain scores at 6, 12, 24 or 72 h postoperatively, although a minimal degree of transient pain relief was achieved at 48 h postoperatively compared with those in the placebo group, nor was there a significant difference in total opioid consumption. However, patients receiving corticosteroids did exhibit a transient ROM increase on postoperative days 1, 2 and 3. Since the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ROM is unclear, it is unknown if the improvement in ROM is clinically significant.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Our specific end-point analysis demonstrated that corticosteroid administration did not provide pain relief or reduce opioid consumption compared with placebo. However, corticosteroids might provide a statistically significant, though transient and minimal improvement in knee ROM after KA, although no firm conclusions about the benefits of administering corticosteroids in KA can be made based on the available evidence.

Ibuprofen Arginate for Rapid-Onset Pain Relief in Daily Practice: A Review of Its Use in Different Pain Conditions

Ibuprofen is one of the most frequently used analgesics. One of the concerns related with the oral administration of conventional ibuprofen is the relatively slow absorption, which is clinically a relative inconvenience when rapid-onset analgesic effect is required in patients suffering from acute moderate/severe pain. A new oral dosage formulation of ibuprofen containing the L-arginine salt of ibuprofen (ibuprofen arginate) has been commercialized for more than two decades, but data reported in the literature are relatively scarce. This article presents salient findings on pharmacokinetics, pharmacological activity, clinical efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen arginate, with the purpose to provide clinicians with a summary overview of some frequent acute pain conditions, such as dental pain, dysmenorrhea, headache or postoperative pain in which ibuprofen arginate may be considered the drug of choice in individual patients.

The analgesic efficacy of paravertebral block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

The analgesic efficacy of paravertebral block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the analgesic efficacy of paravertebral block for patients with percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing analgesic efficacy of paravertebral block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy are included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group after percutaneous nephrolithotomy, paravertebral block is associated with the decrease in analgesic consumption (standard mean difference (Std. MD) = -1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -2.18 to -0.92; P < .00001) and additional analgesics (risk ratio (RR) = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.44; P = .0003), prolonged time to first analgesic requirement (Std. MD = 1.51; 95% CI = 0.26 to 2.76; P = .02). There is no statistical difference of adverse events including nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.11 to 2.35; P = .38), or itching (RR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.26 to 1.81; P = .45) between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Paravertebral block is effective for pain control after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Fluoroscopic evaluation of the influence of needle gauge on epidural spread in caudal block

Caudal block has limited injectate distribution to the desired lumbar level due to the relatively long distance from the injection site and reduction in the volume of injectate due to leakage into the sacral foramen. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of needle gauge on fluoroscopic epidural spread and to assess the correlation between the spread level and analgesic efficacy in patients undergoing caudal block. We retrospectively analyzed data from 80 patients who received caudal block for lower back and radicular pain. We categorized patients based on the epidural needle gauge used into group A (23 gauge), group B (20 gauge), and group C (17 gauge). Fluoroscopic image of the final level of contrast injected through the caudal needle and pain scores before the block and 30 minutes after the block recorded using a numerical rating scale, were evaluated. Of the 80 patients assessed for eligibility, 7 were excluded. Thus, a total of 73 patients were finally analyzed. Age, sex, body mass index, diagnosis, lesion level, lesion severity, and duration of pain did not differ among the 3 groups. All patients showed cephalic spread of contrast. Contrast spread beyond L5 was seen in 26.9% of patients in group A, 41.7% in group B, 39.1% in group C, and 35.6% overall; there was no significant difference among the groups (P = .517). Analgesic efficacy was not significantly different among the groups (P = .336). The needle gauge did not influence the level of epidural spread or analgesic efficacy in caudal block.

A multiple-dose double-blind randomized study to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and analgesic efficacy of the TRPV1 antagonist JNJ-39439335 (mavatrep)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This double-blind (DB), randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential-group, multiple-ascending dose, phase 1 study evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of JNJ-39439335 in healthy men (part 1), and in participants with knee osteoarthritis (part 2).

METHODS

Both parts 1 and 2 consisted of screening (upto 21 days), 21-day DB treatment phase [eight participants/group: JNJ-39439335 (part 1: 2-50 mg; part 2: 10-50 mg): n=6; placebo: n=2] and follow-up (total study duration ~10 weeks).

RESULTS

Plasma concentrations and systemic exposure of JNJ-39439335 increased in slightly higher than dose-proportional fashion (steady-state reached by day 14). Renal excretion of JNJ-39439335 was negligible. Marked dose-related increases in pharmacodynamic heat pain assessments were observed in JNJ-39439335-treated participants, which persisted throughout the treatment with no signs of tolerance with repeated dosing. No effect on pharmacodynamic cold pain or mechanical pain assessments were seen. Effects on pharmacodynamic capsaicin-induced flare assessments in JNJ-39439335-treated participants versus placebo were consistent with effects observed with single-dose, and did not demonstrate tolerance with multiple dosing. In participants with knee osteoarthritis, significant improvements versus placebo were observed in a stair-climbing-induced pain model. All JNJ-39439335-treated participants reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE); most common (≥50% incidence) TEAEs in part 1 were feeling hot (79%), thermohypoesthesia (71%), paresthesia (58%) and feeling cold (50%), and in part 2, were minor thermal burns (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

JNJ-39439335 (doses 2-50 mg) was well-tolerated, and associated with acceptable multiple-dose pharmacokinetic profile. JNJ-39439335 demonstrated sustained pharmacodynamic effects (heat pain perception, heat pain latency, capsaicin-induced flare), and an efficacy signal in participants with osteoarthritis pain.

IMPLICATIONS

Given the efficacy signal observed and the unique safety profile, larger phase 2 studies are needed to better understand the potential of JNJ-39439335 in the treatment of chronic pain. Analgesic efficacy of lower doses administered over a longer period of time and improved patient counseling techniques to reduce the minor thermal burns can be explored to minimize the adverse events.

[The use of transdermal fentanyl in the treatment of patients suffering from chronic non-cancer pain - case reports]

The use of strong opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) has gained undisputed acceptance among specialists and should be considered when other pharmacological treatments are not effective or cause serious side effects. However, drugs from the third step of analgesic ladder still raise concerns among doctors and patients in the case of long-term therapy.

A CASE REPORT

The authors present reports of three cases of patients with CNCP caused by musculoskeletal disorders and numerous comorbidities. In all cases, multidisciplinary treatment, that consisted of pharmacotherapy with strong opioids (72-hour transdermal fentanyl), physiotherapy, rehabilitation and psychotherapy, have been introduced. It allowed for good control of pain without significant side effects, symptoms of addiction nor tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented cases illustrate the difficulties that occur during introducing opioid therapy in chronic non-cancer pain, particularly in the initial phase of treatment during setting of a transdermal opioid dose. They also confirm the safety and usefulness of opioid therapy in patients suffering from CNCP.

A comparison between the administration of oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone and transdermal fentanyl in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the most important pharmacological treatment for moderate-to-severe cancer pain, but side effects limit their use. Transdermal fentanyl (TDF) and oral prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN-PR) are effective in controlling chronic pain, with less constipation compared to other opioids. However, TDF and OXN-PR have never been directly compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain were consecutively enrolled in two prospective 28-day trials, received either TDF or OXN-PR, and were assessed at baseline and after 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day analgesic response rate (average pain intensity decrease ≥30% from baseline). Other outcome measures included opioid daily dose changes over time; need for adjuvant analgesics; number of switches; premature discontinuation; presence and severity of constipation; and other adverse drug reactions. To compare the efficacy and the safety of TDF and OXN-PR, we used the propensity score analysis to adjust for heterogeneity between the two patient groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten out of 336 patients originally treated (119 TDF and 191 OXN-PR) were included in the comparative analysis. The amount of responders was comparable after TDF (75.3%) and OXN-PR administration (82.9%, not significant [NS]). The final opioid daily dose expressed as morphine equivalent was 113.6 mg for TDF and 44.5 mg for OXN-PR (p<0.0001). A daily opioid dose escalation >5% was less common after OXN-PR (19.3%) than after TDS administration (37.9%, p<0.0001). Opioid switches and discontinuation were similar in both groups. Severe constipation in the two groups was comparable (32.6% after TDF vs 24.7% after OXN-PR, NS). Nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth were significantly less frequent in the OXN-PR group than in the TDF group.

CONCLUSION

Despite a similar analgesic activity in moderate-to-severe cancer pain, OXN-PR is characterized by lower daily dosages, less need for drug escalation, and fewer side effects compared to TDF.

Clinical update on benefit versus risks of oral paracetamol alone or with codeine: still a good option?

BACKGROUND

After decades of worldwide use of paracetamol/acetaminophen as a popular and apparently safe prescription and over-the-counter medicine, the future role of this poorly understood analgesic has been seriously questioned by recent concerns about prenatal, cardiovascular (CV) and hepatic safety, and also about its analgesic efficacy. At the same time the usefulness of codeine in combination products has come under debate.

METHODS

Based on a PubMed database literature search on the terms efficacy, safety, paracetamol, acetaminophen, codeine and their combinations up to and including June 2016, this clinical update reviews the current evidence of the benefit and risks of oral paracetamol alone and with codeine for mild-to-moderate pain in adults, and compares the respective efficacy and safety profiles with those of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

RESULTS

Whereas there is a clear strong association of NSAID use and gastrointestinal (GI) and CV morbidity and mortality, evidence for paracetamol with and without codeine supports the recommended use even in most vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly, pregnant women, alcoholics, and compromised GI and CV patients. The controversies and widespread misconceptions about the complex hepatic metabolism and potential hepatotoxicity have been corrected by recent reviews, and paracetamol remains the first-line nonopioid analgesic in patients with liver diseases if notes of caution are applied.

CONCLUSION

Due to its safety and tolerability profile paracetamol remained a first-line treatment in many international guidelines. Alone and with codeine it is a safe and effective option in adults, whilst NSAIDs are obviously less safe as alternatives, given the risk of potentially fatal GI and CV adverse effects.

The role of analgesic adjustment strategies in achieving analgesic efficacy in opioid-tolerant hospice patients in China

Diverse strategies of analgesic adjustment are often, respectively, used to sustain analgesic efficiency for opioid-tolerant patients with different refractory factors of pain. In order to select effective analgesic adjustment strategy for hospice patient without knowing explicit causes of diminishing analgesic efficiency, a retrospective data of 743 patients among 3760 hospice patients were analyzed. The efficacy and adverse effects were not significantly different among analgesic adjustment strategies at each adjustment. Opioid duration was not associated with clinical characteristics. For opioid-tolerant hospice patients, the analgesic adjustment strategy can be selected for individual patient. After repeated analgesic adjustments, opioid tapering may also occur.

A clinical evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of preoperative administration of ketorolac and dexamethasone following surgical removal of third molars

The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of the presurgical intravenous administration of a steroid (dexamethasone), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ketorolac), and a combination of the two medications. These drugs were administrated preoperatively, and their analgesic effects were assessed following the removal of four third molars using intravenous sedation (Fentany/Midazolam) and local anesthetic (2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine). Thirty-four patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups: Group I (control), saline; Group II, 30 mg ketorolac; Group III, 8 mg dexamethasone; and Group IV, 30 mg ketorolac + 8 mg dexamethasone. Pain was assessed with the Heft-Parker graphic pain rating scale; the initial survey was completed preoperatively. The teeth were surgically removed by one of four oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Following surgery and initial recovery, the patients completed the second survey and were then admitted for overnight observation. The patients completed the remaining pain rating scales at 2-hr intervals for 12 hr. The last survey was completed at discharge (24 hr postoperatively). A postoperative narcotic analgesic was provided upon request (Tylenol 3). Pain data were assessed using one-way analysis of variance and the Duncan multiple range test (alpha = 0.05). At all postoperative intervals, the greatest pain scores were recorded in the control group. Statistically significant differences in pain scores were found at the 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-hr postoperative intervals. At the 2-hr postoperative interval, pain had increased in all groups, but no differences were found among the groups. At the 4- and 6-hr interval, pain levels in Group I were significantly greater than those in Group II and Group IV, with Group III and IV not significantly different from Group II. At 10 hr, pain levels in the saline group were significantly greater than those in all the other groups. At all intervals, the only significant differences detected were found between the control group and the experimental groups; no significant differences were found at any point among any of the experimental groups. The relationship between the number of doses of narcotic medication taken postoperatively, and the preoperative intravenous regimen was assessed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. No significant difference was found among groups with respect to the need for postoperative pain medication (P > 0.05). Postoperative analgesia following third molar surgery was enhanced in the first 10 hr with the preoperative administration of ketorolac. The addition of dexamethasone did not improve the analgesic effect.