Oral valdecoxib and injected parecoxib for acute postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials suggest that cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors (coxibs) are an effective treatment for acute postoperative pain. The aims of this systematic review were to examine the evidence for oral valdecoxib and injected parecoxib, and quantify efficacy and adverse effects. METHODS: Information from randomized, double-blind studies in acute postoperative pain was sought. The area under the pain relief versus time curve over four to six hours was dichotomized using validated equations to derive the proportion of patients with treatment and placebo with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours and calculate the number-needed-to-treat (NNT). Information on duration of analgesia and adverse events was also collected. RESULTS: The NNT for one patient to experience at least 50% relief over six hours following a single oral dose of valdecoxib 20 mg and 40 mg was 1.7 (1.4 to 2.0) and 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8) respectively. The NNT for one patient to have at least 50% relief over four to six hours with parecoxib 20 mg IV and 40 mg IV was 3.0 (2.3 to 4.1) and 2.3 (2.0 to 2.6) respectively. Mean time to remedication (weighted by trial size) was >24 hours with valdecoxib 40 mg, 8.7 hours with parecoxib 40 mg IV and 1.7 to 1.8 hours with placebo. There were no statistical differences between treatment and placebo for any adverse effect. CONCLUSION: Both oral valdecoxib and injected parecoxib are effective treatments for acute postoperative pain.     

Individual patient meta-analysis of single-dose rofecoxib in postoperative pain

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in acute postoperative pain. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from 14 trials; 13 in dental and one in postsurgical pain. For each patient the percentage of maximum possible pain relief (%maxTOTPAR) was determined at different time points. The proportion of patients with at least 50% maxTOTPAR, and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% maxTOTPAR, were then calculated, with time when 50% of patients had remedicated (TTR50) and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) for adverse effects. RESULTS: In dental pain, for rofecoxib 50 mg (1330 patients) compared with placebo (570 patients) the NNT was 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.1) for six hours, 2.0 (1.8 to 2.1) at eight, 2.4 (2.2 to 2.6) at 12, and 2.8 (2.5 to 3.1) at 24 hours. The TTR50 was 15.5 hours. Adverse effects were uncommon, though post-extraction alveolitis (dry socket) occurred more often with rofecoxib 50 mg than with placebo, NNH 24 (14 to 80). For postsurgical pain in one trial (163 patients), the NNT for rofecoxib 50 mg for six hours was 3.9 (2.6 to 7.8), the TTR50 was 5.8 hours, and multiple-dose adverse effects over five days occurred at similar rates with rofecoxib 50 mg and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg is an effective treatment with long-lasting analgesia and few adverse effects in dental pain. More information is required to confirm efficacy in postsurgical pain.     

Systematic review of dexketoprofen in acute and chronic pain

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Parenteral dexamethasone for acute severe migraine headache: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for preventing recurrence

Objective To examine the effectiveness of parenteral corticosteroids for the relief of acute severe migraine headache and prevention of recurrent headaches.Design Meta-analysis.Data sources Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL), conference proceedings, clinical practice guidelines, contacts with industry, and correspondence with authors.Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials in which corticosteroids (alone or combined with standard abortive therapy) were compared with placebo or any other standard treatment for acute migraine in adults.Review methods Two reviewers independently assessed relevance, inclusion, and study quality. Weighted mean differences and relative risks were calculated and are reported with 95% confidence intervals.Results From 666 potentially relevant abstracts, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. All included trials used standard abortive therapy and subsequently compared single dose parenteral dexamethasone with placebo, examining pain relief and recurrence of headache within 72 hours. Dexamethasone and placebo provided similar acute pain reduction (weighted mean difference 0.37, 95% confidence interval −0.20 to 0.94). Dexamethasone was, however, more effective than placebo in reducing recurrence rates (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.90). Side effect profiles between dexamethasone and placebo groups were similar.Conclusion When added to standard abortive therapy for migraine headache, single dose parenteral dexamethasone is associated with a 26% relative reduction in headache recurrence (number needed to treat=9) within 72 hours.     

Quantitative systematic review of topically applied non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute and chronic pain conditions. DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: 86 trials involving 10,160 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of treatment success approximating at least 50% reduction in pain, local and systemic adverse effects. Analysis at 1 week for acute and 2 weeks for chronic conditions with relative benefit and number needed to treat. RESULTS: In acute pain conditions (soft tissue trauma, strains, and sprains) placebo controlled trials had a relative benefit of 1.7 (1.5 to 1.9), the number needed to treat was 3.9 (3.4 to 4.4). With analysis by drug (at least three trials), ketoprofen (number needed to treat 2.6), felbinac (3.0), ibuprofen (3.5), and piroxicam (4.2) had significant efficacy. Benzydamine and indomethacin were no different from placebo. In chronic pain conditions (osteoarthritis, tendinitis) placebo controlled trials had a relative benefit of 2.0 (1.5 to 2.7); the number needed to treat was 3.1 (2.7 to 3.8). Small trials (< 40 treated patients) exaggerated effectiveness of topical non-steroidals by 33% in acute conditions but not in chronic conditions. There was no relation between trial quality and treatment effect. In both acute and chronic pain local and systemic adverse events and withdrawal from the study related to the drug had a low incidence and were no different from placebo. CONCLUSION: Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective in relieving pain in acute and chronic conditions.     

Comparative evaluation of various analgesics in reducing pain in irreversible pulpitis

It is of interest to evaluate a single dose of three different analgesics compared to placebo in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. 120 patients were enrolled with severe pain in this prospective clinical trial. Patients were randomly divided into four groups after shaping and cleaning of root canals. This includes placebo, piroxicam 20mg, acetaminophen 325mg with aceclofenac sodium 100mg and acetaminophen 650mg. Participants were given a questionnaire to note the pain scores at various time intervals (6 hrs, 12 hrs, and 24 hrs) along with the respective tablets in a concealed manner. Data thus collected was analyzed for statistical significance. The severity of pain decreased in all the three interventional groups compared to the control group (p <0.01) at 6 hours. Zerodol-P and dolonex showed better pain reduction in comparison to the placebo and dolo 650 group (p <0.05) at 12 and 24 hours. Data shows that both zerodol-P and dolonex groups had similar effects at all time intervals. Thus, a single dose of analgesic such as Zerodol-P and Dolonex following shaping and cleaning of root canals relieved pain at all time intervals of the treatment. However, Dolo 650 performed better during the initial 6hrs after completion of the shaping and cleaning of root canals compared to the placebo.     

First-dose analgesic effect of the cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor lumiracoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with celecoxib [NCT00267215]

Cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors are frequently used to manage osteoarthritis. We compared the analgesic efficacy of the novel cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor lumiracoxib (Prexige) versus placebo and celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis. This seven day, double-blind, placebo and active comparator controlled, parallel group study included 364 patients aged > or = 50 years with moderate-to-severe symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Patients received lumiracoxib 400 mg/day (four times the recommended chronic dose in osteoarthritis; n = 144), placebo (n = 75), or celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (n = 145). The primary variable was actual pain intensity difference (100 mm visual-analogue scale) between baseline and the mean of three hour and five hour assessments after the first dose. Actual pain intensity difference, average and worst pain, pain relief and functional status (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) were measured over seven days. Patients also completed a global evaluation of treatment effect at study end or premature discontinuation. For the primary variable, the superiority of lumiracoxib versus placebo, the noninferiority of lumiracoxib versus celecoxib, and the superiority of lumiracoxib versus celecoxib were assessed by closed test procedure adjusting for multiplicity, thereby maintaining the overall 5% significance level. In addition, celecoxib was assessed versus placebo in a predefined exploratory manner to assess trial sensitivity. Lumiracoxib provided better analgesia than placebo 3-5 hours after the first dose (P = 0.004) through to study end. The estimated difference between lumiracoxib and celecoxib 3-5 hours after the first dose was not significant (P = 0.185). Celecoxib was not significantly different from placebo in this analysis (P = 0.069). At study end 13.9% of lumiracoxib-treated patients reported complete pain relief versus 5.5% and 5.3% of celecoxib and placebo recipients, respectively. WOMAC total and subscales improved for both active treatments versus placebo except for difficulty in performing daily activities, for which celecoxib just failed to achieve significance (P = 0.056). In the patient's global evaluation of treatment effect, 58.1% of patients receiving lumiracoxib rated treatment as 'excellent' or 'good', versus 48.6% of celecoxib and 25.3% of placebo patients. Lumiracoxib was well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups.     

Comparative Analgesic Activity of Levomepromazine and Morphine in Patients with Chronic Pain

Apart from its ability to potentiate the action of narcotics, levomepromazine, a phenothiazine derivative, was shown to possess its own analgesic activity comparable to that of morphine at a 3:2 dose relationship.In a double-blind crossover study of 18 patients suffering from chronic pain (cancer and arthritis), levomepromazine (15 mg.) was compared with morphine (10 mg.) and placebo. Three hours after intramuscular administration, levomepromazine proved to be significantly superior to placebo (p < .05) and indistinguishable from morphine. Evaluations of pain relief by estimations of changes in pain intensity were found to correlate well with evaluations based on recognition of pain relief exceeding 50%.The potent analgesic effect of levomepromazine was obtained at the price of excessive sedation. This, however, was considered an acceptable side effect in a patient suffering from chronic pain. These results provide encouragement in the quest for a non-addicting substitute for morphine.     

Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracetamol-codeine combinations versus paracetamol alone: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES--To assess whether adding codeine to paracetamol has an additive analgesic effect; to assess the safety of paracetamol-codeine combinations versus paracetamol alone. DESIGN--Systematic literature review with meta-analysis, methodological quality of published trials being scored by means of 13 predefined criteria. TRIALS--24 of 29 trials that met the inclusion criteria. Models studied in the trials were postsurgical pain (21), postpartum pain (one), osteoarthritic pain (one), and experimentally induced pain (one). INTERVENTIONS--Dosages ranged from 400 to 1000 mg paracetamol and 10 to 60 mg codeine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--The sum pain intensity difference (efficacy analysis) and the proportion of patients reporting a side effect (safety analysis). RESULTS--Most trials were considered of good to very good quality. Only the single dose studies could be combined for analysis of analgesic efficacy. Pooled efficacy results indicated that codeine added to paracetamol provided a 5% increase in analgesia on the sum pain intensity difference. This effect was comparable to the difference in analgesic effect between codeine and placebo. The cumulative incidence of side effects with each treatment was comparable in the single dose trials. In the multidose studies a significantly higher proportion of side effects occurred with paracetamol-codeine preparations. CONCLUSION--The difference is analgesic effect between paracetamol-codeine combinations and paracetamol alone was small but statistically significant. In the multidose studies the proportion of patients reporting a side effect was significantly higher with paracetamol-codeine combinations. For occasional pain relief a paracetamol-codeine combination might be appropriate but repeated use increases the occurrence of side effects.     

Oral acyclovir in acute herpes zoster.

Oral acyclovir at a dose of 800 mg five times daily for seven days was compared with placebo in a randomised double blind trial conducted at three centres in the United Kingdom. The study group comprised 205 elderly immune competent patients suffering from herpes zoster who were entered within 72 hours of the onset of rash. Acyclovir significantly reduced the times to arrest of new lesion formation (p = 0.005), loss of vesicles (p less than 0.001), and full crusting (p = 0.02) in those patients entered within 48 hours of the onset of rash. In addition, there was a significant reduction in pain during treatment with acyclovir as compared with placebo (p = 0.008). Of the patients with severe pain on entry, 40% (10/25) of those treated with acyclovir had no or only mild pain at the end of treatment, whereas in the placebo group all had residual moderate or severe pain (p less than 0.001). No clinically important adverse effects of acyclovir were reported. Oral acyclovir may modify acute herpes zoster and reduce pain.     

Systematic overview of co-proxamol to assess analgesic effects of addition of dextropropoxyphene to paracetamol.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol-dextropropoxyphene combination and paracetamol through a systematic overview of randomised controlled trials. DESIGN: Systematic retrieval of trials of paracetamol-dextropropoxyphene, paracetamol, and placebo to allow pooling of results from head to head comparison trials and single active placebo controlled trials. SUBJECTS: 2231 patients with postsurgical pain, arthritis, and musculoskeletal pain reported in 26 randomised controlled trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sum of difference in pain intensity; response rate ratio and difference in response rate with response defined as moderate to excellent pain relief; and rate ratio and rate difference of side effects. RESULTS: The difference in pain intensity between paracetamol-dextropropoxyphene and paracetamol was 7.3% (95% confidence interval -0.2 to 14.9). The response rate ratio for the combination and paracetamol was 1.05 (0.8 to 1.3) on the basis of the head to head trials. Indirect comparisons produced quantitatively consistent results. Compared with placebo, the combination produced more dizziness (3.1; 1.1 to 8.9) whereas paracetamol resulted in more drowsiness (1.8; 1.1 to 2.9). CONCLUSION: On the basis of data on analgesic efficacy and acute safety in both head to head and indirect comparisons, there is little objective evidence to support prescribing a combination of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in preference to paracetamol alone in moderate pain such as that after surgery.     

Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids

Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made.     

Gabapentin and postoperative pain: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review, with focus on procedure

Background

Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug used in a variety of chronic pain conditions. Increasing numbers of randomized trials indicate that gabapentin is effective as a postoperative analgesic. This procedure-specific systematic review aims to analyse the 24-hour postoperative effect of gabapentin on acute pain in adults.

Methods

Medline, The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched for double-blind randomized placebo controlled trials of gabapentin for postoperative pain relief compared with placebo, in adults undergoing a surgical procedure. Qualitative analysis of postoperative effectiveness was evaluated by assessment of significant difference (P < 0.05) in pain relief using consumption of supplemental analgesic and pain scores between study groups. Quantitative analyses of combined data from similar procedures, were performed by calculating the weighted mean difference (WMD) of 24-hour cumulated opioid requirements, and the WMD for visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, (early (6 h) and late (24 h) postoperatively), between study groups. Side-effects (nausea, vomiting, dizziness and sedation) were extracted for calculation of their relative risk (RR).

Results

Twenty-three trials with 1529 patients were included. In 12 of 16 studies with data on postoperative opioid requirement, the reported 24-hour opioid consumption was significantly reduced with gabapentin. Quantitative analysis of five trials in abdominal hysterectomy showed a significant reduction in morphine consumption (WMD – 13 mg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -19 to -8 mg), and in early pain scores at rest (WMD – 11 mm on the VAS, 95% CI -12 to -2 mm) and during activity (WMD -8 mm on the VAS; 95% CI -13 to -3 mm), favouring gabapentin. In spinal surgery, (4 trials), analyses demonstrated a significant reduction in morphine consumption (WMD of – 31 mg (95%CI – 53 to -10 mg) and pain scores, early (WMD – 17 mm on the VAS; 95 % CI -31 to -3 mm) and late (WMD -12 mm on the VAS; 95% CI -23 to -1 mm) also favouring gabapentin treatment. Nausea was improved with gabapentin in abdominal hysterectomy (RR 0.7; 95 % CI 0.5 to 0.9). Other side-effects were unaffected.

Conclusion

Perioperative use of gabapentin has a significant 24-hour opioid sparing effect and improves pain score for both abdominal hysterectomy and spinal surgery. Nausea may be reduced in abdominal hysterectomy.     

Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

IntroductionThere is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsA systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.ResultsEfficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.ConclusionsThe benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0554-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.     

负荷量阿托伐他汀对稳定型冠心病患者非心脏手术围手术期保护作用的研究

目的:探讨负荷量阿托伐他汀对稳定型冠心病患者非心脏的择期外科手术围手术期主要不良心脏事件的保护作用。方法:将拟行非心脏外科手术的60名稳定型冠心病患者随机分为负荷量阿托伐他汀组(n=30)和对照组(n=30),其中负荷量阿托伐他汀治疗组在术前12小时给予阿托伐他汀80 mg顿服,术前2小时阿托伐他汀40 mg顿服,且每晚服用阿托伐他汀40 mg,对照组术前每晚服用阿托伐他汀20 mg,而后进行非心脏的外科手术(主要病种为慢性胆囊结石胆囊炎、慢性阑尾炎、消化性溃疡、疝气),术后负荷量组给予每晚服用阿托伐他汀40 mg,对照组每晚服用阿托伐他汀20 mg。比较两组围手术期主要不良心脏事件(包括心脏性猝死,急性心肌梗死,非计划性血运重建)的发生情况。结果:对照组出现1例急性前壁ST段抬高型心肌梗死并行急诊前降支介入再灌注治疗和7例无症状型心肌梗死,负荷量阿托伐他汀组出现1例无症状型心肌梗死,围手术期心肌梗死发生率较对照组明显降低(P0.05)。结论:负荷量阿托伐他汀可显著降低稳定型冠心病患者非心脏的择期外科手术围手术期主要不良心脏事件如心肌梗死,特别是无症状型心肌梗死的发生率,但该结果尚需大样本多中心随机对照临床试验进一步证实。     

Duloxetine for painful diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia pain: systematic review of randomised trials

Background

Duloxetine hydrochloride is a reuptake inhibitor of 5-hydroxytryptamine and norepinephrine used to treat depression, generalized anxiety disorder, neuropathic pain, and stress incontinence in women. We investigated the efficacy of duloxetine in painful diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia to allow comparison with other antidepressants.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL up to June 2008 for randomised controlled trials using duloxetine to treat neuropathic pain.

Results

We identified six trials with 1,696 patients: 1,510 were treated with duloxetine and 706 with placebo. All patients had established baseline pain of at least moderate severity. Trial duration was 12 to 13 weeks. Three trials enrolled patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and three enrolled patients with fibromyalgia. The number needed to treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief at 12 to 13 weeks with duloxetine 60 mg versus placebo (1,211 patients in the total comparison) was 5.8 (95% CI 4.5 to 8.4), and for duloxetine 120 mg (1,410 patients) was 5.7 (4.5 to 5.7). There was no difference in NNTs between PDN and fibromyalgia. With all doses of duloxetine combined (20/60/120 mg) there were fewer withdrawals for lack of efficacy than with placebo (number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal 20 (13 to 42)), but more withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm (NNH) 15 (11 to 25)). Nausea, somnolence, constipation, and reduced appetite were all more common with duloxetine than placebo (NNH values 6.3, 11, 11, and 18 respectively). The results for duloxetine are compared with published data for other antidepressants in neuropathic pain.

Conclusion

Duloxetine is equally effective for the treatment of PDN and fibromyalgia, judged by the outcome of at least 50% pain relief over 12 weeks, and is well tolerated. The NNT of 6 for 50% pain relief suggests that this is likely to be a useful drug in these difficult-to-treat conditions, where typically only a minority of patients respond. Comparing duloxetine with antidepressants for pain relief in DPN shows inadequacies in the evidence for efficacy of antidepressants, which are currently recommended in PDN care pathways.

     

Anticonvulsant drugs for management of pain: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE--To determine effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs in management of pain. DESIGN--Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of anticonvulsants for acute, chronic, or cancer pain identified by using Medline, by hand searching, by searching reference lists, and by contacting investigators. SUBJECTS--Between 1966 and February 1994, 37 reports were found; 20 reports, of four anticonvulsants, were eligible. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Numbers needed to treat were calculated for effectiveness, adverse effects, and drug related withdrawal from study. RESULTS--The only placebo controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate. For treating trigeminal neuralgia, carbamazepine had a combined number needed to treat of 2.6 for effectiveness, 3.4 for adverse effects, and 24 for severe effects (withdrawal from study). For treating diabetic neuropathy, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 2.5 for effectiveness, 3.1 for adverse effects, and 20 for severe effects. For migraine prophylaxis, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 1.6 for effectiveness, 2.4 for adverse effects, and 39 for severe effects. Phenytoin had no effect on the irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine had little effect on pain after stroke. Clonazepam was effective in one study for temporomandibular joint dysfunction. No study compared one anticonvulsant with another. CONCLUSIONS--Anticonvulsants were effective for trigeminal neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy and for migraine prophylaxis. Minor adverse effects occurred as often as benefit.     

A randomized,placebo controlled,trial of preoperative sustained release Betamethasone plus non-controlled intraoperative Ketorolac or Fentanyl on pain after diagnostic laparoscopy or laparoscopic tubal ligation [ISRCTN52633712

BACKGROUND: Gynecological laparoscopic surgery procedures are often complicated by postoperative pain resulting in an unpleasant experience for the patient, delayed discharge, and increased cost. Glucocorticosteroids have been suggested to reduce the severity and incidence of postoperative pain. METHODS: This study examines the efficacy of a sustained release betamethasone preparation to reduce postoperative pain and the requirement for pain relief drugs after either diagnostic laparoscopy or tubal ligation. Patients were recruited, as presenting, after obtaining informed consent. Prior to surgery, patients were randomly selected by a computer generated table to receive either pharmacy-coded betamethasone (12 mg IM Celestone trade mark ) or an optically identical placebo injection of Intralipid trade mark and isotonic saline mixture. The effect of non-controlled prophylactic intraoperative treatment with either fentanyl or ketorolac per surgeon's orders was also noted in this study. Blood samples taken at recovery and at discharge times were extracted and analyzed for circulating betamethasone. Visual analog scale data on pain was gathered at six post-recovery time points in a triple blind fashion and statistically compared. The postoperative requirement for pain relief drugs was also examined. RESULTS: Although the injection achieved a sustained therapeutic concentration, no beneficial effect of IM betamethasone on postoperative pain or reduction in pain relief drugs was observed during the postoperative period. Indeed, the mean combined pain scores during the 2 hour postoperative period, adjusted for postoperative opioids as the major confounding factor, were higher approaching statistical significance (P = 0.056) in the treatment group. Higher pain scores were also observed for the tubal ligation patients relative to diagnostic laparoscopy. Intraoperative fentanyl treatment did not significantly lower the average pain score during the 2 hour postoperative period. Intraoperative ketorolac treatment significantly lowered (P = 0.027) pain scores and reduced the postoperative requirement for additional pain relief drugs. CONCLUSIONS: There was a lack of efficacy of preoperative sustained release betamethasone in reducing postoperative pain despite maintaining a therapeutic concentration during the postoperative period. Intraoperative Ketorolac did afford some short-term pain relief in the postoperative period and reduced the need for additional pain relief drugs.