Total Pain Relief Scores Research Articles

Preoperative Education for Less Outpatient Pain after Surgery (PELOPS trial) in orthopedic patients—study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundSuccessful pain management after outpatient surgery requires proper education leading to correct decisions on the analgesics use at home. Despite different strategies adopted, up to ½ of patients receive little or no information about the treatment of postoperative pain, 1/3 of them are not able to follow postoperative analgesia instructions. This leads to higher rates of unmet needs in pain treatment, post-discharge emergency calls, and readmissions. Structured educational interventions using psychological empowering techniques may improve postoperative pain management. We hypothesize that preoperative education on use of an improved pain scale to make correct pain management decisions will improve the quality of post-operative pain management at home and reduce analgesics-related side effects.MethodsA total of 414 patients scheduled for an outpatient orthopedic surgery (knee/shoulder arthroscopic interventions) are included in this randomized (1:1) controlled trial. Patients in the control arm receive standard information on post-discharge pain management. Patients in the experimental arm receive structured educational intervention based on the rational perception of postoperative pain and discomfort (anchoring and improved pain scale), and the proper use of analgesics. There is no difference in post-discharge analgesics regimen in both arms. Patients are followed for 30 days post-discharge, with the primary outcome expressed as total pain relief score at 5 days. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of severe pain during 30 days, changes in sleep quality (Pittsburg Sleep Quality Assessment), and patients’ perception of postoperative pain management assessed with the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire at day 30 post-discharge.DiscussionThe developed intervention, based on an improved pain scale, offers the advantages of being non-surgery-specific, is easily administered in a short amount of time, and can be delivered individually or in-group, by physicians or nurses.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT03754699. Registered on November 27, 2018.

Comparative evaluation of intravenous dexketoprofen and paracetamol in the management of pain induced by sore throat.

Sore throat is one of the most prevalent causes of emergency visits. The chief purpose of this clinical report is to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) dexketoprofen and paracetamol drugs relative to each other in relieving the pain induced by sore throat in emergency visits. This prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled study was conducted at a tertiary-level emergency unit. The eligible population (n=200) with confirmed pharyngitis diagnosis on the Tonsillo Pharyngitis Assessment and moderate to severe sore throat was randomly divided into two cohorts to be administered with 50mg of dexketoprofen (n=98) or 1000-mg paracetamol (n=102). The study drugs dissolved in 150-mL saline were administered by rapid IV infusion. All the recruited patients were re-assessed by Sore Throat Pain Intensity Scale (STPIS), Difficulty Swallowing Scale (DSS) and Swollen Throat Scale (SwoTS) at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120minutes. In addition, presence of sore throat was re-evaluated by Sore Throat Relief Scale (STRS) at these time points. A total of 200 patients completed the study. The median age in dexketoprofen and paracetamol cohort was 25 (18-57) and 29 (17-76), respectively. Dexketoprofen and paracetamol provided relief in sore throat pain, with Total Pain Relief scores (TOTPAR0-120min ) being 5.68±2.06mm in the former case and 6.03±1.76mm in the latter (P>.05). The IV administration of paracetamol and dexketoprofen decreased STPIS, DSS and SwoTS scores over time, while increasing STRS scores. The average value of STRS was measured as 4.41±1.18 in the paracetamol cohort and 4.15±1.23 in the dexketoprofen cohort during 0-120minutes (P=.545). In emergency department, IV dexketoprofen and paracetamol reduced sore throat pain equally, providing similar analgesic efficacy.

A randomized controlled trial comparing tapentadol with oxycodone in non-breastfeeding women post elective cesarean section

Background: Tapentadol may allow greater pain relief with reduced “opioid load” compared to oxycodone. Its use has not been studied in the obstetric population. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of tapentadol with oxycodone in patients who received spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section. The trial was registered with EU Clinical Trials Register with CT number 2016-001621-33.Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Randomized patients (n = 68) received either 50 mg tapentadol or oxycodone 10 mg 12 hourly postoperatively. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference over the first 48 hours of treatment (SPID48). Secondary outcomes included time to rescue medications, SPID36, total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores, patient satisfaction scores, sum of total pain relief and pain intensity difference (SPRID) scores, time to rescue medications and side effects experienced. An analysis of covariance model with baseline pain intensity score as a covariate was used for statistical analysis.Results: There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of SPID48 with adjusted mean difference -11.45 (95% CI -35.35, 12.45) p = .34). Oxycodone showed significantly greater SPID36 scores compared to tapentadol with increased time to rescue medication. Side effects experienced were similar between groups.Conclusion: Tapentadol did not provide superior pain control or improved tolerability compared to oxycodone post cesarean section. Results should be interpreted however with consideration of administration of intrathecal opioids to all patients in this study and debate over the optimal dose of tapentadol for acute pain.Trial registration: EU Clinical Trials Register identifier: 2016-001621-33.

A comparative study of efficacy and safety of flupirtine versus piroxicam in postoperative pain in patients undergoing lower limb surgery.

BackgroundEffective control of pain postoperatively is essential in providing enhanced patient care and a cost-effective hospital stay. Though many treatment modalities exist for postoperative pain management in orthopedic surgeries they are often accompanied by adverse effects. This study was carried out to assess the efficacy of flupirtine and piroxicam in postoperative pain reduction using visual analog scale (VAS) score.Materials and methodsAn open-label, parallel group, comparative study was conducted on patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery, randomized into two groups of 38 patients each. They received either flupirtine 100 mg or piroxicam 20 mg 6 hours after surgery and then twice daily orally for 5 days. Pain was measured using VAS score, total pain relief score (TOTPAR24), and patient satisfaction score (PSS); the other scales used were behavioral pain assessment scale (BPAS) and functional activity score (FAS). Rescue medication used was tramadol 100 mg intravenously. WHO causality scale was used for assessing adverse effects. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for assessment of various parameters.ResultsA total of 76 patients with mean ± standard deviation age of 35.08±10.3 years were recruited; 34 in the flupirtine and 37 in the piroxicam groups completed the study. Patients in both groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Flupirtine and piroxicam reduced VAS score 48 hours postoperatively compared to baseline (p=0.006 and 0.001) and piroxicam produced significant reduction in pain at 8, 12, and 120 hours compared to flupirtine (p=0.028, 0.032, 0.021). TOTPAR24 and PSS at 24 hours were comparable between the treatments. BPAS scores at 24 hours were reduced significantly in patients receiving either drug (p=0.001). FAS improved at 72 hours in patients receiving piroxicam. Adverse effects were similar with both the medications.ConclusionFlupirtine and piroxicam reduced pain effectively but the onset of pain relief was earlier with piroxicam.

Effect size comparison of ketorolac nasal spray and commonly prescribed oral combination opioids for pain relief after third molar extraction surgery

Objective: Opioids are frequently used for treatment of moderate to severe short-term pain, but concerns exist about this treatment approach. Ketorolac tromethamine nasal spray, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, is indicated for the short-term management of moderate to moderately severe pain requiring analgesia at the opioid level. However, there are no direct comparison studies between ketorolac nasal spray and opioids. The objective of this study was to use an effect size analysis to compare the effectiveness of ketorolac nasal spray with oral combination opioid formulations in treating moderate to severe short-term pain.Methods: An effect size analysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of third molar extraction surgery compared pain relief with ketorolac nasal spray and commonly prescribed combination opioids including hydrocodone/acetaminophen (APAP), oxycodone/APAP, oxycodone/ibuprofen and tramadol HCl/APAP. Effect size comparisons were made using total pain relief scores (TOTPAR6 or TOTPAR8; the weighted sum of pain relief scores through 6 or 8 h). Pain relief was measured using a five-point categorical rating scale (0 = none; 4 = complete). The effect size equivalent correlation, r, was determined using an online effect size calculator. The treatment effect size r compared with placebo was classified using established criteria (small = 0.20–0.49, moderate = 0.50–0.79 and large = ≥ 0.80).Results: TOTPAR6 data indicated a moderate effect size for ketorolac nasal spray 31.5 mg (0.51) and oxycodone/ibuprofen 5/400 mg (0.64) and a small effect size for hydrocodone/APAP 7.5/500 mg (0.24) and oxycodone/APAP 5/325 mg (0.32). TOTPAR8 data indicated small effect sizes for ketorolac nasal spray (0.48), hydrocodone/APAP 10/650 mg (0.43), tramadol HCl/APAP 75/650 mg (0.35) and tramadol HCl/APAP 37.5/325 mg (0.17).Conclusion: The treatment effect sizes of ketorolac nasal spray were similar to or higher than the opioid comparators after third molar surgery, a well-accepted pain model. These results support ketorolac nasal spray as an effective treatment for moderate to moderately severe short-term pain.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of biphasic immediate-release/extended-release hydrocodone bitartrate/acetaminophen tablets for acute postoperative pain

Background. A fixed-dose combination biphasic immediate-release (IR)/extended-release (ER) hydrocodone bitartrate (HB)/acetaminophen (APAP) tablet is being developed for the management of acute pain severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate. Methods. This Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and safety of IR/ER HB/APAP (n = 201) versus placebo (n = 202) over a period of 48 hours in patients with acute moderate to severe pain following unilateral bunionectomy. Patients received three tablets of placebo or IR/ER HB/APAP as an initial dose (hour 0) followed by two tablets every 12 hours for a total daily dose of 37.5/1625 mg HB/APAP on day 1 and 30/1300 mg HB/APAP thereafter. The primary efficacy outcome was the summed pain intensity difference (SPID) over the first 48 hours (SPID48) after the first dose. Results. SPID48 was significantly greater with IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo (p < 0.001). SPID dosing interval analyses demonstrated consistent, superior pain relief with IR/ER HB/APAP for each dosing interval (all p < 0.001). Mean PID was greater with IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo beginning 30 minutes after the first dose (p < 0.05), and IR/ER HB/APAP demonstrated faster median time to the onset of perceptible, meaningful, and confirmed pain relief (all p < 0.001). Mean total pain relief scores also indicated greater pain relief with IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo throughout the 48-hour period (p = 0.012) for all comparisons. A greater proportion of IR/ER HB/APAP versus placebo patients was either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their pain relief (69.3% vs 49.4%; p < 0.001). Nausea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE; IR/ER HB/APAP, 25%; placebo, 7.9%). All TEAEs in IR/ER HB/APAP–treated patients were mild or moderate in severity. Conclusion. IR/ER HB/APAP provided rapid, significant, and consistent analgesic efficacy over a period of 48 hours in an established model of acute pain and was tolerated with a safety profile similar to other low-dose opioids.

Laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy with Ligasure is better than conventional laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy

Objective: To determine an ideal route and device in hysterectomy by comparing laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) hysterectomy with conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH). Methods: This is a computed clinical pathway based caseecontrol study performed in the Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital, Hualien, Taiwan. Seventy-two patients (36 LESS hysterectomies and 36 LAVH) from May 2011 to August 2013 were included. The choice of route of hysterectomy and Ligasure use during the operation were made by the patient or by economic considerations. Perioperative outcomes, including postoperative visual analog scale for pain and analgesic pain-relief score were compared. Results: Surgical time and length of hospital stay were shorter in LESS hysterectomy than in LAVH (126 ± 47.7 minutes vs. 158 ± 60.7 minutes and 4.7 ± 0.8 days vs. 5.4 ± 0.8 days, respectively). The visual analog scale pain scores at 0e2 hours and 24 hours postoperation were significantly lower in LESS hysterectomy than in LAVH (5.68 ± 2.11 vs. 8.14 ± 1.46 and 3.75 ± 1.61 vs. 5.04 ± 1.28, respectively). Overall, the pain score decreased by 30%, 26%, and 12% at 0e2 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours, respectively, after the operation. The total pain-relief score was 38.2% lower in LESS hysterectomy than in LAVH (1.15 ± 0.44 vs. 1.86 ± 0.33; p < 0.001). There were comparable adverse events in both groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that LESS hysterectomy with Ligasure is superior to conventional LAVH.

Etoricoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea in Chinese patients: a randomized controlled trial

Objective:Assess the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 120 mg compared with ibuprofen 600 mg qid in the treatment of moderate to severe primary dysmenorrhea in Chinese women.Methods:This multicenter, double-blind, two-period, cross-over study randomized healthy, Chinese women ≥18 years of age to etoricoxib 120 mg qd or ibuprofen up to 2400 mg (600 mg qid) upon onset of moderate or severe primary dysmenorrhea symptoms during two menstrual cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was Total Pain Relief score over the first 6 hours (TOPAR6). Secondary endpoints included Sum of Pain Intensity Difference scores over the first 6 hours (SPID6) and Patient’s Global Evaluation (GLOBAL) of pain at 6 and 24 hours post initial dose. The primary hypothesis was that etoricoxib would be non-inferior to ibuprofen. Adverse experiences (AE) were monitored and evaluated.Results:A total of 139 patients were included in this study. Difference in least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) TOPAR6 score for etoricoxib vs. ibuprofen was 0.89 (0.03, 1.76) (p = 0.043). LS mean (95% CI) difference for etoricoxib vs. ibuprofen SPID6, GLOBAL6, and GLOBAL24 were 0.20 (−1.16, 1.57) (p = 0.768), 0.26 (0.07, 0.45) (p = 0.007), and 0.36 (0.17, 0.54) (p < 0.001), respectively. AEs were rare, with the following AEs determined to be drug-related: hypomenorrhea (two patients on etoricoxib) and allergic dermatitis (one patient on ibuprofen). Limitations of the study design include a sample size that is not adequate for evaluation of rare adverse effects, an evaluation period that was limited to 24 hours, and inconsistent frequency of active treatment doses between etoricoxib (once daily) and ibuprofen (up to four times daily).Conclusions:The primary objective of the study was met, demonstrating that etoricoxib 120 mg qd was non-inferior to ibuprofen 600 mg qid; further, etoricoxib was statistically superior to ibuprofen 600 mg qid according to the primary endpoint (TOPAR6) and patient global assessments of study medication. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen were generally well tolerated.

Pilot Study of Human Recombinant Hyaluronidase–Enhanced Subcutaneous Hydration and Opioid Administration for Sickle Cell Disease Acute Pain Episodes

ABSTRACTThe objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of protocol-driven human recombinant hyaluronidase (rHuPH20)-enhanced subcutaneous (SC) hydration and opioid administration in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with sickle cell disease acute pain episodes (SCDAPE). Adults with SCDAPE were given 150 U of rHuPH20 and normal saline subcutaneously. Opioids were administered SC every 15 minutes for 4 hours until numerical rating scale (NRS) pain intensity scores fell to <5, or Ramsay Sedation Scores were >4. Pain intensity and pain relief were recorded hourly. Total morphine equivalents and fluid volume, total pain relief (TOTPAR), patient- and physician-perceived global efficacy, patient-perceived global SC needle discomfort, physician-rated ease of needle placement, and adverse effects were noted. Ten patients (6 males, 4 females), mean age 32.9 years (23–56 years) completed the trial. Mean pain intensity scores fell 25% (from 9.2 to 6.9) from baseline and mean 4-hour TOTPAR score was 4 (maximum: 16). A mean total of 119 mg (70–170 mg) morphine equivalents and 846 mL (200–1650 mL) normal saline were administered. Mean patient and physician global perceived efficacy ratings were 3.4 and 4.2 (of 5). Patient global discomfort of SC needle presence was 2.7 (of 10), and ease of needle placement was physician rated at 4 (of 4; easiest). Patients experienced mild swelling and stinging at the SC site, and no infusion required discontinuation. The authors conclude that rHuPH20-enhanced subcutaneous hydration and opioid administration appear feasible from this pilot study. These results need confirmation in a controlled clinical trial.

No need for rescue medication (NNR) as an easily interpretable efficacy outcome measure in analgesic trials: validation in an individual-patient meta-analysis of dental pain placebo-controlled trials of naproxen

In analgesic trials, pain relief is often assessed using a pain-relief score. We aimed to assess, through a meta-analysis, whether absence of need for rescue medication (NNR) is a reliable outcome measure in the evaluation of acute pain relief. Individual-patient meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials of single-dose naproxen sodium 220 or 440 mg in dental pain. Efficacy estimates were based on NNR and compared with the more commonly used 50% maximum total pain relief score (50% TOTPAR). The trials included were the full set of trials sponsored by one manufacturer. Need for rescue medication and 50% TOTPAR gave comparable estimates of efficacy of naproxen sodium (220 and 440 mg) relative to placebo in dental pain at both 8 and 12 h after dosing. No need for rescue medication is a reliable outcome measure for use in acute pain trials. As it is more readily understandable than 50% TOTPAR, it should be the preferred primary outcome measure in acute pain trials.

Extended-release tramadol/paracetamol in moderate-to-severe pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with acute low back pain

Objective:Combinations of oral analgesics may offer several potential benefits compared with an individual agent. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of an extended-release, twice-daily fixed combination of 75 mg tramadol/650 mg paracetamol (DDS-06C) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain, using acute low back pain as a model.Research design and methods:In this phase III study, 277 patients with moderate-to-severe acute low back pain were randomized to 1–2 tablets of DDS-06C or placebo every 10–12 h for 2.5 days during the double-blind phase. Following the double-blind phase, patients had the option to continue for a 2.5-day open-label phase.Clinical trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT00643383)Main outcome measures:The primary end point was the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) over the 50-h double-blind phase (SPID50). Secondary end points included total pain relief score over the 50-h double-blind phase (TOTPAR50), patient’s global impression of medication, and SPID over the first 4 h.Results:A statistically significant (p = 0.038) greater decrease in pain intensity was observed in the DDS-06C group (median SPID50: −6.0) versus placebo (median SPID50: −4.0). Greater pain relief was also observed in patients randomized to DDS-06C: the median TOTPAR50 was 13.0 for the DDS-06C group and 11.0 for placebo (p = 0.026). DDS-06C demonstrated statistically significant superior efficacy compared with placebo for the majority of the other secondary end points. Overall, 38% of patients treated with DDS-06C experienced at least one adverse event; the intensity was mild-to-moderate in 81% of cases. The most commonly reported adverse events (>5% of patients receiving DDS-06C) were nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and somnolence.Conclusions:Using acute low back pain, a model with a high degree of heterogeneity and intrinsic variability, DDS-06C was superior to placebo on measures of pain intensity and relief, and was well-tolerated.

Analgesic efficacy of an ibuprofenreleasing foam dressing compared with local best practice for painful exuding wounds

To examine if wound aetiology has an effect on the pain-relieving properties of an ibuprofen-releasing foam dressing, which was previously shown to reduce pain in wounds of various aetiologies, compared with local best practice (LBP). This was a secondary analysis of data from a multicentre, randomised, parallel group trial of patients with painful exuding wounds of various aetiologies. Wound aetiology was determined at enrolment. Of 853 patients enrolled into the trial, 688 belonged to a wound aetiology subgroup that included >25 patients and were included in the analysis reported here. Patients were randomised to a dressing containing 112.5mg of ibuprofen (ibuprofen foam) or to LBP for 5 days. Patients recorded pain relief and pain intensity daily. The main endpoint was the proportion of patients who, from day 1 to day 5, reported a summed pain relief score >50% of the total maximum pain relief score (TOTPARD5>50%) and the corresponding number needed to treat (NNT) for each wound aetiology subgroup. Further analyses included the proportion of patients who, on a daily basis, reported pain relief >50% of the maximum daily pain relief, the proportion of patients who, on day 5, experienced a reduction in pain intensity of >50% of the maximum score (PIDD5>50%), and if PIDD5>50% was related to baseline pain intensity. Patients were categorised by the following five wound types: arterial, venous, and mixed arterial-venous leg ulcers, vasculitis and traumatic ulcers. The ibuprofen foam dressing was associated with significantly greater pain relief than LBP in all different wound aetiology subgroups, whether chronic or traumatic (acute). Overall, TOTPARD5>50% was 55% in the ibuprofen foam group and 24% in the LBP group (p<0.0001; NNT, 3.2). The pain intensity evaluations revealed similar results in favour of ibuprofen foam compared with LBP. No correlation was observed between PIDD5>50 and initial pain intensity. In this study, the ibuprofen foam dressing was shown to consistently relieve wound pain in exuding wounds of various aetiologies, irrespective of basal pain intensity. The data suggest that local pain relief by an ibuprofen foam dressing is possible in the most common, painful, exuding, chronic and acute/traumatic wounds and so is a safer alternative to systemic pain treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Etodolac-Paracetamol Fixed Dose Combination in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Flare-up: A Randomized, Double-blind Comparative Evaluation

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of etodolac-paracetamol combination in comparison with etodolac alone in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) flare-up. In this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, comparative, multicentric, parallel group study, 220 patients of either sex in the age range of 40 to 70 years with an OA flare-up were randomized either to etodolac (300 mg)-paracetamol (500 mg) combination or etodolac (300 mg) alone twice a day for 10 days. Efficacy outcomes were an average daily pain intensity score on 11-point visual analog scale, Western Ontario and McMaster score (WOMAC), and Lequesne Severity Index; total pain relief score at 30 minutes, 1, 2, and 4 hours after first-dose administration; OA flare-up symptoms resolution; patient's and investigator's overall assessment of study treatments. Etodolac-paracetamol was significantly superior to etodolac alone in reducing pain intensity (P<0.001), achieving pain relief (P<0.05) during the first 4 hours after the study dose administration, and resolution of the clinical signs and symptoms of OA flare-up such as morning stiffness, swelling/inflammation, and erythema. The combination showed significantly greater improvement in WOMAC scores and Lequesne Severity Index (P<0.001) than in etodolac monotherapy. Peak pain intensity difference over a period of 10 days was also significantly (P<0.001) higher in combination-treated patients compared with monotherapy-treated patients. The combination had significantly better patient's and investigator's global efficacy assessment (P=0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated and safe in patients with OA flare-up. For the treatment of painful OA flare-ups, the etodolac-paracetamol combination can offer improved clinical outcomes by targeting multiple pain pathways. The results of the current study show that etodolac-paracetamol is more effective in the treatment of OA flare-up than etodolac alone.

A Risk-Benefit Assessment of Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) Combined with Caffeine

To determine the risk: benefit of paracetamol combined with caffeine in the short-term management of acute pain conditions. Database searches were conducted to identify double-blind trials comparing paracetamol/caffeine with paracetamol alone (benefit analysis) and any data pertaining to hepatotoxicity of paracetamol when combined with caffeine (risk analysis). Paracetamol/caffeine (1,000 mg/130 mg) vs paracetamol (1,000 mg) alone. Assessment of benefit has been derived by meta-analysis. Information on the pain condition and number of patients studied, dosing regimen, study design and analgesic outcome measures (total pain relief scores) was extracted and dichotomous outcomes were obtained by calculating the number of patients in each treatment group who achieved at least 50% of the maximum total pain relief score. Assessment of risk has been made by appraisal of the literature. Eight studies from four papers provided sufficient quantitative data for satisfactory meta-analysis. The relative benefit (of achieving at least 50% pain relief) of paracetamol/caffeine vs paracetamol alone was 1.12 (95% Confidence Interval 1.05-1.19) across a number of acute pain states (dysmenorrhoea, headache, post-partum pain, and dental pain). Review of the effects of the combination of paracetamol and caffeine on the liver revealed no compelling data to suggest a clinically meaningful increase in hepatotoxicity with use of paracetamol/caffeine combinations. Paracetamol/caffeine (1,000 mg/130 mg) is effective and safe for use in acute management of pain. The hepatotoxicity of overdoses of paracetamol results from its oxidative metabolism, caffeine does not produce any increase in oxidative metabolism of therapeutic concentrations of paracetamol.

Intranasal Ketorolac for Pain Secondary to Third Molar Impaction Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intranasal (IN) ketorolac in patients who had third molar extraction surgery with bony impactions. After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive IN ketorolac 31.5 mg (n = 40) or IN placebo (n = 40). Safety was assessed from spontaneously reported adverse events and measurement of vital signs. Efficacy assessments included pain intensity, which was measured on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale, total pain relief, and global pain evaluation up to 8 hours after dosing or until patients required rescue analgesia. The primary efficacy variable was the summed pain intensity difference score over the first 8 hours after dosing. Summed pain intensity difference values +/- SE were significantly higher (indicating better analgesia) in the ketorolac group compared with placebo (136.7 +/- 33.0 vs -105.2 +/- 29.1, P < .001). Total pain relief scores were significantly higher (P < .001) in the ketorolac group compared with placebo at all times. A larger proportion of subjects in the ketorolac group reported good, very good, or excellent pain control compared with the control group (60% vs 13%). Times to perceptible (21.5 minutes) and meaningful (66.0 minutes) pain relief were significantly shorter and the time to rescue analgesic use was significantly longer in the ketorolac group (P < .001). Eight patients in the placebo group and 3 in the ketorolac group had adverse events, none of which was serious. The 3 events in the ketorolac group were reports of mild headache. A single IN ketorolac 31.5 mg dose was well tolerated and provided rapid and effective pain relief in oral surgery patients for a period up to 8 hours.

Comparison of intravenous dexketoprofen and dipyrone in acute renal colic

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a single intravenous (i.v.) bolus of dexketoprofen trometamol compared with an i.v. infusion of dipyrone in patients with moderate to severe pain due to renal colic. A total of 308 patients with renal colic and visual analog scale (VAS) score >/=40 mm participated in a multicenter, randomized, double blind, double-dummy, parallel, and active-controlled study and were randomized to dexketoprofen 25 mg (n = 101), dexketoprofen 50 mg (n = 104), and dipyrone 2 g (n = 103). Mean [+/- standard deviation (SD)] total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores were similar in the dexketoprofen 50 mg (15.3 +/- 8.6) and dipyrone (15.5 +/- 8.6) and slighly higher than in dexketoprofen 25 mg (13.5 +/- 8.6), although significant differences were not achieved. In the same way, patients in the dexketoprofen 50 mg and dipyrone groups showed higher scores in the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) and the sum of analogue pain intensity differences (SAPID) than patients in the dexketoprofen 25 mg group, reaching statistical significance in comparison with dexketoprofen 25 mg and dipyrone for SPID and SAPID (p < 0.05). The time-effect course for pain intensity differences and pain relief showed significantly higher values for both doses of dexketoprofen during the first 30 min after drug administration (p < 0.05). Dexketoprofen 50 mg and dipyrone groups had 66% and 70%, respectively, of patients with at least 50% of maximum obtainable TOTPAR in comparison with 56% in the dexketoprofen 25 mg group. The study medications were well tolerated. Dexketoprofen 50 mg administered as a single i.v. bolus was effective for the relief of moderate to severe pain in patients with renal colic, with a good safety profile and efficacy similar to i.v. dipyrone 2 g. Dexketoprofen produced analgesia that was faster in onset.

Dose–response of minor analgesics in acute pain

Dose–response of minor analgesics in acute pain

The efficacy and safety of aceclofenac versus placebo and naproxen in women with primary dysmenorrhoea

Objective To determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of aceclofenac 100 mg and compare that with placebo and naproxen 500 mg in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. Study design In this double-blind, prospective, multicentre, randomised, three-way, crossover study, women were randomly assigned to receive one of six treatment sequences, comprising single oral doses of aceclofenac 100 mg, naproxen 500 mg or placebo, when menstrual pain reached a predetermined level of severity. A single dose of the assigned study medication was taken on three menstrual periods; a different medication was taken on each treatment day. Analgesic efficacy was determined by self-reported analgesia scoring and participants’ and investigators’ global evaluation of treatment effectiveness. Measurements also included physical examination and adverse events. Results Total pain relief scores were not statistically significantly different for aceclofenac and naproxen, and both were statistically significantly more effective than placebo ( p = 0.019 and 0.002, respectively). This finding was supported by secondary endpoints including sum of pain intensity differences (SPID/8), peak analgesia (peak pain intensity and peak pain relief), and participants’ and investigators’ overall evaluation of effectiveness. Both aceclofenac and naproxen were well tolerated. Conclusions Aceclofenac (100 mg) and naproxen (500 mg) effectively treated the pain associated with primary dysmenorrhoea, and both were more effective than placebo at easing menstrual pain assessed by various pain relief criteria.

How high should total pain-relief score be to obviate the need for analgesic remedication in acute pain? Estimation using signal detection theory and individual-patient meta-analysis

A pain relief score 50% of the maximum is often used as a clinically meaningful outcome in meta-analyses of analgesic trials. This arbitrary value requires validation. To determine the optimum pain relief score for predicting pain relief sufficient to obviate the need for analgesic remedication in acute post-surgical pain. Individual-patient meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and use of signal detection theory to identify the optimum cut-off point on the total pain relief score (TOTPAR). Analgesic remedication was used as the clinical outcome. Seven parallel-group, active and placebo-controlled trials of minor analgesics. The predictive value of the TOTPAR score [expressed as a percentage of the maximum score (%maxTOTPAR)] for remedication was excellent for all the trials. The pooled estimate of the area under the receiver operating curve, an index of discriminative power, was outstanding 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97). The pooled estimate of the optimal %maxTOTPAR for predictive purposes was 44.11 (95% CI 44.00-44.23). The analysis suggests that the arbitrary 50% cut-off point TOTPAR score often used in meta-analyses of analgesic trials in dental pain is reasonably acceptable. This is different to the 33% cut-off point reported for analgesic trials of acute breakthrough cancer pain and some chronic pain states such as diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia. These differences deserve careful consideration when reading reports of analgesic trials and meta-analyses. Remedication itself should be considered as the preferred outcome measure for analgesic trials.

Analgesic efficacy of parenteral paracetamol (propacetamol) and diclofenac in post‐operative orthopaedic pain

Propacetamol is an injectable pro-drug of paracetamol (acetaminophen) with analgesic and antipyretic activities, especially used in the post-operative period. The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol, administered as propacetamol, in comparison with placebo and intramuscular diclofenac in patients with post-operative pain. This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study. One hundred and twenty patients with moderate to severe pain following total hip arthroplasty received either two administrations of propacetamol 2 g intravenously, 5 h apart (n = 40), one single administration of diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly (n = 40) or placebo (n = 40). Efficacy measures were assessed before each drug administration, for the 5 h following each study treatment administration and for the total study duration of 10 h. Safety was assessed by reporting adverse events and changes in vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG) and biochemical investigations before and 24 h after dosing. Both active treatments were effective and statistically superior to placebo over the whole study period, as indicated by the total pain relief score. No significant differences were found between propacetamol and diclofenac for any measures of analgesic activity. Only minor and common adverse events were reported, with no overall differences between the groups. Both active treatments were superior to placebo, and the overall efficacy of two intravenous infusions of propacetamol 2 g (equivalent to 1 g of paracetamol), 5 h apart, was not statistically different from that provided by a single intramuscular injection of diclofenac 75 mg over the first 5 h post-dose and over the total 10-h study period. The safety was good.