-
European Journal of Internal Medicine May 2015The association between acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is well established. However, little is known about the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The association between acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is well established. However, little is known about the comparative risk of individual NSAIDs, including specific COX-2 inhibitors.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies that reported relative risk, hazard ratio or standardized incidence ratio with 95% confidence comparing AKI risk in NSAID users versus non-users. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for individual NSAIDs were calculated using random-effect, generic inverse variance methods.
RESULTS
Five studies were identified and included in our data analysis. Pooled risk ratios were calculated for seven traditional NSAIDs and two specific COX-2 inhibitors, including indomethacin, piroxicam, ibuprofen, naproxen, sulindac, diclofenac, meloxicam, rofecoxib and celecoxib that were evaluated in at least two studies. Our meta-analysis was able to demonstrate a statistically significant elevated AKI risk among most of the included traditional NSAIDs. The pooled risk ratios were fairly consistent among individual traditional NSAIDs, ranging from 1.58 to 2.11. Differences between pooled risk ratios did not reach statistical significance (p≥0.19 for each comparison). Elevated AKI risk was also observed in diclofenac, meloxicam, rofecoxib and celecoxib users, although did not achieve a statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
A statistically significant elevated AKI risk among traditional NSAID users has been demonstrated in this meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratios among individual traditional NSAIDs were not significantly different. The pooled risk ratios of specific COX-2 inhibitors and the two traditional NSAIDs with the most COX-2 selectivity (diclofenac and meloxicam) were also comparable with other traditional NSAIDs even though they did not achieve a statistical significance.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25862494
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2015.03.008 -
Efficacy of tramadol for postoperative pain management in dogs: systematic review and meta-analysis.Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia May 2021To evaluate the evidence of analgesic efficacy of tramadol for the management of postoperative pain and the presence of associated adverse events in dogs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence of analgesic efficacy of tramadol for the management of postoperative pain and the presence of associated adverse events in dogs.
DATABASES USED
A comprehensive search using PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS, Google Scholar and CAB databases with no restrictions on language and following a prespecified protocol was performed from June 2019 to July 2020. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in dogs that had undergone general anesthesia for any type of surgery. Two authors independently classified the studies, extracted data and assessed their risk of bias using Cochrane's tool. RevMan and GRADE methods were used to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall 26 RCTs involving 848 dogs were included. Tramadol administration probably results in a lower need for rescue analgesia versus no treatment or placebo [moderate CoE; relative risk (RR): 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.85; I = 0%], and may result in a lower need for rescue analgesia versus buprenorphine (low CoE; RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.20-1.24), codeine (low CoE; RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.16-3.41) and nalbuphine (low CoE; RR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.00-0.72). However, tramadol administration may result in an increased requirement for rescue analgesia versus methadone (low CoE; RR: 3.45; 95% CI: 0.66-18.08; I = 43%) and COX inhibitors (low CoE; RR: 2.27; 95% CI: 0.68-7.60; I = 45%). Compared with multimodal therapy, tramadol administration may make minimal to no difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia (low CoE; RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.48-2.60; I = 0%). Adverse events were inconsistently reported and the CoE was very low. The overall CoE of the analgesic efficacy of tramadol for postoperative pain management in dogs was low or very low, and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision.
Topics: Analgesia; Animals; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Nalbuphine; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Tramadol
PubMed: 33745825
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaa.2021.01.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews, we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 26414123
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub3 -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used for pain treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines regarding the human in vivo efficacy and safety of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain treatment that take pharmacogenetic parameters into consideration. Studies were collected from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to the cutoff date 18 October 2021.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles out of the 6547 initially detected publications were identified. Relevant medication-gene interactions were noted for drug safety. Interactions important for pain management were detected for (1) ibuprofen/; (2) celecoxib/; (3) piroxicam/, ; (4) diclofenac/, , , ; (5) meloxicam/; (6) aspirin/, , and ; (7) amitriptyline/ and ; (8) imipramine/; (9) nortriptyline/, , ; and (10) escitalopram/, , and .
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, a lack of well powered human in vivo studies assessing the pharmacogenetics in pain patients treated with NSAIDs or antidepressants is noted. Studies indicate a higher risk for partly severe side effects for the poor metabolizers and NSAIDs. Further in vivo studies are needed to consolidate the relevant polymorphisms in NSAID safety as well as in the efficacy of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain management.
PubMed: 35745763
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061190 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
Stroke Feb 2016The association between hemorrhagic stroke and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The association between hemorrhagic stroke and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observation studies to further characterize this possible association.
METHODS
Case-control and cohort studies that reported odds ratio, relative risk, hazard ratio, or standardized incidence ratio comparing risk of hemorrhagic stroke among NSAIDs users versus nonusers were systematically searched. Point estimates from each study were extracted. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all NSAIDs and individual NSAIDs were calculated using random-effect, generic inverse variance method.
RESULTS
Ten studies were identified and included in our data analysis. As a single group, NSAIDs use was associated with a small but insignificant risk of hemorrhagic stroke with the pooled RR of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Individual NSAIDs analysis revealed a significantly increased risk among diclofenac and meloxicam users (RR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59 and RR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50, respectively). The risk estimate for rofecoxib users was higher, but statistically nonsignificant (RR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.88-2.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the use of NSAIDs is not associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke, although this risk was modestly significantly elevated in diclofenac and meloxicam users.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Incidence; Indomethacin; Lactones; Meloxicam; Naproxen; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Piroxicam; Proportional Hazards Models; Stroke; Sulfones; Thiazines; Thiazoles
PubMed: 26670086
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011678 -
Inflammopharmacology Feb 2015Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) and renal incidences, especially at higher doses and upon long term... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) and renal incidences, especially at higher doses and upon long term use. However, the available reports are criticized for lack of specificity, grouping of vastly different outcomes together and ignoring the heterogeneity among NSAIDs. In this systematic review, we are reporting CV/renal risks associated with meloxicam, stratified into myocardial, vascular, renal risk categories, to address the differential nature of NSAIDs effects on different body systems. We are also reporting composite CV/renal risk to present overall risk associated with various covariates.
METHODS
We searched the online healthcare databases for observational studies or randomized controlled trials, reporting myocardial or all-cause mortality outcome (>90 days exposure) and/or vascular/renal outcomes (any exposure) after meloxicam use, published until April 2014. The combined odd ratio values (OR'; 95% CI) were calculated using the random effect inverse variance model.
RESULTS
We found 19 eligible studies out of 2,422 reports. Meloxicam demonstrated a low increase in composite risk (OR' 1.14; CI 1.04-1.25) which was mainly vascular in nature (OR' 1.35; CI 1.18-1.55] as it did not elevate myocardial (OR' 1.13; CI 0.98-1.32) or renal (OR', 0.99; CI 0.72-1.35) risks. Relative to meloxicam, other NSAIDs increased the composite risk, in a dose-dependent fashion, in the following order: rofecoxib > indomethacin > diclofenac > celecoxib > naproxen > ibuprofen. OR' was also influenced by type of disease and the comparator used, and acetylsalicylic acid.
CONCLUSION
NSAIDs are heterogeneous in increasing CV/renal risks. The low increased risk associated with meloxicam is mainly vascular in origin.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cardiovascular Diseases; Case-Control Studies; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Kidney Diseases; Meloxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Thiazines; Thiazoles; Vascular Diseases
PubMed: 25515365
DOI: 10.1007/s10787-014-0225-9 -
Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia Jan 2016To systematically review published studies evaluating pain associated with onychectomy in cats, and to assess the efficacy of the analgesic therapies applied. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review published studies evaluating pain associated with onychectomy in cats, and to assess the efficacy of the analgesic therapies applied.
DATABASES USED
Four sources were used to identify manuscripts for review. Databases searched were those of the National Library of Medicine, EMBASE and CAB International. In addition, pertinent references in the bibliographies of included articles were retrieved.
RESULTS
Twenty manuscripts published in refereed journals were reviewed. These included papers reporting 18 clinical trials and two studies conducted in conditioned research cats. Twelve analgesics were evaluated, including seven opioids, four non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and one local anesthetic. Nine studies involved a direct comparison of analgesic agents. Limb use was abnormal when measured at 2 and 12 days following onychectomy, and neither fentanyl patch nor butorphanol administration resulted in normal use of the surgical limb. In another study, cats evaluated at 6 months after this surgery were not lame. Differing surgical techniques were compared in six studies; the results indicated that pain scores were lower after laser surgery than after scalpel surgery. The difficulties associated with assessing pain in cats and the lack of sensitivity of the evaluation systems utilized were highlighted in many of the studies. Huge variations in dose and dosing strategies had significant impacts on drug efficacy. Statistically significant differences among treatments were found in most studies; however, no clearly superior analgesic treatment was identified. A combination of meloxicam or robenacoxib with an opioid may provide more effective analgesia and should be evaluated.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Cats; Female; Humans; Male; Orchiectomy; Ovariectomy; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26457818
DOI: 10.1111/vaa.12314 -
Veterinary Research Communications Feb 2022Although laboratory animals experience pain as a necessary component of the objectives of experimental protocols, the level of pain should be minimized through use of an... (Review)
Review
Although laboratory animals experience pain as a necessary component of the objectives of experimental protocols, the level of pain should be minimized through use of an adequate analgesic regimen. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug meloxicam may be beneficial in alleviating post-operative pain in mice, although no regimen has been demonstrated as universally efficacious owing to differences in experimental protocols, strain, sex, and incomplete descriptions of methodology in the literature. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify potential applications of meloxicam for pain management in experimental mice and to evaluate the general quality of study design. Searches of MEDLINE, Scopus and CAB Direct databases elicited 94 articles published between January 2000 and April 2020 that focused on the analgesic efficacy of meloxicam in the management of momentary or persistent pain in mice. The extracted data showed that most articles were deficient in descriptions of housing, husbandry, group size calculation and humane endpoint criteria, while few described adverse effects of the drug. A wide range of dosages of meloxicam was identified with analgesic efficiencies that varied considerably according to the different models or procedures studied. It was impossible to correlate the extracted data into a single meta-analysis because of the differences in experimental protocols and strains employed, the low representation of female mice in the studies, and incomplete descriptions of the methodology applied. We conclude that meloxicam has potential application for pain management in mice but that the dosage must be adjusted carefully according to the experimental procedures. Moreover, authors must take more care in designing their studies and in describing the methodology employed.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Meloxicam; Mice; Pain
PubMed: 34988874
DOI: 10.1007/s11259-021-09868-2 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2022Pain following most surgical procedures is expected. However, the treatment and management of postoperative surgical pain have remained challenging. The use of opioid...
INTRODUCTION
Pain following most surgical procedures is expected. However, the treatment and management of postoperative surgical pain have remained challenging. The use of opioid therapy has become increasingly controversial given the limited therapeutic window of these drugs, the adverse side effects, and the potential for abuse. A multimodal approach to the treatment of postoperative pain has been shown to improve pain outcomes after surgery and improve patient satisfaction. Here, we examine a new formulation of bupivacaine and meloxicam extended-release solution HTX-011 (ZYNRELEF®) and its efficacy in postoperative pain control.
AREAS COVERED
HTX-011 exists as an extended-release polymer that controls the release of the active ingredients over 72 hours. A systematic approach was taken to review PubMed (Medline) for prospective and retrospective studies related to the use of HTX-011 for the management of postoperative pain.
EXPERT OPINION
HTX-011 represents a new tool to help modulate postoperative pain. Although multimodal analgesia has been effective in managing postoperative pain, direct surgical infiltration with local anesthetics has had limited efficacy due to their short duration of action. The HTX-011 formulation provides a long-acting local anesthetic at the surgical site, which provides a longer period of analgesia while maintaining a favorable safety profile.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Bupivacaine; Meloxicam; Pain, Postoperative; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36199229
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2022.2132227