-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2012Decompression illness (DCI) is due to bubble formation in the blood or tissues following the breathing of compressed gas. Clinically, DCI may range from a trivial... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Decompression illness (DCI) is due to bubble formation in the blood or tissues following the breathing of compressed gas. Clinically, DCI may range from a trivial illness to loss of consciousness, death or paralysis. Recompression is the universally accepted standard treatment of DCI. When recompression is delayed, a number of strategies have been suggested in order to improve the outcome.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness and safety of both recompression and adjunctive therapies in the treatment of DCI.
SEARCH METHODS
In our previous update we searched until October 2009. In this version we searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, October 2011); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2011); CINAHL (1982 to October 2011); EMBASE (1980 to October 2011); the Database of Randomised Controlled Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine (October 2011); and handsearched journals and texts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of any recompression schedule or adjunctive therapy with a standard recompression schedule. We did not apply language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors extracted the data independently. We assessed each trial for internal validity and resolved differences by discussion. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1.
MAIN RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 268 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias for Drewry 1994 was unclear as this study was presented as an abstract, while Bennett 2003 was rated as at low risk. Pooling of data was not possible. In one study there was no evidence of improved effectiveness with the addition of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (tenoxicam) to routine recompression therapy (at six weeks: relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.20, P = 0.58) but there was a reduction in the number of compressions required when tenoxicam was added from three to two (P = 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 1). In the other study, the odds of multiple recompressions were lower with a helium and oxygen (heliox) table compared to an oxygen treatment table (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00, P = 0.05).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Recompression therapy is standard for the treatment of DCI, but there is no randomized controlled trial evidence for its use. Both the addition of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and the use of heliox may reduce the number of recompressions required, but neither improve the odds of recovery. The application of either of these strategies may be justified. The modest number of patients studied demands a cautious interpretation. Benefits may be largely economic and an economic analysis should be undertaken. There is a case for large randomized trials of high methodological rigour in order to define any benefit from the use of different breathing gases and pressure profiles during recompression therapy.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Decompression Sickness; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Piroxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment
PubMed: 22592704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005277.pub3 -
Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia 2012Hemicrania Continua (HC) is a primary, disabling headache characterized by a continuous unilateral pain and responsive to indomethacin. There are symptoms common to the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Hemicrania Continua (HC) is a primary, disabling headache characterized by a continuous unilateral pain and responsive to indomethacin. There are symptoms common to the trigeminal-autonomic cephalalgias and migraine that complicate the diagnosis. This review aims to describe HC in a case series and review the best available evidence on alternative therapies.
METHOD
A systematic review of medical records and diaries of pain of 1,600 patients treated between January 1992 and January 2011 in a headache outpatient clinic.
RESULTS
Ten patients with a possible diagnosis of hemicrania continua were selected; seven were diagnosed with HC according to the II International Classification of Headache Disorders. None of the patients had received the correct diagnosis before being treated at the outpatient clinic and the average time for treatment was 12 years. Prophylactic treatment was effective in 66.6% of cases with amitriptyline, 20% with gabapentin and 10% with topiramate.
CONCLUSIONS
HC should be considered among the diagnostic hypotheses of patients with continuous headache, with no change in neurological examination and additional tests, regardless the age of onset. The standard treatment with indomethacin (100-150mg.day(-1)) has significant risks associated with both short and long term use and may not be a good choice for continuous use. Recent studies point out possible alternatives: gabapentin, topiramate, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, piroxicam, beta-cyclodextrin, amitriptyline, melatonin. Other drugs were described in different reports as efficient, but most of them were considered inefficient in other HC cases.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Headache; Humans; Indomethacin; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 22440373
DOI: 10.1016/S0034-7094(12)70116-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2010Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions is widely accepted in some parts of the world, but not in others. Their main attraction is their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions is widely accepted in some parts of the world, but not in others. Their main attraction is their potential to provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence from randomised, double-blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs in acute pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and our own in-house database to December 2009. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching on-line clinical trial registers and manufacturers web sites.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, active or placebo (inert carrier)-controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adult patients with acute pain resulting from strains, sprains or sports or overuse-type injuries (twisted ankle, for instance). There had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-seven studies were included; most compared topical NSAIDs in the form of a gel, spray, or cream with a similar placebo, with 3455 participants in the overall analysis of efficacy. For all topical NSAIDs combined, compared with placebo, the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for clinical success, equivalent to 50% pain relief, was 4.5 (3.9 to 5.3) for treatment periods of 6 to 14 days. Topical diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and piroxicam were of similar efficacy, but indomethacin and benzydamine were not significantly better than placebo. Local skin reactions were generally mild and transient, and did not differ from placebo. There were very few systemic adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were insufficient data to reliably compare individual topical NSAIDs with each other or the same oral NSAID.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical NSAIDs can provide good levels of pain relief, without the systemic adverse events associated with oral NSAIDs, when used to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Topical; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Athletic Injuries; Humans; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sprains and Strains
PubMed: 20556778
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007402.pub2 -
Arthritis and Rheumatism Jun 2010Traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding/perforation, but the magnitude of this effect for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding/perforation, but the magnitude of this effect for coxibs in the general population and the degree of variability between individual NSAIDs is still under debate. This study was undertaken to assess the risk of upper GI bleeding/perforation among users of individual NSAIDs and to analyze the correlation between this risk and the degree of inhibition of whole blood cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1) and COX-2 in vitro.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies on NSAIDs and upper GI bleeding/perforation published between 2000 and 2008. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) estimates of upper GI bleeding/perforation for individual NSAIDs. Additionally, we verified whether the degree of inhibition of whole blood COX-1 and COX-2 in vitro by average circulating concentrations predicted the RR of upper GI bleeding/perforation.
RESULTS
The RR of upper GI bleeding/perforation was 4.50 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.82-5.31) for traditional NSAIDs and 1.88 (95% CI 0.96-3.71) for coxibs. RRs lower than that for NSAIDs overall were observed for ibuprofen (2.69 [95% CI 2.17-3.33]), rofecoxib (2.12 [95% CI 1.59-2.84]), aceclofenac (1.44 [95% CI 0.65-3.2]), and celecoxib (1.42 [95% CI 0.85-2.37]), while higher RRs were observed for ketorolac (14.54 [95% CI 5.87-36.04]) and piroxicam (9.94 [95% CI 5.99-16.50). Estimated RRs were 5.63 (95% CI 3.83-8.28) for naproxen, 5.57 (95% CI 3.94-7.87) for ketoprofen, 5.40 (95% CI 4.16-7.00) for indomethacin, 4.15 (95% CI 2.59-6.64) for meloxicam, and 3.98 (95% CI 3.36-4.72) for diclofenac. The degree of inhibition of whole blood COX-1 did not significantly correlate with RR of upper GI bleeding/perforation associated with individual NSAIDs (r(2) = 0.34, P = 0.058), but a profound and coincident inhibition (>80%) of both COX isozymes was associated with higher risk. NSAIDs with a long plasma half-life and with a slow-release formulation were associated with a greater risk than NSAIDs with a short half-life.
CONCLUSION
The results of our analysis demonstrate that risk of upper GI bleeding/perforation varies between individual NSAIDs at the doses commonly used in the general population. Drugs that have a long half-life or slow-release formulation and/or are associated with profound and coincident inhibition of both COX isozymes are associated with a greater risk of upper GI bleeding/perforation.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Half-Life; Humans; Regression Analysis; Risk; Risk Factors
PubMed: 20178131
DOI: 10.1002/art.27412 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Lornoxicam is one of the oxicam class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), producing analgesic and antipyretic effects in part through the non-selective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lornoxicam is one of the oxicam class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), producing analgesic and antipyretic effects in part through the non-selective inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase-1 and -2. It is prescribed for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, acute lumbar-sciatica conditions and for postoperative pain management. Lornoxicam is available in 31 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Far East and South America, and is becoming more widely available.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, the time to onset of analgesia, the time to use of rescue medication and any associated adverse events of single dose oral lornoxicam in acute postoperative pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed to June 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Single oral dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lornoxicam for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Studies were assessed for methodological quality and the data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed total pain relief over 6 hours (TOTPAR 6) was used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. These derived results were used to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies, with 628 participants, met the inclusion criteria; 434 participants were treated with various doses (2 mg to 32 mg) of lornoxicam, 118 with placebo, and 76 with other active therapies. All the participants had pain following third molar extraction, and study duration was 8 to 24 hours. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours after a single dose of lornoxicam 8 mg was 2.9 (2.3 to 4.0). There were insufficient data to analyse other doses or use of rescue medication. No serious adverse events or withdrawals were reported by any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral lornoxicam is effective at treating moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, based on limited data. Adverse events did not differ significantly from placebo.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Piroxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 19821419
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007441.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2009Tenoxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and is widely available... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tenoxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and is widely available in other countries worldwide. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral tenoxicam in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of single dose oral tenoxicam in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2009), MEDLINE (March 2009); EMBASE via Ovid (March 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral tenoxicam for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with tenoxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use of rescue analgesia, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected.
MAIN RESULTS
Not one of sixteen studies identified by the searches and examined in detail studied oral tenoxicam in patients with established postoperative pain and therefore no results are available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of evidence of efficacy for oral tenoxicam in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified at present. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes which are effective, there is no urgent research agenda for this particular drug.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Piroxicam
PubMed: 19588438
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007591.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Osteoarthritis(OA) is the most common rheumatic disease. Simple analgesics are now accepted as the appropriate first line pharmacological treatment of uncomplicated OA.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis(OA) is the most common rheumatic disease. Simple analgesics are now accepted as the appropriate first line pharmacological treatment of uncomplicated OA. Non-aspirin NSAIDs are licensed for the relief of pain and inflammation arising from rheumatic disease.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether there is a difference in the relative efficacy of individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched Medline (1966-1995) and Bids Embase (Jan-Dec, 1980-1995). The searches were limited to publications in the English language, and were last performed in November 1996. We used modified Cochrane Collaboration search strategy to identify all randomised controlled trials. The MeSH heading "osteoarthritis" was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs licensed in the UK for the management of OA in general practice. The search of Embase used the term "osteoarthritis" if present in the abstract, title or keywords, and was combined with the generic names of the 17 non-aspirin NSAIDs, only if they were mentioned in the title, abstract or keywords.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All double blind, randomised controlled trials, in the English language, comparing the efficacy of two non-aspirin NSAIDs in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee, were selected. Only trials with subjects aged 16 years and over, with clinical and/or radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of OA knee were included. Studies which compared one "trial" NSAID with one "reference" NSAID were included provided they were non-aspirin NSAIDs available in the UK and were licensed for the treatment of OA by general practitioners. Trials which were placebo-controlled and which also involved the comparison of two NSAIDs were also included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The methodological design of each study was scored according to a pre-determined system. The three main outcome measures of pain, physical function and patient global assessment were chosen based on the core set agreed upon by OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials). These were used to determine the power of each trial. The equivalency of NSAID doses was calculated using the percentage of the recommended maximum daily dose. Sample size estimates for the detection of clinically relevant changes in outcome measures used in the assessment of OA knee were used for power calculations. These calculations were performed to determine whether the trials were of a sufficient size to detect clinically relevant differences which were statistically significant. The calculations incorporate estimates of standard deviation, and minimum, median and maximum differences (delta) between drugs which are deemed to be clinically important. The number of "withdrawals due to lack of efficacy" was also selected as an outcome measure for this review. The Peto odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where possible. The results of studies which compared the same trial and reference NSAIDs were combined where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 1151 trials identified by the search strategy, 22 involved knee osteoarthritis only. Sixteen of these trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were entered in the review. Eight NSAIDs were represented in these trials. Etodolac was represented in 11 trials. The reference NSAID in these trials was piroxicam (n=3), naproxen(n=3), diclofenac (n=3), indomethacin (n=1), and, nabumetone (n=1). The reported methodological design of the trials was poor, with a median score of 3 (out of a maximum of 8). The results of the trials comparing the same trial and reference NSAIDs were pooled for the outcome "withdrawal due to lack of efficacy". For the comparison, etodolac versus piroxicam, the odds ratio favoured etodolac i.e. patients receiving etodolac were less likely to withdraw due to lack of efficacy. The dose of etodolac used in each of these three studies, however, was greater than the corresponding dose of piroxicam (based on percentage maximum daily dose). The significance of these results is therefore questionable. For the comparisons etodolac versus diclofenac, and etodolac versus naproxen, there were no clear differences between treatments. In one study [Bellamy 1993], a statistically significant difference was detected between treatments with regard to withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. In this trial, which compared equivalent NSAID doses, diclofenac was the favoured NSAID compared to tenoxicam(p=0.04). Two studies showed a statistical difference in patient global assessment of condition, which favoured the trial NSAID. In both cases the trial NSAID was etodolac, used in doses approximately 25-44% greater than the reference NSAID. Two studies showed a statistically significant difference in pain relief between NSAIDs. The trial NSAID in both cases was again etodolac but the doses exceeded those of the reference NSAIDs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In spite of the large number of publications in this area, there are few randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, most trials comparing two or more NSAIDs suffer from substantial design errors. From the results of this review it is concluded that no substantial evidence is available related to efficacy, to distinguish between equivalent recommended doses of NSAIDs. Had studies employed appropriate doses of comparator drug, most would have been sufficiently powerful to detect clinically important differences in efficacy. As differences in efficacy between NSAIDs have not been recorded, the selection of an NSAID for prescription for OA knee should be based upon relative safety, patient acceptability and cost.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee
PubMed: 17636601
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000142.pub2 -
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &... May 2003The Apc(Min/+) mouse model and the azoxymethane (AOM) rat model are the main animal models used to study the effect of dietary agents on colorectal cancer. We reviewed... (Review)
Review
The Apc(Min/+) mouse model and the azoxymethane (AOM) rat model are the main animal models used to study the effect of dietary agents on colorectal cancer. We reviewed recently the potency of chemopreventive agents in the AOM rat model (D. E. Corpet and S. Tache, Nutr. Cancer, 43: 1-21, 2002). Here we add the results of a systematic review of the effect of dietary and chemopreventive agents on the tumor yield in Min mice. The review is based on the results of 179 studies from 71 articles and is displayed also on the internet http://corpet.net/min.(2) We compared the efficacy of agents in the Min mouse model and the AOM rat model, and found that they were correlated (r = 0.66; P < 0.001), although some agents that afford strong protection in the AOM rat and the Min mouse small bowel increase the tumor yield in the large bowel of mutant mice. The agents included piroxicam, sulindac, celecoxib, difluoromethylornithine, and polyethylene glycol. The reason for this discrepancy is not known. We also compare the results of rodent studies with those of clinical intervention studies of polyp recurrence. We found that the effect of most of the agents tested was consistent across the animal and clinical models. Our point is thus: rodent models can provide guidance in the selection of prevention approaches to human colon cancer, in particular they suggest that polyethylene glycol, hesperidin, protease inhibitor, sphingomyelin, physical exercise, epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor, (+)-catechin, resveratrol, fish oil, curcumin, caffeate, and thiosulfonate are likely important preventive agents.
Topics: Animals; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Azoxymethane; Chemoprevention; Colonic Neoplasms; Diet; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Mice; Mice, Mutant Strains; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rats
PubMed: 12750232
DOI: No ID Found -
Nutrition and Cancer 2002Potential chemopreventive agents for colorectal cancer are assessed in rodents. We speculated that the magnitude of the effect is meaningful and ranked all published... (Review)
Review
Potential chemopreventive agents for colorectal cancer are assessed in rodents. We speculated that the magnitude of the effect is meaningful and ranked all published agents according to their potency. Data were gathered systematically from 137 articles with the aberrant crypt foci (ACF) end point and from 146 articles with the tumor end point. The potency of each agent to reduce the number of ACF is listed in one table and the potency of each agent to reduce the tumor incidence in another table. Both tables are shown in this review and on a website with sorting abilities (http://www.inra.fr/reseau-nacre/sci-memb/corpet/indexan.html). Potency was estimated as the ratio of the value in control rats to the value in treated rats. From each article, only the most potent agent was kept, except in articles reporting the effect of more than seven agents. Among the 186 agents in the ACF table, the median agent reduced the number of ACF by one-half. The most potent agents to reduce azoxymethane-induced ACF were Pluronic, polyethylene glycol, perilla oil with beta-carotene, and sulindac sulfide. Among the 160 agents in the tumor table, the median agent reduced the tumor incidence in rats by one-half. The most potent agents to reduce the incidence of azoxymethane-induced tumors were celecoxib, a protease inhibitor from soy, difluoromethylornithine with piroxicam, polyethylene glycol, and a thiosulfonate. For the 57 agents present in both tables, a significant correlation (r) was found between the potencies against ACF and tumors (r = 0.45, P < 0.001); without celecoxib, a major outlying point in the correlation, r = 0.68 (P < 0.001, n = 56). In conclusion, this review gathers most known chemopreventive agents, ranks the most promising agents against colon carcinogenesis in rats or mice, and further supports the use of ACF as a surrogate end point for tumors in rats.
Topics: Animals; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Colon; Colonic Neoplasms; Precancerous Conditions; Rats
PubMed: 12467130
DOI: 10.1207/S15327914NC431_1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000Piroxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with analgesic properties, and is used mainly for treating rheumatic disorders. Some drugs have been directly... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Piroxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with analgesic properties, and is used mainly for treating rheumatic disorders. Some drugs have been directly compared against each other within a trial setting to determine their relative efficacies, whereas other have not. It is possible, however, to compare analgesics indirectly by examining the effectiveness of each drug against placebo when used in similar clinical situations.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose piroxicam compared with placebo in moderate to severe postoperative pain. To compare the effects of piroxicam with other analgesics.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Published reports were identified from systematic searching of Medline, Biological Abstracts, Embase, The Cochrane Library and the Oxford Pain Relief Database. Additional studies were identified from the reference lists of retrieved reports.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The following inclusion criteria were used: full journal publication, randomised placebo controlled trial, double-blind design, adult patients, postoperative pain of moderate to severe intensity at the baseline assessment, postoperative administration of oral or intramuscular piroxicam.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Summed pain intensity and pain relief data were extracted and converted into dichotomous information to yield the number of patients obtaining at least 50% pain relief. This was used to calculate estimates of relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat for one patient to obtain at least 50% pain relief. Information was collected on adverse effects and estimates of relative risk and number-needed-to-harm were calculated.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials (141 patients) compared oral piroxicam 20 mg with placebo and one (15 patients) compared oral piroxicam 40 mg with placebo. For single doses of piroxicam 20 mg and 40 mg the respective numbers-needed-to-treat for at least 50% pain relief were 2.7 (2.1 to 3.8) [95% confidence interval] and 1.9 (1.2 to 4.3) [95% confidence interval] compared with placebo over 4-6 hours in moderate to severe postoperative pain. The reported incidence of adverse effects was no higher with piroxicam (20 mg or 40 mg) than with placebo.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Piroxicam appears to be of similar efficacy to other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and intramuscular morphine 10 mg when used as a single oral dose in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain, Postoperative; Piroxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11034755
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002762