-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2012Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Diclofenac is an established analgesic, and new formulations using the potassium or epolamine salts, which can be dissolved in water, have been developed for rapid absorption, which may be beneficial in acute migraine. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 27 September 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using self administered diclofenac to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies (1356 participants) compared oral diclofenac with placebo, and one also compared it with sumatriptan; none combined diclofenac with a self administered antiemetic. Four studies treated attacks with single doses of medication, and two allowed an optional second dose for inadequate response. Only two studies, with three active treatment arms, provided data for pooled analysis of primary outcomes. For single doses of diclofenac potassium 50 mg versus placebo (two studies), the NNTs were 6.2, 8.9, and 9.5 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, and pain-free responses at 24 hours, respectively.Associated symptoms of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and functional disability were reduced within two hours, and similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.There were insufficient data to evaluate other doses of oral diclofenac, or to compare different formulations or different dosing regimens; only one study compared oral diclofenac with an active comparator (oral sumatriptan 100 mg).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral diclofenac potassium 50 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine, providing relief from pain and associated symptoms, although only a minority of patients experience pain-free responses. Adverse events are mostly mild and transient and occur at the same rate as with placebo.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics; Antiemetics; Diclofenac; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hyperacusis; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Photophobia; Sumatriptan
PubMed: 22336852
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008783.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important.
MAIN RESULTS
Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27271789
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012230 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2023Liposomal bupivacaine is claimed by the manufacturer to provide analgesia for up to 72 h postoperatively. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve and field blocks: A systematic review and meta-analysis, with trial sequential analysis.
BACKGROUND
Liposomal bupivacaine is claimed by the manufacturer to provide analgesia for up to 72 h postoperatively.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve or field blocks.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, among others, up to June 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine, levobupivacaine or ropivacaine for peripheral nerve and field blocks after all types of surgery. Our primary endpoint was rest pain score (analogue scale 0 to 10) at 24 h. Secondary endpoints included rest pain score at 48 and 72 h, and morphine consumption at 24, 48 and 72 h.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials including 2122 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 24 h were significantly reduced by liposomal bupivacaine with a mean difference (95% CI) of -0.9 (-1.4 to -0.4), I2 = 87%, P < 0.001. This reduction in pain scores persisted at 48 h and 72 h with mean differences (95% CI) of -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2 = 82%, P = 0.001 and -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2 = 80%, P < 0.001, respectively. There were no differences in interval morphine consumption at 24 h ( P = 0.15), 48 h ( P = 0.15) and 72 h ( P = 0.07). The quality of evidence was moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate level evidence that liposomal bupivacaine reduces rest pain scores by 0.9 out of 10 units, when compared with long-acting local anaesthetics at 24 hours after surgery, and by 0.7 up to 72 hours after surgery.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Pain, Postoperative; Bupivacaine; Analgesics; Morphine; Peripheral Nerves; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 37038770
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001833 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2023Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not been well established.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the associations of pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events with different dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients undergoing spine surgery.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched for articles until August 7, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials conducted among patients who received pregabalin or gabapentin while undergoing spine surgery were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently performed data extraction following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guideline. The network meta-analysis was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023 using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials with 1861 patients (median age, 45.99 years [range, 20.00-70.00 years]; 759 women [40.8%]) were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the VAS pain score was lowest with gabapentin 900 mg per day, followed by gabapentin 1200 mg per day, gabapentin 600 mg per day, gabapentin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 150 mg per day, and pregabalin 75 mg per day. Additionally, gabapentin 900 mg per day was found to be associated with the lowest opioid consumption among all dosages of gabapentin and pregabalin, with a mean difference of -22.07% (95% CI, -33.22% to -10.92%) for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) among all treatments. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that gabapentin 900 mg per day before spine surgery is associated with the lowest VAS pain score among all dosages. In addition, no differences in adverse events were noted among all treatments.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37556139
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28121 -
Anesthesiology Jan 2015Designing analgesic clinical trials in pediatrics requires a balance between scientific, ethical, and practical concerns. A previous consensus group recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Designing analgesic clinical trials in pediatrics requires a balance between scientific, ethical, and practical concerns. A previous consensus group recommended immediate rescue designs using opioid sparing as a surrogate measure of analgesic efficacy. The authors summarize the performance of rescue analgesic designs in pediatric trials of four commonly used classes of analgesics: opioids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and local anesthetics.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and Web of science were searched in April 2013. The 85 studies selected were randomized or controlled clinical trials using immediate rescue paradigms in postoperative pain settings. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to synthesize predefined outcomes using Hedges' g. Difference between the means of the treatment arms were also expressed as a percentage of the corresponding value in the placebo group (placebo-treatment/placebo). Distributions of pain scores in study and control groups and relationships between opioid sparing and pain scores were examined.
RESULTS
For each of the four study drug classes, significant opioid sparing was demonstrated in a majority of studies by one or more of the following endpoints: (1) total dose (milligram per kilogram per hour), (2) percentage of children requiring rescue medication, and (3) time to first rescue medication (minutes). Pain scores averaged 2.4/10 in study groups, 3.4/10 in control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid sparing is a feasible pragmatic endpoint for pediatric pain analgesic trials. This review serves to guide future research in pediatric analgesia trials, which could test whether some specific design features may improve assay sensitivity while minimizing the risk of unrelieved pain.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Pediatrics; Research Design
PubMed: 25222831
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000445 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of zonisamide for the relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of zonisamide for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 1 August 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing zonisamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier evidence derived from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence derived from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) for one additional event using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a single study treating 25 participants (13 zonisamide, 12 placebo) with painful diabetic neuropathy over 12 weeks. No first or second tier evidence was available for any outcome. The small size of the study and potential major bias due to a high proportion of early study withdrawals with zonisamide precluded any conclusions being drawn. There were two serious adverse events (one death) in zonisamide-treated participants, which were apparently not related to treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The review found a lack of evidence suggesting that zonisamide provides pain relief in any neuropathic pain condition. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Diabetic Neuropathies; Female; Humans; Isoxazoles; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Zonisamide
PubMed: 25879104
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011241.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. This is an update of an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. This is an update of an earlier review of milnacipran for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults originally published in The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2012. We split that review so that this one looked only at neuropathic pain, and a separate review looks at fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of milnacipran for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 23 February 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a single study of 40 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. It found no difference in pain scores between milnacipran 100 mg to 200 mg daily or placebo after six weeks (very low quality evidence). Adverse event rates were similar between treatments, with too few data to draw conclusions (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence to support the use of milnacipran to treat neuropathic pain conditions.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Back Pain; Chronic Pain; Cyclopropanes; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Milnacipran; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 26148202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011789 -
Marine Drugs May 2023The pharmacological treatment of cancer-related pain is unsatisfactory. Tetrodotoxin (TTX) has shown analgesia in preclinical models and clinical trials, but its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The pharmacological treatment of cancer-related pain is unsatisfactory. Tetrodotoxin (TTX) has shown analgesia in preclinical models and clinical trials, but its clinical efficacy and safety have not been quantified. For this reason, our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence that was available. A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov) up to 1 March 2023 in order to identify published clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and security of TTX in patients with cancer-related pain, including chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain. Five articles were selected, three of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The number of responders to the primary outcome (≥30% improvement in the mean pain intensity) and those suffering adverse events in the intervention and placebo groups were used to calculate effect sizes using the log odds ratio. The meta-analysis showed that TTX significantly increased the number of responders (mean = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.19-1.16, = 0.0065) and the number of patients suffering non-severe adverse events (mean = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.31-1.95, = 0.0068). However, TTX did not increase the risk of suffering serious adverse events (mean = 0.75; 95% CI: -0.43-1.93, = 0.2154). In conclusion, TTX showed robust analgesic efficacy but also increased the risk of suffering non-severe adverse events. These results should be confirmed in further clinical trials with higher numbers of patients.
Topics: Humans; Tetrodotoxin; Cancer Pain; Neoplasms; Analgesics; Neuralgia
PubMed: 37233510
DOI: 10.3390/md21050316 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2024Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often involves significant postoperative pain, necessitating effective analgesia. This meta-analysis compares the analgesic efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Analgesic efficacy of local infiltration anaesthesia versus femoral nerve block in alleviating postoperative wound pain following total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often involves significant postoperative pain, necessitating effective analgesia. This meta-analysis compares the analgesic efficacy of local infiltration anaesthesia (LIA) and femoral nerve block (FNB) in managing postoperative wound pain following TKA. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this meta-analysis was structured around the PICO framework, assessing studies that directly compared LIA and FNB in TKA patients. A comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was conducted without time restrictions. Studies were included based on specific criteria such as participant demographics, study design and outcomes like pain scores and opioid consumption. Quality assessment utilized the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The statistical approach was determined based on heterogeneity, with the choice of fixed- or random-effects models guided by the I statistic. Sensitivity analysis and evaluation of publication bias using funnel plots and Egger's linear regression test were also conducted. From an initial pool of 1275 articles, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies conducted in various countries from 2007 to 2016. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in resting and movement-related Visual Analogue Scale scores post-TKA between the LIA and FNB groups. However, LIA was associated with significantly lower opioid consumption. The quality assessment revealed a low risk of bias in most studies, and the sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of these findings. There was no significant publication bias detected. Both LIA and FNB are effective in controlling postoperative pain in TKA patients, but LIA offers the advantage of lower opioid consumption. Its simplicity, cost-effectiveness and opioid-sparing nature make LIA the recommended choice for postoperative analgesia in knee replacement surgeries.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Analgesics, Opioid; Femoral Nerve; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local
PubMed: 38351465
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14766 -
Pain Jul 2021We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the antinociceptive efficacy of cannabinoids, cannabis-based medicines, and endocannabinoid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cannabinoids, cannabis-based medicines, and endocannabinoid system modulators tested for antinociceptive effects in animal models of injury-related or pathological persistent pain.
We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the antinociceptive efficacy of cannabinoids, cannabis-based medicines, and endocannabinoid system modulators on pain-associated behavioural outcomes in animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain. In April 2019, we systematically searched 3 online databases and used crowd science and machine learning to identify studies for inclusion. We calculated a standardised mean difference effect size for each comparison and performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the impact of study design characteristics and reporting of mitigations to reduce the risk of bias. We meta-analysed 374 studies in which 171 interventions were assessed for antinociceptive efficacy in rodent models of pathological or injury-related pain. Most experiments were conducted in male animals (86%). Antinociceptive efficacy was most frequently measured by attenuation of hypersensitivity to evoked limb withdrawal. Selective cannabinoid type 1, cannabinoid type 2, nonselective cannabinoid receptor agonists (including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha agonists (predominantly palmitoylethanolamide) significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in a broad range of inflammatory and neuropathic pain models. Fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors, monoacylglycerol lipase inhibitors, and cannabidiol significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in neuropathic pain models but yielded mixed results in inflammatory pain models. The reporting of criteria to reduce the risk of bias was low; therefore, the studies have an unclear risk of bias. The value of future studies could be enhanced by improving the reporting of methodological criteria, the clinical relevance of the models, and behavioural assessments. Notwithstanding, the evidence supports the hypothesis of cannabinoid-induced analgesia.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Endocannabinoids; Male; Models, Animal; Neuralgia
PubMed: 33729209
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002269