PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H McQuay

Publications and source records attributed to H McQuay.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Anticonvulsant drugs for acute and chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of pain since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning. Readers are referred to reviews of carbamazepine and gabapentin in the Cochrane Library which replace the information on those drugs in this review. Other drugs remain unchanged at present in this review OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs for pain management in clinical practice . Migraine and headache studies are excluded in this revision. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised trials of anticonvulsants in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified by MEDLINE (1966-1999), EMBASE (1994-1999), SIGLE (1980-1999) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL/CCTR) (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 1999). In addition, 41 medical journals were hand searched. Additional reports were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators. Date of most recent search: September 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials reporting the analgesic effects of anticonvulsant drugs in patients, with subjective pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and trials were quality scored. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and drug-related study withdrawal, for individual studies and for pooled data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials of six anticonvulsants were considered eligible (1,074 patients). The only placebo-controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate. Three placebo-controlled studies of carbamazepine in trigeminal neuralgia had a combined NNT (95% confidence interval (CI)) for effectiveness of 2.5 (CI 2.0-3.4). A single placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin in post-herpetic neuralgia had an NNT of 3.2 (CI 2.4-5.0). For diabetic neuropathy NNTs for effectiveness were as follows: (one RCT for each drug) carbamazepine 2.3 (CI 1.6-3.8), gabapentin 3.8 (CI 2.4-8.7) and phenytoin 2.1 (CI 1.5-3.6).Numbers-needed-to-harm (NNHs) were calculated where possible by combining studies for each drug entity irrespective of the condition treated. The results were, for minor harm, carbamazepine 3.7 (CI 2.4-7.8), gabapentin 2.5 (CI 2.0-3.2), phenytoin 3.2 (CI 2.1-6.3). NNHs for major harm were not statistically significant for any drug compared with placebo. Phenytoin had no effect in irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine little effect in post-stroke pain. Clonazepam was effective in one study of temporomandibular joint dysfunction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although anticonvulsants are used widely in chronic pain surprisingly few trials show analgesic effectiveness. Only one studied considered cancer pain. There is no evidence that anticonvulsants are effective for acute pain. In chronic pain syndromes other than trigeminal neuralgia, anticonvulsants should be withheld until other interventions have been tried. While gabapentin is increasingly being used for neuropathic pain the evidence would suggest that it is not superior to carbamazepine.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

Single dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for the relief of mild and moderate pain arising from headache, musculoskeletal conditions and dysmenorrhoea. A prior Cochrane systematic review concluded that paracetamol is also effective for postoperative pain, but additional trials have since been published. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol using current data, and to compare the findings with other analgesics evaluated in the same way. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of single dose oral paracetamol for the treatment of acute postoperative pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2002), the trials register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care group (November 2002); MEDLINE (1966 to May 1996); PubMed (1996 to August 2001); EMBASE (1980 to 1996); the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994); and reference lists of articles in order to update an existing version of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the 'pain relief versus time' curve was used to derive the proportion of patients with paracetamol or placebo experiencing least 50% pain relief over four to six hours using validated equations. The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals. Information on adverse effects was also collected. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven reports that enrolled 4186 patients (2561 patients were treated with a single oral dose of paracetamol and 1625 with placebo) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. The NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours following a single dose of paracetamol were as follows: 325 mg NNT 3.8 (2.2 to 13.3); 500 mg NNT 3.5 (2.7 to 4.8); 600/650 mg NNT 4.6 (3.9 to 5.5); 975/1000 mg NNT 3.8 (3.4 to 4.4); and 1500 mg NNT 3.7 (2.3 to 9.5). Sub-group analysis showed no significant differences between smaller and larger trials, or lower and higher quality trials. Drug-related study withdrawals were rarely reported. Studies reported a variable incidence of adverse effects that were generally mild and transient. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of reported adverse effects between paracetamol 975/1000 mg and placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Single doses of paracetamol are effective analgesics for acute postoperative pain and give rise to few adverse effects.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2003

Meta-analysis of single dose oral tramadol plus acetaminophen in acute postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Trials in acute postoperative pain are usually small. Pooling homogenous data from a number of trials in a meta-analysis enables a truer estimate of efficacy. The aims of the present meta-analysis were to assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose oral tramadol plus acetaminophen (paracetamol) in acute postoperative pain, and to demonstrate the efficacy of the combination formulation compared with its components. METHODS: Individual data from > 1400 adult dental or gynaecologic/orthopaedic patients with moderate-to-severe pain were taken from seven randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials of tramadol (75 mg or 112.5 mg) plus acetaminophen (650 mg or 975 mg) with identical methods. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) for one patient to obtain at least 50% pain relief. Information on adverse effects was also collected and the number needed to harm (NNH) was estimated. RESULTS: The tramadol/acetaminophen combination was more effective than either of its two components administered alone. For dental patients, who formed the bulk of the population, the combination formulation also had a significantly lower (better) NNT (approximately 3) than the components al one (approximately 8-12), comparable to ibuprofen 400 mg. The adverse effects associated with tramadol/acetaminophen were similar to those associated with the components alone. The commonest were dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis confirmed the analgesic superiority of the combination treatment over its components, without additional toxicity. Combination analgesic formulations are an important and effective means of pain relief, and should prove useful in treating elderly and other groups of patients who often cannot tolerate non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including the newer COX-2 inhibitors.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2001

Strategies to manage the adverse effects of oral morphine: an evidence-based report.

Successful pain management with opioids requires that adequate analgesia be achieved without excessive adverse effects. By these criteria, a substantial minority of patients treated with oral morphine (10% to 30%) do not have a successful outcome because of (1) excessive adverse effects, (2) inadequate analgesia, or (3) a combination of both excessive adverse effects along with inadequate analgesia. The management of excessive adverse effects remains a major clinical challenge. Multiple approaches have been described to address this problem. The clinical challenge of selecting the best option is enhanced by the lack of definitive, evidence-based comparative data. Indeed, this aspect of opioid therapeutics has become a focus of substantial controversy. This study presents evidence-based recommendations for clinical-practice formulated by an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Research NETWORK: These recommendations highlight the need for careful evaluation to distinguish between morphine adverse effects from comorbidity, dehydration, or drug interactions, and initial consideration of dose reduction (possibly by the addition of a co analgesic). If side effects persist, the clinician should consider options of symptomatic management of the adverse effect, opioid rotation, or switching route of systemic administration. The approaches are described and guidelines are provided to aid in selecting between therapeutic options.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2000

Anticonvulsant drugs for acute and chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of pain since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of anticonvulsant drugs compared to either placebo or other drugs in order to provide evidence-based recommendations for pain management in clinical practice and to identify a clinical research agenda. Adverse effects are also considered. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised trials of anticonvulsants in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified by Medline (Silver Platter 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11) from 1966 to February 1994. In addition, 40 medical journals were hand searched (published between 1950 and 1990). Additional reports were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and contacting investigators. Date of the most recent searches: 1994. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials reporting the analgesic effects of anticonvulsant drugs in patients, with pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and trials were quality scored. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and drug-related study withdrawal, for individual studies and for pooled data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials of four anticonvulsants were considered eligible (746 patients). The only placebo-controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate. Three placebo-controlled studies of carbamazepine in trigeminal neuralgia had a combined NNT for effectiveness of 2.6, for adverse effects 3.4, and for severe effects (withdrawal from study) 24. Three placebo-controlled studies of diabetic neuropathy had a combined NNT for effectiveness of 3, for adverse effects 2.5, and for severe effects 20. Three placebo-controlled studies of migraine prophylaxis had a combined NNT for effectiveness of 2.4, for adverse effects 2.4 and for severe effects 39. Phenytoin had no effect in irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine little effect in post-stroke pain. Clonazepam was effective in one study of temporomandibular joint dysfunction. No study compared one anticonvulsant with another. Anticonvulsants fared poorly against other treatments. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although anticonvulsants are used widely in chronic pain surprisingly few trials show analgesic effectiveness. No trial compared different anticonvulsants. There is no evidence that anticonvulsants are effective for acute pain. In chronic pain syndromes other than trigeminal neuralgia anticonvulsants should be withheld until other interventions have been tried.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2000

Single dose paracetamol (acetaminophen), with and without codeine, for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Patient surveys have shown that postoperative pain is often not managed well, and there is a need to assess the efficacy and safety of commonly used analgesics as newer treatments become available. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is an important non-opiate analgesic, commonly prescribed, as well as being available for retail sale. This review seeks to examine the efficacy of paracetamol alone and in combination with codeine, and also considers adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single dose of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) alone and in combination with codeine for moderate to severe postoperative pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: Published trials were identified from: Medline (1966 to May 1996), Embase (1980 to 1996), Cochrane Library (Issue 2 1996) and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994). Additional trials were identified from reference lists of retrieved studies. Date of most recent searches: July 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: full journal publication, postoperative pain, postoperative oral administration, adult patients, baseline pain of moderate to severe intensity, double-blind design, and random allocation to treatment groups which compared paracetamol with placebo or a combination of paracetamol and codeine with either placebo or the same dose of paracetamol alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and trials were quality scored. Summed pain intensity and pain relief data were extracted and converted into dichotomous information to yield the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was used to calculate the relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours compared with placebo. Adverse effects were used to calculate relative risk and number-needed-to-harm (NNH). MAIN RESULTS: We found 40 trials of paracetamol against placebo (4171 patients), 22 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against placebo (1407 patients) and 12 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against the same dose of paracetamol (794 patients). In postoperative pain paracetamol 1000 mg had an NNT of 4.6 (3.8-5.4) for at least 50% pain relief when compared with placebo, and paracetamol 600/650 mg had an NNT of 5.3 (4.1-7.2). Paracetamol 600/650 mg plus codeine 60 mg had an NNT of 3. 6 (2.9-4.5). Comparing paracetamol plus codeine 60 mg with the same dose of paracetamol alone gave an NNT of 7.7 (5.1-17) for at least 50% pain relief. Adverse effects: Relative risk estimates for paracetamol 600/650 mg plus codeine 60 mg versus placebo showed a significant difference for 'drowsiness'/somnolence (NNH 11 (7.5- 0)) and dizziness (NNH 27 (15-164)) but no significant difference for nausea/vomiting. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Paracetamol is an effective analgesic with a low incidence of adverse effects. The addition of codeine 60 mg to paracetamol produces additional pain relief even in single oral doses, but may be accompanied by an increase in drowsiness and dizziness.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed1999

Opioids in pain management.

Opioids are our most powerful analgesics, but politics, prejudice, and our continuing ignorance still impede optimum prescribing. Just over 100 years ago, opium poppies were still grown on the Cambridgeshire fens in the UK to provide oblivion for the working man and his family, but the brewing lobby argued on thin evidence that their potions were less dangerous. The restriction of opioid availability to protect society and the individual continues in many countries. In this review I focus on chronic and cancer pain, but many of the principles apply in acute pain. The justification for this focus is that patients with chronic pain may suffer longer and unnecessarily if we prescribe and legislate badly.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed1997

Deriving dichotomous outcome measures from continuous data in randomised controlled trials of analgesics: verification from independent data.

A previously established relationship for deriving dichotomous from continuous information in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of analgesics has been tested using an independent data set. Individual patient information from 18 RCTs of parallel-group design in acute postoperative pain (after abdominal, gynaecological and oral surgery) was used to calculate the percentage of the maximum possible pain relief score (%maxTOTPAR) and the proportion of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR for the different treatments. The relationship between the measures was investigated in 85 treatments with over 3400 patients. In 80 of 85 treatments (94%) agreement between calculated and actual number of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR was within four patients per treatment and in 72 (85%) was within three (average of 40 patients per treatment, range 21-58 patients). Summing the positive and negative differences between actual and calculated numbers of patients with > 50%maxTOTPAR gave an average difference of 0.30 patients per treatment arm. Reports of RCTs of analgesics frequently describe results of studies in the form of mean derived indices, rather than using discontinuous events, such as number or proportion of patients with 50% pain relief. Because mean data inadequately describe information with a non-normal distribution, combining mean data in systematic reviews may compromise the results. Showing that dichotomous data can reliably be derived from mean data in acute pain studies enables data published as means to be used for quantitative systematic reviews which require data in dichotomous form.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1997

Paracetamol with and without codeine in acute pain: a quantitative systematic review.

In order to assess the analgesia obtained from single oral doses of paracetamol alone and in combination with codeine in postoperative pain, we conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. We found 31 trials of paracetamol against placebo with 2515 patients, 19 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against placebo with 1204 patients and 13 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against the same dose of paracetamol with 874 patients. Pain relief information was extracted, and converted into dichotomous information (number of patients with at least 50% pain relief). Wide variations in responses to placebo (0-72%) and active drug (3-89%) were observed. In postoperative pain states paracetamol 1000 mg alone against placebo had an number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 3.6 (3.0-4.4) and paracetamol 600/650 mg alone an NNT of 5.0 (4.1-6.9). Paracetamol 600/650 mg plus codeine 60 mg against placebo had a better NNT of 3.1 (2.6-3.8), with no overlap of 95% confidence intervals with paracetamol 600/650 mg alone. In direct comparisons of paracetamol plus codeine with paracetamol alone the additional analgesic effect of 60 mg of codeine added to paracetamol was 12 extra patients in every 100 achieving at least 50% pain relief. In indirect comparisons of each with placebo it was 14 extra patients per 100. This was an NNT for adding codeine 60 mg of 9.1 (5.8-24). The results confirm that paracetamol is an effective analgesic, and that codeine 60 mg added to paracetamol produces worthwhile additional pain relief even in single oral doses.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed1997

Propofol anaesthesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled studies.

We have analysed randomized controlled studies which reported the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after propofol anaesthesia compared with other anaesthetics (control). Cumulative data of early (0-6 h) and late (0-48 h) PONV were recorded as occurrence or non-occurrence of nausea or vomiting. Combined odds ratio and number-needed-to-treat were calculated for propofol as an induction or maintenance regimen, early or late outcomes, and different emetic events. This was performed for all control event rates and within a range of 20-60% control event rates. We analysed 84 studies involving 6069 patients. The effect of propofol on PONV was dependent mainly on the method of administration, time of measurement and range of control event rates. When all studies were included the number-needed-to-treat to prevent PONV with propofol was more than 9 when used for induction of anaesthesia and at best 6 when used for maintenance. Within the 20-60% control event rate range, best results were achieved with propofol maintenance to prevent early PONV: the number-needed-to-treat to prevent early nausea was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 3.8-6.3), vomiting 4.9 (4-6.1) and any emetic event 4.9 (3.7-7.1). Within the 20-60% control event rate, of five patients treated with propofol for maintenance of anaesthesia, one will not vomit or be nauseated in the immediate postoperative period who would otherwise have vomited or been nauseated. This may be clinically relevant. In all other situations the difference between propofol and control may have reached statistical significance but was of doubtful clinical relevance. Treatment efficacy should be established within a defined range of control event rates for meaningful estimates of efficacy and for comparisons.

Anesthetics, Intravenous↗
PubMed1997

Meta-analytic comparison of prophylactic antiemetic efficacy for postoperative nausea and vomiting: propofol anaesthesia vs omitting nitrous oxide vs total i.v. anaesthesia with propofol.

Data from two published and one new meta-analysis were reviewed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of three different anaesthetic regimens: (i) propofol anaesthesia compared with another anaesthetic (control); (ii) anaesthesia without nitrous oxide compared with the same anaesthetic with nitrous oxide (control); (iii) propofol anaesthesia without nitrous oxide (TIVA) compared with another anaesthetic with nitrous oxide (control). Efficacy (prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with control) was estimated using odds ratio and number-needed-to-treat methods, and compared within a range of 20-60% control event rates for early efficacy (0-6 h) and 40-80% for late efficacy (0-48 h). Propofol anaesthesia or omitting nitrous oxide had similar effects on vomiting, both early and late. Propofol (but not omitting nitrous oxide) decreased the incidence of nausea. TIVA studies were documented poorly; appropriate comparison with other interventions were not possible. Efficacy of treatments should be compared within a setting-specific range of control event rates. There is insufficient evidence that TIVA with propofol is an anaesthetic technique with a low emetogenic potency.

Anesthetics, Combined↗
PubMed1997

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in labour pain: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for labour pain. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of TENS in pain during labour. SAMPLE: Eight reports involving 712 women were included; 352 women received active TENS and 360 acted as controls. METHODS: Reports were sought by searching MEDLINE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analgesic and adverse effect outcomes. RESULTS: Evidence for reduced pain using TENS in labour was weak. Additional analgesic interventions may be less likely with TENS (odds ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.34-0.96), number-needed-to-treat 14 (95% CI 7.3-119). CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trials provide no compelling evidence for TENS having any analgesic effect during labour. Weak positive effects in secondary (analgesic sparing) and tertiary (choosing TENS for future labours) outcomes may be due to inadequate blinding causing overestimation of treatment effects.

Female↗