Biomedical subjects

Henry J McQuay

Publications and source records attributed to Henry J McQuay.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyxlooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) and gastrointestinal harm: review of clinical trials and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal harm, known to occur with NSAIDs, is thought to be lower with NSAID and gastroprotective agent, and with inhibitors selective to cyclooxygenase-2 (coxibs) at usual plasma concentrations. We examine competing strategies for available evidence of reduced gastrointestinal bleeding in clinical trials and combine this evidence with evidence from clinical practice on whether the strategies work in the real world, whether guidance on appropriate prescribing is followed, and whether patients adhere to the strategies. METHODS: We used a series of systematic literature searches to find full publications of relevant studies for evidence about the efficacy of these different gastroprotection strategies in clinical trials, and for evidence that they worked and were adhered to in clinical practice--whether they were effective. We chose to use good quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses when they were available. RESULTS: Evidence of efficacy of coxibs compared to NSAIDs for upper gastrointestinal bleeding was strong, with consistent reductions in events of about 50% in large randomised trials (34,460 patients), meta-analyses of randomised trials (52,474 patients), and large observational studies in clinical practice (3,093 bleeding events). Evidence on the efficacy of NSAID plus gastroprotection with acid suppressants (proton pump inhibitors, PPIs, and histamine antagonists, H2As) was based mainly on the surrogate measure of endoscopic ulcers. The limited information on damage to the bowel suggested that NSAID plus PPI was more damaging than coxibs. Eleven observational studies studied 1.6 million patients, of whom 911,000 were NSAID users, and showed that 76% (range 65% to 90%) of patients with at least one gastrointestinal risk factor received no prescription for gastroprotective agent with an NSAID. The exception was a cohort of US veterans with previous gastrointestinal bleeding, where 75% had gastroprotection with an NSAID. When gastroprotection was prescribed, it was often described as inadequate. A single study suggested that patient adherence to prescribed gastroprotection was low. CONCLUSION: Evidence for efficacy of gastroprotection strategies with NSAIDs is limited. In clinical practice few patients who need gastroprotection get it, and those who get it may not take it. For coxibs, gastroprotection is inherent, although probably not complete.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2006

Incidence of epidural haematoma and neurological injury in cardiovascular patients with epidural analgesia/anaesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural anaesthesia is used extensively for cardiothoracic and vascular surgery in some centres, but not in others, with argument over the safety of the technique in patients who are usually extensively anticoagulated before, during, and after surgery. The principle concern is bleeding in the epidural space, leading to transient or persistent neurological problems. METHODS: We performed an extensive systematic review to find published cohorts of use of epidural catheters during vascular, cardiac, and thoracic surgery, using electronic searching, hand searching, and reference lists of retrieved articles. RESULTS: Twelve studies included 14,105 patients, of whom 5,026 (36%) had vascular surgery, 4,971 (35%) cardiac surgery, and 4,108 (29%) thoracic surgery. There were no cases of epidural haematoma, giving maximum risks following epidural anaesthesia in cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery of 1 in 1,700, 1 in 1,400 and 1 in 1,700 respectively. In all these surgery types combined the maximum expected rate would be 1 in 4,700. In all these patients combined there were eight cases of transient neurological injury, a rate of 1 in 1,700 (95% confidence interval 1 in 3,300 to 1 in 850). There were no cases of persistent neurological injury (maximum expected rate 1 in 4,600). CONCLUSION: These estimates for cardiothoracic epidural anaesthesia should be the worst case. Limitations are inadequate denominators for different types of surgery in anticoagulated cardiothoracic or vascular patients more at risk of bleeding.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2006

Dose-response in direct comparisons of different doses of aspirin, ibuprofen and paracetamol (acetaminophen) in analgesic studies.

AIMS: Establishing the dose-response relationship for clinically useful doses of aspirin, ibuprofen and paracetamol has been difficult. Indirect comparison from meta-analysis is compromised by too little information at some doses. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized, double-blind trials in acute pain comparing different doses of aspirin, ibuprofen and paracetamol was therefore undertaken. RESULTS: Fifty trials were found. Numerical superiority of higher over lower dose was found by the original authors in 37/50 trials (74%) and statistical superiority in 11/50 (22%). Twenty-eight trials had design, quality and data reporting characteristics to allow pooling of common doses; in 3/28 (11%) of the individual trials our calculations showed statistical superiority of higher over lower dose. Pooled comparison of 1000/1200 mg aspirin over 500/600 mg was statistically superior, with a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for higher over lower dose of 16 (8 to > 100). Pooled comparison of 400 mg ibuprofen over 200 mg was statistically superior, with an NNT for higher over lower dose of 10 (6-23). Pooled comparison of 1000 mg paracetamol over 500 mg was statistically superior, with an NNT for higher over lower dose of 9 (6-20). CONCLUSIONS: Use of trials making direct comparison of two different doses of target drugs revealed the underlying dose-response curve for clinical analgesia.

Acetaminophen↗

PubMed2006

Epidemiology and treatment of neuropathic pain: the UK primary care perspective.

The true incidence of neuropathic pain is unknown, but it is believed to be under-diagnosed and treated inadequately, despite the availability of drugs with proven efficacy. Our objective was to report the epidemiology and drug treatment of neuropathic pain as managed by UK primary care physicians. A descriptive analysis of the epidemiology of incident post-herpetic neuralgia (n=12,386); trigeminal neuralgia (8268); phantom limb pain (451) and painful diabetic neuropathy (4719) and prescription treatment at diagnosis from computerised UK general practice records (GPRD): January 1992 to April 2002. Incidences per 100,000 person years observation of 40 (95% CI 39-41) for post-herpetic neuralgia, 27 (26-27) for trigeminal neuralgia, 1 (1-2) for phantom limb pain and 15 (15-16) for painful diabetic neuropathy are reported, with rates decreasing over time for phantom limb pain and post-herpetic neuralgia and increasing for painful diabetic neuropathy. Drugs were initiated at first diagnosis record for 46-66% of conditions, usually one item, with antidepressants included in 30% of prescriptions, anticonvulsants in 20% and opioid analgesics in 20%. The most commonly prescribed items were the same across conditions; amitriptyline, carbamazepine, coproxamol, codydramol and codeine+paracetamol. Carbamazepine was prescribed to 58% of the trigeminal neuralgia cohort. In 2600 patients followed to stable therapy, there was a median of one to two drug changes. We provide the primary care managed incidence of four neuropathic pain conditions. For commonly prescribed treatments, changes in therapy are less frequent when initial therapy was with antidepressants or anticonvulsants rather than conventional analgesics.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result.

Bias from funding sources of trials would threaten their validity. Meta-analyses of high quality acute pain and migraine trials were used to explore the hypothesis that industry funding of clinical trials produced more favourable results than non-profit sponsorship. Analyses were planned to evaluate whether industry-sponsored trials had different results from trials funded by academic or other non-profit sources, but of 176 trials, only two were supported by non-profit sources, while 31 provided no statement of support. An alternative method is proposed within industry-sponsored trials, looking at conflicting industry interests for the same drug, used either as test or comparator treatment. Fifty-three trials used an analgesic as test and 90 as comparator, allowing comparisons to be made for aspirin 600/650 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 1000 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg and sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg. Only for sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, with the outcome of headache response at 2 h, was there any significant difference between the drug used as a test or as a comparator. The direction was for higher (worse) NNTs with sumatriptan as comparator. Investigating potential industry bias through the funding source of trials is unlikely to be adequate because of a dearth of trials funded by non-profit organisations. We propose a method based on potential conflict of interest within industry-sponsored trials. Using this method, established clinical trial results in acute pain and migraine appear to be unbiased.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗

PubMed2005

Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomised and properly blinded trials directly comparing one PDE-5 inhibitor with another in a normal home setting. Valid indirect comparisons with a common comparator must examine equivalent doses, similar duration, similar populations, with the same outcomes reported in the same way. METHODS: Published randomised, double-blind trials of oral PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction were sought from reference lists in previous reviews and electronic searching. Analyses of efficacy and harm were carried out for each treatment, and results compared where there was a common comparator and consistency of outcome reporting, using equivalent doses. RESULTS: Analysis was limited by differential reporting of outcomes. Sildenafil trials were clinically and geographically more diverse. Tadalafil and vardenafil trials tended to use enriched enrollment. Using all trials, the three interventions were similar for consistently reported efficacy outcomes. Rates of successful intercourse for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 65%, 62%, and 59%, with placebo rates of 23-28%. The rates of improved erections were 76%, 75% and 71%, respectively, with placebo rates of 22-24%, and NNTs of 1.9 or 2.0. Reporting of withdrawals was less consistent, but all-cause withdrawals for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 8% 13% and 20%. All three drugs were well tolerated, with headache being the most commonly reported event at 13-17%. There were few serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: There were differences between trials in outcomes reported, limiting comparisons, and the most useful outcomes were not reported. For common outcomes there was similar efficacy between PDE-5 inhibitors.

3',5'-Cyclic-GMP Phosphodiesterases↗

PubMed2005

Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids.

Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed2005

Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports.

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2004

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: : A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Twelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice.

Administration, Topical↗

PubMed2004

Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in primary dysmenorrhoea. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from three randomised, double blind, placebo and active controlled trials of rofecoxib. Data were combined through meta-analysis. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief and the proportion of patients who had taken rescue medication over 12 hours were calculated. Information was collected on adverse effects. RESULTS: For single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo, the NNTs (with 95% CI) for at least 50% pain relief were 3.2 (2.4 to 4.5) at six, 3.1 (2.4 to 9.0) at eight, and 3.7 (2.8 to 5.6) at 12 hours. For naproxen sodium 550 mg they were 3.1 (2.4 to 4.4) at six, 3.0 (2.3 to 4.2) at eight, and 3.8 (2.7 to 6.1) at 12 hours. The proportion of patients who needed rescue medication within 12 hours was 27% with rofecoxib 50 mg, 29% with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 50% with placebo. In the single-dose trial, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 8% (4/49) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 12% (6/49) with ibuprofen 400 mg, and 6% (3/49) with placebo. In the other two multiple dose trials, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 23% (42/179) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 24% (45/181) with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 18% (33/178) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose rofecoxib 50 mg provided similar pain relief to naproxen sodium 550 mg over 12 hours. The duration of analgesia with rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of naproxen sodium 550 mg. Adverse effects were uncommon suggesting safety in short-term use of rofecoxib and naproxen sodium. Future research should include restriction on daily life and absence from work or school as outcomes.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2004

Topical NSAIDs for acute pain: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in acute conditions like sprains and strains, with differences between individual drugs for efficacy. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and writing to manufacturers. We selected randomised double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment in adults with acute pain, and extracted dichotomous information approximating to a 50% reduction in pain at one week, together with details of adverse events and withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative risk and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, with sensitivity analyses where appropriate to investigate differences between individual drugs and aspects of trial design. RESULTS: Twenty-six double blind placebo controlled trials had information from 2,853 patients for evaluation of efficacy. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo in 19 of the 26 trials, with a pooled relative benefit of 1.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 1.7), and NNT of 3.8 (95% confidence interval 3.4 to 4.4) compared with placebo for the outcome of half pain relief at seven days. Results were not affected by outcome reported, or condition treated, but smaller trials yielded a larger estimate of efficacy. Indirect comparisons of individual topical NSAIDs showed that ketoprofen was significantly better than all other topical NSAIDs, while indomethacin was barely distinguished from placebo. Three trials, with 433 patients, compared topical with oral NSAID (two trials compared the same drug, one compared different drugs) and found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events, systemic adverse events, or withdrawals due to an adverse event were rare, and no different between topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating acute painful conditions for one week.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2004

Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of topical rubefacients containing salicylates in acute and chronic pain. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and manufacturers of salicylates. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised double blind trials comparing topical rubefacients with placebo or another active treatment, in adults with acute or chronic pain, and reporting dichotomous information, around a 50% reduction in pain, and analyses at one week for acute conditions and two weeks for chronic conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Relative benefit and number needed to treat, analysis of adverse events, and withdrawals. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 182 patients with acute conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 5.6; number needed to treat 2.1, 1.7 to 2.8). Six double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 429 patients with chronic conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 1.5, 1.3 to 1.9; number needed to treat 5.3, 3.6 to 10.2), but larger, more valid studies were without significant effect. Local adverse events and withdrawals were generally rare in trials that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited information, topically applied rubefacients containing salicylates may be efficacious in the treatment of acute pain. Trials of musculoskeletal and arthritic pain suggested moderate to poor efficacy. Adverse events were rare in studies of acute pain and poorly reported in those of chronic pain. Efficacy estimates for rubefacients are unreliable owing to a lack of good clinical trials.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2004

Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of topically applied capsaicin for chronic pain from neuropathic or musculoskeletal disorders. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, an in-house database, and contact with manufacturers of topical capsaicin. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing topically applied capsaicin with placebo or another treatment in adults with chronic pain. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcome was dichotomous information for the number of patients with about a 50% reduction in pain. Outcomes were extracted at four weeks for musculoskeletal conditions and eight weeks for neuropathic conditions. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six double blind placebo controlled trials (656 patients) were pooled for analysis of neuropathic conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.075% compared with placebo was 1.4 (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.7) and the number needed to treat was 5.7 (4.0 to 10.0). Three double blind placebo controlled trials (368 patients) were pooled for analysis of musculoskeletal conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.025% or plaster compared with placebo was 1.5 (1.1 to 2.0) and the number needed to treat was 8.1 (4.6 to 34). Around one third of patients experienced local adverse events with capsaicin, which would not have been the case with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Although topically applied capsaicin has moderate to poor efficacy in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, it may be useful as an adjunct or sole therapy for a small number of patients who are unresponsive to, or intolerant of, other treatments.

Administration, Topical↗

PubMed2004

Individual patient meta-analysis of single-dose rofecoxib in postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in acute postoperative pain. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from 14 trials; 13 in dental and one in postsurgical pain. For each patient the percentage of maximum possible pain relief (%maxTOTPAR) was determined at different time points. The proportion of patients with at least 50% maxTOTPAR, and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% maxTOTPAR, were then calculated, with time when 50% of patients had remedicated (TTR50) and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) for adverse effects. RESULTS: In dental pain, for rofecoxib 50 mg (1330 patients) compared with placebo (570 patients) the NNT was 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.1) for six hours, 2.0 (1.8 to 2.1) at eight, 2.4 (2.2 to 2.6) at 12, and 2.8 (2.5 to 3.1) at 24 hours. The TTR50 was 15.5 hours. Adverse effects were uncommon, though post-extraction alveolitis (dry socket) occurred more often with rofecoxib 50 mg than with placebo, NNH 24 (14 to 80). For postsurgical pain in one trial (163 patients), the NNT for rofecoxib 50 mg for six hours was 3.9 (2.6 to 7.8), the TTR50 was 5.8 hours, and multiple-dose adverse effects over five days occurred at similar rates with rofecoxib 50 mg and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg is an effective treatment with long-lasting analgesia and few adverse effects in dental pain. More information is required to confirm efficacy in postsurgical pain.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2004

Pain and analgesic response after third molar extraction and other postsurgical pain.

There is uncertainty over whether the patient group in which acute pain studies are conducted (pain model) has any influence on the estimate of analgesic efficacy. Data from four recently updated systematic reviews of aspirin 600/650 mg, paracetamol 600/650 mg, paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg were used to investigate the influence of pain model. Area under the pain relief versus time curve equivalent to at least 50% maximum pain relief over 6 h was used as the outcome measure. Event rates with treatment and placebo, and relative benefit (RB) and number needed to treat (NNT) were used as outputs from the meta-analyses. The event rate with placebo was systematically statistically lower for dental than postsurgical pain for all four treatments. Event rates with analgesics, RB and NNT were infrequently different between the pain models. Systematic difference in the estimate of analgesic efficacy between dental and postsurgical pain models remains unproven, and, on balance, no major difference is likely.

Analgesics↗

PubMed2004

Outcomes in acute pain trials: systematic review of what was reported?

Single-dose clinical trial methods for evaluating analgesics have been used successfully for over 50 years. The aims of this review were to examine which pain measurement scales have been used in high quality acute pain trials, to investigate other common measurements or characteristics, to confirm that different scales used by standard methods give the same estimate of analgesic effect, to investigate remedication methodologies and the potential of 'time to remedication' as a standard outcome. Published reports of randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials, investigating at least 20 adult patients (10 patients per treatment arm) experiencing moderate or severe pain using at least one standard pain intensity or pain relief scale were sought. Key design features, outputs and outcomes were catalogued for each report. The main outcomes reported were misleading, detailing only the mean values of data with a demonstrably skewed distribution. After 50 years, the reporting of results from acute pain trials warrants a fresh look. Possible improvements include reporting the number of patients with certain levels of pain relief, or the actual number (percentage) of patients with a certain level of pain relief at a certain time, or more useful information on remedication from trials of at least 12 h duration. Most useful would be all three. Further exploration would only be possible from analysis at the individual patient level.

Analgesics↗

PubMed2004

Efficacy and safety of valdecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Our objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of valdecoxib (a cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitor) in the treatment of arthritis. Randomised, controlled trials comparing 10 or 20mg valdecoxib with placebo or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with active osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. The manufacturer provided clinical trial reports. Data were combined through meta-analysis. Main outcomes were patient global rating of arthritis, arthritis pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities indices for osteoarthritis, American College of Rheumatology indices for rheumatoid arthritis, discontinuation, endoscopic ulcers, clinically significant upper gastrointestinal or renal events. Nine trials (five in osteoarthritis, four in rheumatoid arthritis) were included with 5726 patients. Overall, valdecoxib 10 and 20mg were superior to placebo and equivalent in efficacy to maximum daily doses of NSAIDs. Significantly fewer discontinuations because of gastrointestinal adverse events (4% versus 8%), or endoscopic ulcers of 3mm or more (5% versus 13%) occurred with valdecoxib compared with NSAIDs. Clinically significant upper gastrointestinal events occurred in 2/2733 (0.1%) with valdecoxib compared with 8/1846 (0.4%) with NSAIDs. Rates of clinically significant renal events were the same (2-3%) for valdecoxib and NSAIDs. At an appropriate dose valdecoxib was as effective as NSAIDs in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. There were fewer gastrointestinal adverse event withdrawals and endoscopically detected ulcers. Convincing evidence of reduced major gastrointestinal adverse events could not be addressed by the trials.

Arthritis, Rheumatoid↗

PubMed2004

Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety.

Opioids are used increasingly for chronic non-cancer pain. Controversy exists about their effectiveness and safety with long-term use. We analysed available randomised, placebo-controlled trials of WHO step 3 opioids for efficacy and safety in chronic non-cancer pain. The Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950-1994) and Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched until September 2003. Inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of WHO step 3 opioids with placebo in chronic non-cancer pain. Double-blind studies reporting on pain intensity outcomes using validated pain scales were included. Fifteen randomised placebo-controlled trials were included. Four investigations with 120 patients studied intravenous opioid testing. Eleven studies (1025 patients) compared oral opioids with placebo for four days to eight weeks. Six of the 15 included trials had an open label follow-up of 6-24 months. The mean decrease in pain intensity in most studies was at least 30% with opioids and was comparable in neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain. About 80% of patients experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (41%), nausea (32%) and somnolence (29%) being most common. Only 44% of 388 patients on open label treatments were still on opioids after therapy for between 7 and 24 months. The short-term efficacy of opioids was good in both neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, only a minority of patients in these studies went on to long-term management with opioids. The small number of selected patients and the short follow-ups do not allow conclusions concerning problems such as tolerance and addiction.

Analgesics, Opioid↗