Search

Background: Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain. Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients. With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy., Objectives: To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews., Selection Criteria: We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause., Data Collection and Analysis: We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively., Main Results: Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P < 0.00001], and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias., Authors' Conclusions: Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful., (Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Given their established analgesic properties, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) represent an important postoperative pain management option. This study investigated: (1) the effects of mild or moderate renal insufficiency and mild hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of diclofenac and hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD) following administration of the injectable NSAID HPβCD-diclofenac; and (2) the PK of HPβCD following administration of HPβCD-diclofenac and intravenous itraconazole formulated with HPβCD in healthy adults. Diclofenac clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (V z ) tended to increase with decreasing renal function (moderate insufficiency versus mild insufficiency or healthy controls). Regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between V z (but not CL or elimination half-life, t ½ ) and renal function. HPβCD CL was significantly decreased in subjects with renal insufficiency, with a corresponding increase in t ½ . There were no significant differences in diclofenac or HPβCD PK in subjects with mild hepatic impairment versus healthy subjects. Exposure to HPβCD in healthy subjects following HPβCD-diclofenac administration was ∼12% of that with intravenous itraconazole, after adjusting for dosing schedule and predicted accumulation (<5% without adjustment). With respect to PK properties, these results suggest that HPβCD-diclofenac might be administered to patients with mild or moderate renal insufficiency or mild hepatic impairment without dose adjustment (NCT00805090)., (© 2017 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%)., Authors' Conclusions: There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Background: Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources., Authors' Conclusions: There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Background: Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews., Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing morphine (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.Overall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.There was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.All-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events., Authors' Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Background: Topical local anaesthetics provide effective analgesia for patients undergoing numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned because of concern about adverse effects, thus novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed. This review was originally published in 2011 and has been updated in 2017., Objectives: To assess whether benefits of non-invasive topical anaesthetic application occur at the expense of decreased analgesic efficacy. To compare the efficacy of various single-component or multi-component topical anaesthetic agents for repair of dermal lacerations. To determine the clinical necessity for topical application of the ester anaesthetic, cocaine., Search Methods: For this updated review, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 2010 to December 2016), Embase (2010 to December 2016) and MEDLINE (2010 to December 2016). We did not limit this search by language or format of publication. We contacted manufacturers, international scientific societies and researchers in the field. Weemailed selected journalsand reviewed meta-registers of ongoing trials. For the previous version of this review, we searched these databases to November 2010., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of dermal laceration in adult and paediatric participants., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information when needed. We collected adverse event information from trial reports. We assessed methodological risk of bias for each included study and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence., Main Results: The present updated review included 25 RCTs involving 3278 participants. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data for all but one outcome: pain intensity. In two pooled studies, the mean self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm) score for topical prilocaine-phenylephrine (PP) was higher than the mean self-reported VAS (0 to 100 mm) score for topical tetracaine-epinephrine-cocaine (TAC) by 5.59 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16 to 13.35). Most trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics were at high risk of bias, which is likely to have affected their results. Researchers found that several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics provided effective analgesic efficacy. However, data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent are based mostly on single comparisons in trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one of 1042 participants who had undergone application of TAC. Investigators reported no serious complications among any of the participants treated with cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached., Authors' Conclusions: We have found two new studies published since the last version of this review was prepared. We have added these studies to those previously included and have conducted an updated analysis, which resulted in the same review conclusions as were presented previously.Mostly descriptive analysis indicates that topical anaesthetics may offer an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia before suturing of dermal lacerations. Use of cocaine-based topical anaesthetics might be hard to justify, given the availability of other effective topical anaesthetics without cocaine. However, the overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE system is low owing to limitations in design and implementation, imprecision of results and high probability of publication bias (selective reporting of data). Additional well-designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be reached.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in 2008. Scoliosis surgery is often associated with substantial blood loss and potentially detrimental effects in children. Antifibrinolytic agents are often used to reduce perioperative blood loss. Clinical trials have evaluated their efficacy in children undergoing surgical correction of scoliosis, but no systematic review has been published. This review was first published in 2008 and was updated in 2016., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of aprotinin, tranexamic acid and aminocaproic acid in reducing blood loss and transfusion requirements in children undergoing surgery for correction of idiopathic or secondary scoliosis., Search Methods: We ran the search for the previous review in June 2007. For this updated version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to August week 1 2015), Embase (1947 to 2015 week 38), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 14 August 2015), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; 2015, Issue 2) and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials in any language. We also checked the clinical trial registry at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov on 8 October 2015., Selection Criteria: We included blinded and unblinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of antifibrinolytics on perioperative blood loss in children 18 years of age or younger and undergoing scoliosis surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data. The primary outcome was total blood loss (intraoperative and postoperative combined). Secondary efficacy outcomes were the number of participants receiving blood transfusion (both autologous and allogeneic) or receiving allogeneic blood transfusion alone, and the total amount of blood transfused. Safety outcomes included the number of deaths, the number of participants reporting any adverse event or a serious adverse event, withdrawals due to adverse events and the number of participants experiencing a specific adverse event (i.e. renal insufficiency, hypersensitivity or thrombosis). We assessed methodological risk of bias for each included study and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence., Main Results: We included three new studies (201 participants) in this updated review, for a total of nine studies (455 participants). All but one study employed placebo as the control group intervention. For the primary outcome, antifibrinolytic drugs decreased the amount of perioperative blood loss by 427 mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 251 to 603 mL), for a reduction of over 20% versus placebo. We rated the quality of evidence for our primary outcome as low on the basis of unclear risk of bias for several domains in most studies and the small total number of participants.For secondary outcomes, fewer participants receiving antifibrinolytic drugs received transfusion (allogeneic or autologous) versus those receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85, number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful outcome (NNTp) 5; very low-quality evidence). Only two studies specifically evaluated the number of participants transfused with only allogeneic blood (risk difference (RD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.03, NNTp 7; very low-quality evidence). Antifibrinolytic drugs decreased the volume of blood transfused by 327 mL (95% CI -186 to -469 mL; low-quality evidence).No study reported deaths in active or control groups. Data were insufficient to allow performance of meta-analysis for any safety outcome. No studies adequately described their methods in assessing safety. The only adverse event of note occurred in one study, when three participants in the placebo group developed postoperative deep vein thrombosis., Authors' Conclusions: Since the last published version of this review (2008), we have found three new studies. Additional evidence shows that antifibrinolytics reduce the requirement for both autologous and allogeneic blood transfusion. Limited evidence of low to very low quality supports the use of antifibrinolytic drugs for reducing blood loss and decreasing the risk, and volume, of transfusion in children undergoing scoliosis surgery. Evidence is insufficient to support the use of a particular agent, although tranexamic acid may be preferred, given its widespread availability. The optimal dose regimen for any of these three agents has not been established. Although adverse events appear to occur infrequently, evidence is insufficient to confirm the safety of these agents, particularly for rare but potentially catastrophic events. No long-term safety data are available.

Background: This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005, Issue 4 (and last updated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013 issue 8), on local anaesthetic blockade (LASB) of the sympathetic chain to treat people with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of LASB for the treatment of pain in CRPS and to evaluate the incidence of adverse effects of the procedure., Search Methods: For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS (Birme), conference abstracts of the World Congresses of the International Association for the Study of Pain, and various clinical trial registers up to September 2015. We also searched bibliographies from retrieved articles for additional studies., Selection Criteria: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of sympathetic blockade with local anaesthetics in children or adults with CRPS compared to placebo, no treatment, or alternative treatments., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The outcomes of interest were reduction in pain intensity, the proportion who achieved moderate or substantial pain relief, the duration of pain relief, and the presence of adverse effects in each treatment arm. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table., Main Results: We included an additional four studies (N = 154) in this update. For this update, we excluded studies that did not follow up patients for more than 48 hours. As a result, we excluded four studies from the previous review in this update. Overall we included 12 studies (N = 461), all of which we judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to very low, downgraded due to limitations, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or a combination of these.Two small studies compared LASB to placebo/sham (N = 32). They did not demonstrate significant short-term benefit for LASB for pain intensity (moderate quality evidence).One small study (N = 36) at high risk of bias compared thoracic sympathetic block with corticosteroid and local anaesthetic versus injection of the same agents into the subcutaneous space, reporting statistically significant and clinically important differences in pain intensity at one-year follow-up but not at short term follow-up (very low quality evidence).Of two studies that investigated LASB as an addition to rehabilitation treatment, the only study that reported pain outcomes demonstrated no additional benefit from LASB (very low quality evidence).Eight small randomised studies compared sympathetic blockade to various other active interventions. Most studies found no difference in pain outcomes between sympathetic block versus other active treatments (low to very low quality evidence).One small study compared ultrasound-guided LASB with non-guided LASB and found no clinically important difference in pain outcomes (very low quality evidence).Six studies reported adverse events, all with minor effects reported., Authors' Conclusions: This update's results are similar to the previous versions of this systematic review, and the main conclusions are unchanged. There remains a scarcity of published evidence and a lack of high quality evidence to support or refute the use of local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade for CRPS. From the existing evidence, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding the efficacy or safety of this intervention, but the limited data available do not suggest that LASB is effective for reducing pain in CRPS.

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. It may be administered orally, rectally, or intravenously. The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) formulations of paracetamol, IV paracetamol, and IV propacetamol (a prodrug that is metabolized to paracetamol), compared with placebo and other analgesics, is unclear., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of IV formulations of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain in both adults and children., Search Methods: We ran the search for the previous review in May 2010. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), EMBASE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), LILACS (2010 to 2016), a clinical trials registry, and reference lists of reviews for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language and we retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: Randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled single dose clinical trials of IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence., Main Results: We included 75 studies (36 from the original review and 39 from our updated review) enrolling a total of 7200 participants.Among primary outcomes, 36% of participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared with 16% of those receiving placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 5.6, high quality evidence). The proportion of participants in IV paracetamol/propacetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over six hours, as reflected in a higher NNT of 6 (4.6 to 7.1, moderate quality evidence). Mean pain intensity at four hours was similar when comparing IV paracetamol and placebo, but was seven points lower on a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain imaginable, 95% CI -9 to -6, low quality evidence) in those receiving paracetamol at six hours.For secondary outcomes, participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol required 26% less opioid over four hours and 16% less over six hours (moderate quality evidence) than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid-induced adverse events.Meta-analysis of efficacy comparisons between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators (e.g., opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both.Adverse events occurred at similar rates with IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving IV propacetamol versus placebo (23% versus 1%). Meta-analysis did not demonstrate clinically meaningful differences between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators for any adverse event., Authors' Conclusions: Since the last version of this review, we have found 39 new studies providing additional information. Most included studies evaluated adults only. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides high quality evidence that a single dose of either IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 36% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Low to very low quality evidence demonstrates that both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.

Background: This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, 2005, Issue 4, on local anaesthetic blockade (LASB) of the sympathetic chain used to treat complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of LASB for the treatment of pain in CRPS and to evaluate the incidence of adverse effects of the procedure., Search Methods: We updated searches of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library (Issue 11 of 12, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to 22/11/12), EMBASE (1974 to 22/11/12), LILACS (1982 to 22/11/12), conference abstracts of the World Congresses of the International Association for the Study of Pain (1995 to 2010), and various clinical trial registers (inception to 2012). We also searched bibliographies from retrieved articles for additional studies., Selection Criteria: We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of sympathetic blockade with local anaesthetics in children or adults with CRPS., Data Collection and Analysis: The outcomes of interest were reduction in pain intensity levels, the proportion who achieved moderate or substantial pain relief, the duration of pain relief, and the presence of adverse effects in each treatment arm., Main Results: We included an additional 10 studies (combined n = 363) in this update. Overall we include 12 studies (combined n = 386). All included studies were assessed to be at high or unclear risk of bias.Three small studies compared LASB to placebo/sham. We were able to pool the results from two of these trials (intervention n = 23). Pooling did not demonstrate significant short-term benefit for LASB (in terms of the risk of a 50% reduction of pain scores).Of two studies that investigated LASB as an addition to rehabilitation treatment, the only study that reported pain outcomes demonstrated no additional benefit from LASB.Eight small randomised studies compared sympathetic blockade to another active intervention. Most studies found no difference in pain outcomes between sympathetic block and other active treatments.Only five studies reported adverse effects, all with minor effects reported., Authors' Conclusions: This update has found similar results to the original systematic review. There remains a scarcity of published evidence to support the use of local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade for CRPS. From the existing evidence it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding the efficacy or safety of this intervention but the limited data available do not suggest that LASB is effective for reducing pain in CRPS.

Background: Topical local anaesthetics are recognized as providing effective analgesia for numerous superficial procedures, including repair of dermal lacerations. The need for cocaine in topical anaesthetic formulations has been questioned due to concern about adverse effects, and so novel preparations of cocaine-free anaesthetics have been developed., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of infiltrated local anaesthetics with those of topical local anaesthetics for repair of dermal lacerations and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various single or multi-component topical anaesthetics to identify cocaine-free topically applied local anaesthetics that may provide equivalent analgesia to those containing cocaine., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 10); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2010); EMBASE (1980 to November 2010); CINAHL (1982 to November 2010); and reference lists of articles. We also handsearched selected journals, reviewed abstracts presented at international society meetings, reviewed metaregisters of ongoing trials and contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics for repair of torn skin in adult and paediatric patients., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse event information from the trials., Main Results: We included 23 RCTs involving 3128 patients. The small number of trials in each comparison group and the heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded quantitative analysis of data in all but one outcome, pain scores using a visual analogue scale. The majority of trials that compared infiltrated and topical anaesthetics are at high risk of bias, which is likely to affect the interpretation of the results. Several cocaine-free topical anaesthetics were found to provide effective analgesic efficacy. However, the data regarding the efficacy of each topical agent is mostly based upon single comparisons, in trials that have unclear or high risk of bias. Mild, self-limited erythematous skin induration occurred in one case after application of topical tetracaine-adrenaline-cocaine (TAC) where a total of 1042 patients were exposed. No serious complications were reported in any of the patients treated with either cocaine-based or cocaine-free topical anaesthetics., Authors' Conclusions: Based on mostly descriptive analysis, topical anaesthetics are possibly an efficacious, non-invasive means of providing analgesia prior to suturing of dermal lacerations. However, additional well designed RCTs with low risk of bias are necessary before definitive conclusions can be made.

Glyburide's pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics have not been studied in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The objective of this study was to assess steady-state PK of glyburide, as well as insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and overall disposition indices after a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) in women with GDM (n = 40), nonpregnant women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (n = 26), and healthy pregnant women (n = 40, MMTT only). At equivalent doses, glyburide plasma concentrations were approximately 50% lower in pregnant women than in nonpregnant subjects. The average umbilical cord/maternal plasma glyburide concentration ratio at the time of delivery was 0.7 +/- 0.4. Insulin sensitivity was approximately fivefold lower in women with GDM as compared with healthy pregnant women. Despite comparable beta-cell responsivity indices, the average beta-cell function corrected for insulin resistance was more than 3.5-fold lower in women with glyburide-treated GDM than in healthy pregnant women. Women with GDM in whom glyburide treatment has failed may benefit from alternative medication or dosage escalation; however, fetal safety should be kept in mind.

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effects of pregnancy on CYP3A and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) activities, as measured by disposition of midazolam and digoxin, respectively. Thirteen women received digoxin (0.25 mg p.o.) and midazolam (2 mg p.o.) in random order, separated by 1-2 weeks at 28-32 weeks gestation, and the same order was repeated at 6-10 weeks postpartum. Plasma and urine concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and analyzed by noncompartmental methods. Midazolam CL/F(unbound) (593 +/- 237 l/min vs. 345 +/- 103 l/min; P = 0.007), digoxin CL(Renal, unbound) (272 +/- 45 ml/min vs. 183 +/- 37 ml/min; P < 0.002) and digoxin CL(secretion,) (unbound) (109 +/- 34 ml/min vs. 58 +/- 22 ml/min; P < 0.002) were higher during pregnancy than postpartum. These data are consistent with increased hepatic and/or intestinal CYP3A and renal P-gp activities during pregnancy.

Background: Scoliosis surgery is often associated with substantial blood loss and potential detrimental effects in children. Antifibrinolytic agents are often used to reduce perioperative blood loss. Clinical trials have evaluated their effect in children undergoing surgical correction of scoliosis but no systematic review has been published. We performed a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytic drugs in children undergoing scoliosis surgery., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of aprotinin, tranexamic acid and aminocaproic acid in reducing blood loss and transfusion requirements in children undergoing scoliosis surgery., Search Strategy: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3), OVID MEDLINE (1950 to September 3rd 2007), LILACS (1992 to June 20th 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to July 23rd 2007). We also searched conference proceedings from 2003 to 2007 and the clinicaltrials.gov registry. No language restriction was applied., Selection Criteria: We included blinded or unblinded randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of antifibrinolytics on perioperative blood loss in children that were 18 years of age or younger and undergoing scoliosis surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently performed the data extraction. Primary outcomes were mortality and number of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes were number of patients transfused with allogeneic blood, amount of total blood transfused, total blood loss and adverse events. To assess heterogeneity we used the I(2) test and for the quantitative analysis we used a fixed-effect model., Main Results: Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The total number of participants was 254, of whom 127 were allocated to placebo and 127 to antifibrinolytic drugs. Aprotinin, tranexamic acid and aminocaproic acid were evaluated in two studies each. All studies had placebo as the control group intervention. There were no deaths or any serious adverse events in any study, in either the active or the control group. The risk of being transfused was similar in patients receiving antifibrinolytic drugs or placebo. Antifibrinolytics drugs decreased the amount of blood transfused by 327 ml (95% CI -469.04 to -185.78) and the amount of blood loss by 427 ml (95% CI -602.51 to -250.56). There was no indication of publication bias, however, we cannot rule it out due to the small number of studies included., Authors' Conclusions: The effect of antifibrinolytic drugs on mortality could not be assessed. Antifibrinolytic drugs reduced blood loss and the amount of blood transfused in children undergoing scoliosis surgery; however, their effect on the number of children requiring blood transfusion remains unclear. Aprotinin, tranexamic acid and aminocaproic acid seem to be similarly effective.

Biphalin is an opioid peptide analogue that currently is under clinical development as a new type of site-directed analgesic. In rats, the intrathecal (i.t.) analgesic potency of biphalin is 1000-fold greater than morphine. Such a high activity may reflect this compound's activation of three types of opioid receptors (mu, delta and kappa). NMDA receptors also play an important role in nociceptive processing. Therefore, we investigated in rats whether an NMDA antagonist may influence biphalin-induced antinociception. In the present study, ketamine was chosen because of the widespread safe use of this drug in clinical practice. I.t. application of ketamine alone had relatively little analgesic effect and its excitatory effects limited possible doses of the drug. Co-administration of ketamine with biphalin or morphine produced markedly greater antinociception than biphalin or morphine alone in acute, thermal tail flick testing. These results suggest that NMDA antagonists may be useful potentiators of biphalin analgesia. Thus, to obtain the same spinal antinociceptive effect, lower doses of biphalin or morphine are required when ketamine is co-administered.

Background: Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) is characterized by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and increased gastric reflux. OBD occurs both acutely and chronically, in multiple disease states, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of traditional and peripherally active opioid antagonists versus conventional interventions for OBD., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE in January 2007. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers., Selection Criteria: Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of mu-opioid antagonists for OBD., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted by two independent review authors and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events., Main Results: Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria and provided data on 2871 opioid antagonist-treated patients. The opioid antagonists investigated were alvimopan (nine studies), methylnaltrexone (six), naloxone (seven), and nalbuphine (one). Meta-analysis demonstrated that methylnaltrexone and alvimopan were better than placebo in reversing opioid-induced increased gastrointestinal transit time and constipation, and that alvimopan appears to be safe and efficacious in treating postoperative ileus. The incidence of adverse events with opioid antagonists was similar to placebo and generally reported as mild-to-moderate., Authors' Conclusions: Insufficient evidence exists for the safety or efficacy of naloxone or nalbuphine in the treatment of OBD. Long-term efficacy and safety of any of the opioid antagonists is unknown, as is the incidence or nature of rare adverse events. Alvimopan and methylnaltrexone both show promise in treating OBD, but further data will be required to fully assess their place in therapy.

Background: Older adults make up an increasing proportion of patients hospitalized with cardiovascular disease. Such patients often have multiple coexisting geriatric syndromes that may affect management and outcomes and are frequently underdiagnosed and untreated., Objectives: To determine the prevalence of geriatric syndromes and incidence of selected adverse events in hospitalized elderly patients with cardiovascular disease., Design: A prospective cohort study., Setting: Urban academic medical center., Patients: One hundred patients at least 70 years old with cardiovascular disease hospitalized on a cardiology ward., Measurements: Standard geriatric screens were administered to assess mood, function, and cognitive status. Patients were followed prospectively for adverse events such as falls, urinary tract infection (UTI), and use of restraints., Results: The mean age of the patients was 79.2 +/- 5.5 years, 61% were female, 68% were white, and mean length of stay was 7 days. Geriatric syndromes were prevalent and included functional impairment (35% dependent in >or=1 activity of daily living), cognitive impairment (19% with abnormal results on the Short Blessed Test), and polypharmacy. Thirty-seven percent of patients were prescribed a potentially inappropriate medication on admission or discharge. Patients receiving a Foley catheter were at increased risk for UTI., Conclusions: These findings suggest that geriatric syndromes are prevalent among older patients hospitalized for cardiovascular disease. Further study is needed to determine if interventions designed to increase recognition and treatment of these syndromes can improve outcomes in this patient population., ((c) 2007 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Amoxicillin is recommended for anthrax prevention in pregnancy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of amoxicillin during pregnancy and postpartum (PP). Sixteen women received amoxicillin during gestation (18-22 weeks (T2) and 30-34 weeks (T3)) as well as 3 months postpartum (PP) to evaluate single-dose pharmacokinetics. Amoxicillin compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were used to simulate amoxicillin concentration-time profiles following different dosage strategies. Amoxicillin CL(renal) (T2: 24.8+/-6.7 l/h, P<0.001; T3: 24.0+/-3.9 l/h, P<0.001; and PP: 15.3+/-2.6 l/h) and renal CL(secretion) (T2: 280+/-105 ml/min, P<0.002; T3: 259+/-54 ml/min, P<0.001; and PP: 167+/-47 ml/min) were higher during pregnancy than postpartum. Simulations suggest that amoxicillin concentrations adequate to prevent anthrax may be difficult to achieve during pregnancy and postpartum. Increases in amoxicillin CL(renal) and renal CL(secretion) reflect increases in filtration and secretory transport or diminished reabsorption in the kidneys. Amoxicillin may not be an appropriate antibiotic for post-anthrax exposure prophylaxis.

Unlabelled: Several reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown the efficacy of mu-opioids in reducing spontaneous neuropathic pain (NP). However, relatively little is known about their specific efficacy for evoked pain, which is a significant problem for many patients with NP. The present systematic review assesses the efficacy of opioid agonists for the treatment of evoked NP based upon published RCTs. We searched articles in any language using the MEDLINE database (1966 to December 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (4th quarter, 2004) and the reference lists of retrieved papers, employing search terms for RCTs, opioids and NP. Only RCTs in which opioid agonists were given to treat NP of any etiology, and evoked pain was assessed were included. Data were extracted by two independent investigators. Nine articles met inclusion criteria and were classified as short-term (less than 24h; n=7) or intermediate-term trials (4 weeks; n=2). Although the scarcity of retrieved data precluded formal meta-analysis of short-term trials, we found that the intensity of dynamic mechanical allodynia was significantly attenuated by opioids relative to placebo in all studies. In contrast, no consistent effects on the magnitude of static allodynia, the threshold for mechanical allodynia or the threshold or magnitude of heat allodynia were found. The threshold and magnitude of cold-induced allodynia generally responded positively to opioid treatments in patients with peripheral pain syndromes, but not central pain syndromes. Evoked pain was studied in only two intermediate-term trials, in both of which oxycodone was significantly superior to placebo. The results of the two trials were combinable for a meta-analysis that showed an overall 24 points difference in endpoint pain intensities between patients given opioids and those treated with placebo (95% CI -33 to -15; p<0.00001)., In Conclusion: short-term studies show that opioids can reduce the intensity of dynamic mechanical allodynia and perhaps of cold allodynia in peripheral NP. Insufficient evidence precludes drawing conclusions regarding the effect of opioids on other forms of evoked NP. A meta-analysis of intermediate-term studies demonstrates the efficacy of opioids over placebo for evoked NP. These findings are clinically relevant because dynamic mechanical allodynia and cold allodynia are the most prevalent types of evoked pain in NP.

Background: Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne found a strong patient preference for PCA over conventional analgesia but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, Walder's review in 2001 did not find a significant differences in pain intensity and pain relief between PCA and conventionally treated groups., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of PCA versus conventional analgesia (such as a nurse administering an analgesic upon a patient's request) for postoperative pain control., Search Strategy: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1994 to 2004). Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers., Selection Criteria: RCTs of PCA versus conventional analgesia that employed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome were selected. These trials included RCTs that compared PCA without a continuous background infusion versus conventional parenteral analgesic regimens. Studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: Trials were scored using the Oxford Quality Scale. Meta-analyses were performed of outcomes that included analgesic efficacy assessed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay and adverse effects. A sufficient number of the retrieved trials reported these parameters to permit meta-analyses., Main Results: Fifty-five studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group met inclusion criteria. PCA provided better pain control and greater patient satisfaction than conventional parenteral 'as-needed' analgesia. Patients using PCA consumed higher amounts of opioids than the controls and had a higher incidence of pruritus (itching) but had a similar incidence of other adverse effects. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay., Authors' Conclusions: This review provides evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to conventional systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Background: The use of opioids for neuropathic pain remains controversial. Studies have been small, have yielded equivocal results, and have not established the long-term risk-benefit ratio of this treatment., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of opioid agonists for the treatment of neuropathic pain., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2005), and EMBASE (1980 to 2005 Week 27) for articles in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: Trials were included in which opioid agonists were given to treat central or peripheral neuropathic pain of any etiology, pain was assessed using validated instruments, and adverse events were reported. Studies in which drugs other than opioid agonists were combined with opioids or opioids were administered epidurally or intrathecally were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted by two independent investigators and included demographic variables, diagnoses, interventions, efficacy, and adverse effects., Main Results: Twenty-three trials met the inclusion criteria and were classified as short-term (less than 24 hours; n = 14) or intermediate-term (median = 28 days; range = eight to 70 days; n = 9). The short-term trials had contradictory results. In contrast all nine intermediate-term trials demonstrated opioid efficacy for spontaneous neuropathic pain. Meta-analysis of seven intermediate-term studies showed mean post-treatment visual analog scale scores of pain intensity after opioids to be 13 points lower on a scale from zero to 100 than after placebo (95% confidence interval -16 to -9; P < 0.00001). The most common adverse events were nausea (33% opioid versus 9% control: number needed to treat to harm (NNH) 4.2) and constipation (33% opioid versus 10% control: NNH 4.2), followed by drowsiness (29% opioid versus 12% control: NNH 6.2), dizziness (21% opioid versus 6% control: NNH 7.1), and vomiting (15% opioid versus 3% control: NNH 8.3). Where reported, 23 (11%) of 212 participants withdrew because of adverse events during opioid therapy versus nine (4%) of 202 receiving placebo., Authors' Conclusions: Short-term studies provide only equivocal evidence regarding the efficacy of opioids in reducing the intensity of neuropathic pain, whereas intermediate-term studies demonstrate significant efficacy of opioids over placebo, which is likely to be clinically important. Reported adverse events of opioids are common but not life threatening. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish long-term efficacy, safety (including addiction potential), and effects on quality of life.

Background: The efficacy of music for the treatment of pain has not been established., Objectives: To evaluate the effect of music on acute, chronic or cancer pain intensity, pain relief, and analgesic requirements., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and the references in retrieved manuscripts. There was no language restriction., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of music on any type of pain in children or adults. We excluded trials that reported results of concurrent non-pharmacological therapies., Data Collection and Analysis: Data was extracted by two independent review authors. We calculated the mean difference in pain intensity levels, percentage of patients with at least 50% pain relief, and opioid requirements. We converted opioid consumption to morphine equivalents. To explore heterogeneity, studies that evaluated adults, children, acute, chronic, malignant, labor, procedural, or experimental pain were evaluated separately, as well as those studies in which patients chose the type of music., Main Results: Fifty-one studies involving 1867 subjects exposed to music and 1796 controls met inclusion criteria. In the 31 studies evaluating mean pain intensity there was a considerable variation in the effect of music, indicating statistical heterogeneity ( I(2) = 85.3%). After grouping the studies according to the pain model, this heterogeneity remained, with the exception of the studies that evaluated acute postoperative pain. In this last group, patients exposed to music had pain intensity that was 0.5 units lower on a zero to ten scale than unexposed subjects (95% CI: -0.9 to -0.2). Studies that permitted patients to select the music did not reveal a benefit from music; the decline in pain intensity was 0.2 units, 95% CI (-0.7 to 0.2). Four studies reported the proportion of subjects with at least 50% pain relief; subjects exposed to music had a 70% higher likelihood of having pain relief than unexposed subjects (95% CI: 1.21 to 2.37). NNT = 5 (95% CI: 4 to 13). Three studies evaluated opioid requirements two hours after surgery: subjects exposed to music required 1.0 mg (18.4%) less morphine (95% CI: -2.0 to -0.2) than unexposed subjects. Five studies assessed requirements 24 hours after surgery: the music group required 5.7 mg (15.4%) less morphine than the unexposed group (95% CI: -8.8 to -2.6). Five studies evaluated requirements during painful procedures: the difference in requirements showed a trend towards favoring the music group (-0.7 mg, 95% CI: -1.8 to 0.4)., Authors' Conclusions: Listening to music reduces pain intensity levels and opioid requirements, but the magnitude of these benefits is small and, therefore, its clinical importance unclear.

Background: Local anesthetic blockade of the sympathetic chain is widely used to treat reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) and causalgia. These two pain syndromes are now conceptualized as variants of a single entity: complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). A recent meta-analysis of the topic has been published. However, this study only evaluated studies in English language and therefore it could have overlooked some randomized controlled trials., Objectives: This systematic review had three objectives: to determine the likelihood of pain alleviation after sympathetic blockade with local anesthetics in the patient with CRPS; to assess how long any benefit persists; and to evaluate the incidence of adverse effects of the procedure., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and conference abstracts of the World Congresses of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Bibliographies from retrieved articles were also searched for additional studies., Selection Criteria: We considered for inclusion randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of sympathetic blockade with local anesthetics in children or in adult patients to treat RSD, causalgia, or CRPS., Data Collection and Analysis: The outcomes of interest were the number of patients who obtained at least 50% of pain relief shortly after sympathetic blockade (30 minutes to 2 hours) and 48 hours or later. We also assessed the presence of adverse effects in each treatment arm. A random effects model was used to combine the studies., Main Results: Two small randomized double blind cross over studies that evaluated 23 subjects were found. The combined effect of the two trials produced a relative risk (RR) to achieve at least 50% of pain relief 30 minutes to 2 hours after the sympathetic blockade of 1.17 (95% CI 0.80-1.72). It was not possible to determine the effect of sympathetic blockade on long-term pain relief because the authors of the two studies evaluated different outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: This systematic review revealed the scarcity of published evidence to support the use of local anesthetic sympathetic blockade as the 'gold standard' treatment for CRPS. The two randomized studies that met inclusion criteria had very small sample sizes, therefore, no conclusion concerning the effectiveness of this procedure could be drawn. There is a need to conduct randomized controlled trials to address the value of sympathetic blockade with local anesthetic for the treatment of CRPS.

Background: Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain (Keats 1951; Gilbert 1951; De Clive-Lowe 1958; Bartlett 1961). Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients (Boas 1982; Lindblom 1984; Petersen 1986; Dunlop 1988; Bach 1990; Awerbuch 1990). With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy., Objectives: To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews., Selection Criteria: We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause., Data Collection and Analysis: We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively., Main Results: Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P <0.00001], and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias., Authors' Conclusions: Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.

Background: NSAIDs are widely applied to treat cancer pain and are frequently combined with opioids in combination preparations for this purpose. However, it is unclear which agent is most clinically efficacious for relieving cancer-related pain, or even what may be the additional benefit of combining an NSAID with an opioid in this setting., Objectives: To assess the effects of NSAIDs, alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2001), LILACS (January 1984 to December 2001) and reference list of articles., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared NSAID versus placebo; NSAID versus NSAID; NSAID versus NSAID plus opioid; opioid versus opioid plus NSAID; or NSAID versus opioid., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse event information was collected from trials. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, the opinion of an additional reviewer was sought to resolve the issue., Main Results: Forty-two trials involving 3084 patients were included. Clinical heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses and only supported a qualitative systematic review. Seven of eight papers that compared NSAID with placebo demonstrated superior efficacy of NSAID with no difference in side effects. Thirteen papers compared one NSAID with another; four reported increased efficacy of one NSAID over another. Four different studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Twenty-three studies compared NSAIDs and opioids in combination or alone with NSAID/opioid combinations. Thirteen out of 14 studies found no difference, or low clinical difference, when combining an NSAID plus an opioid versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID/opioid combinations were inconclusive. Nine studies assessed the association between dose and efficacy and safety. Four papers demonstrated increased efficacy with increased dose, but no dose-dependent increase in side effects within the dose ranges studied. Study duration ranged from single dose studies performed over six hours to crossover studies lasting six weeks; however the majority of studies were of less than seven days duration., Authors' Conclusions: Based upon limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID over another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no difference (4 out of 14 papers), a statistically insignificant trend towards superiority (1 out of 14 papers), or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage (9 out of 14 papers), compared with either single entity. The short duration of studies undermines generalization of their findings on efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for cancer pain.

Preexisting hypertension complicates 5% of all pregnancies. The objective of this study was to evaluate steady-state atenolol pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (n = 17) during the second trimester (2nd T), third trimester (3rd T), and 3 months postpartum. Pregnancy as compared to 3 months postpartum (nonpregnant control) resulted in significant (P < .05) changes, including the following: 42% (2nd T) and 50% (3rd T) increase in creatinine clearance, 38% (2nd T) and 36% (3rd T) increase in atenolol renal clearance, 12% (2nd T) and 11% (3rd T) decrease in atenolol half-life, 20% (2nd T) and 28% (3rd T) increase in cardiac output, 15% (2nd T) and 23% (3rd T) increase in resting heart rate, and 22% (2nd T) and 21% (3rd T) decrease in total peripheral resistance in subjects on steady-state oral atenolol for treatment of hypertension in pregnancy. In conclusion, the renal clearance of atenolol along with creatinine clearance is increased during pregnancy. However, this does not translate into an increase in apparent oral clearance of atenolol, possibly related to the high variability in bioavailability. Atenolol administration did not appear to change the pattern of the increase in cardiac output and the decrease in total peripheral resistance, which normally occurs during pregnancy.

Objective: Little is known about risk factors that increase the risk of development of opioid side effects. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of the type of opioid, age, gender, and race on the incidence of side effects from short-term opioid use., Methods: A secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study in 35 community-based and tertiary hospitals was done. There were 8855 black or white subjects aged 16 years and older. Patients received meperidine (INN, pethidine), morphine, or fentanyl as part of their treatment. Measurements were made to assess the presence of nausea and vomiting and respiratory depression., Results: Of the patients, 26% had nausea and vomiting and 1.5% had respiratory depression after opioid administration. After adjustment for opioid dose, route of administration, age, gender, and race, meperidine produced less nausea and vomiting (odds ratio [OR] = 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.8) and less respiratory depression (OR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9) than morphine. The risk of respiratory depression increased with age. Compared with patients aged between 16 and 45 years, those aged between 61 and 70 years had 2.8 times the risk of development of respiratory depression (95% CI, 1.2-6.6); those aged between 71 and 80 years had 5.4 times the risk (95% CI, 2.4-11.8); and those aged older than 80 years had 8.7 times the risk (95% CI, 3.8-20.0). Men had less nausea and vomiting than women (OR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.6). White subjects had more nausea and vomiting than black subjects (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7)., Conclusions: Meperidine produced fewer side effects than morphine during short-term use. The risk of respiratory depression increases substantially after 60 years of age. Women have nausea and vomiting more often than men. The effect of race deserves further investigation.

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate ethnic differences in response to morphine and to determine whether any detectable differences were pharmacokinetically based., Methods: This cohort study was carried out in a teaching hospital. Sixty-six young, healthy male subjects from 3 ethnic groups (Caucasians, native Indians, and Latinos; n = 22 in each group) consented to participate. All subjects received an intravenous morphine bolus of 0.08 mg/kg followed by 0.002 mg/kg. min infused for 30 minutes. Respiratory response was evaluated with the carbon dioxide rebreathing method before and at 25, 95, 180, and 360 minutes after morphine administration. Vital signs and opioid side effects were recorded, and serial blood samples were analyzed for morphine, morphine-3-glucuronide, and morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G)., Results: All 3 groups had suppression of the ventilatory response to hypercapnia, but the degree of blunting of the ventilatory response differed among groups. Compared with Caucasians, native Indians had an additional 18% reduction in ventilatory response after morphine administration (95% confidence interval, -35% to -2%). The incidence of side effects was similar in all groups (P =.18). Caucasians had higher plasma levels of M6G than did native Indians or Latinos. M6G areas under 6-hour concentration-versus-time curve were as follows: Caucasians, 12,065 +/- 4354; native Indians, 8464 +/- 4809; and Latinos, 9156 +/- 3764 ng. min/mL (P =.03)., Conclusions: Ethnicity influences the response to morphine. Native Indians are more susceptible to morphine depression of the ventilatory response than Caucasians, despite the higher serum M6G levels in Caucasians.

This synopsis outlines factors that prompted development of national clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain and presents the essential content of major pain control guidelines. Also described is the concurrent growth of the evidence-based pain management movement worldwide in the decade since initial US federal guidelines on acute and cancer pain were developed, and products of this global movement. The latter include systematic reviews and meta-analyses about treatments for pain, their assemblage in resources such as the Cochrane Collaboration, and (in the US) the embedding of pain assessment and management within quality assurance requirements for hospital accreditation. This survey will highlight recent research that evidence-based guidelines alone are insufficient to overcome established attitudes, practices and myths that hinder pain assessment and management. Hypotheses for the inadequacy of scientific evidence per se to overcome clinicians' attitudes and practices will be advanced, along with suggestions as to how those in the 'pain treatment community' may help to tip the balance., (Copyright 2001 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

This paper describes two interactive templates for representing spatially indexed estimates. Both templates use a matrix layout of small panels. The first template, called linked micromap plots, can represent multivariate estimates associated with each spatially indexed study unit. The second template, called conditioned choropleth maps, shows the connection between a dependent variable, as represented in a classed choropleth map, and two explanatory variables. The paper describes the cognitive considerations that motivate the layouts and representation details. The discussion also addresses topics of data quality and access, hypothesis generation, and interactive features such as pan and zoom and dynamic conditioning via sliders. The examples show epidemiological (mortality rates) and environmental (toxic concentrations) applications., (Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

In double-blind crossover experiments, we examined the effects of oral caffeine (250 or 500 mg) added to decaffeinated coffee on plasma hormone levels in adults who normally consume one to three cups of coffee a day. In one experiment, 250 mg (about 4 mg/kg) caffeine was given to men; in two other experiments, 500 mg (8 mg/kg) was given to both sexes. Caffeine, 500 mg, elevated plasma levels of beta-endorphin-like immunoreactivity in both men and women but had no significant effect on plasma levels of cortisol, thyroid-stimulating hormone, growth hormone, prolactin, or triiodothyronine in men nor on plasma levels of prolactin or cortisol in women. The 250-mg dose induced no significant changes in plasma levels of any of the hormones measured. We conclude that the threshold for caffeine's endocrine effects is higher than that for its behavioral effects.