An observational descriptive study of the epidemiology and treatment of neuropathic pain in a UK general population.

BACKGROUND: This study updated our knowledge of UK primary care neuropathic pain incidence rates and prescribing practices. METHODS: Patients with a first diagnosis of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) or phantom limb pain (PLP) were identified from the General Practice Research Database (2006 - 2010) and incidence rates were calculated. Prescription records were searched for pain treatments from diagnosis of these conditions and the duration and daily dose estimated for first-line and subsequent treatment regimens. Recording of neuropathic back and post-operative pain was investigated. RESULTS: The study included 5,920 patients with PHN, 5,340 with PDN, and 185 with PLP. The incidence per 10,000 person-years was 3.4 (95% CI 3.4, 3.5) for PHN; and 0.11 (95% CI 0.09, 0.12) for PLP. Validation of the PDN case definition suggested that was not sensitive. Incident PHN increased over the study period. The most common first-line treatments were amitriptyline or gabapentin in the PDN and PLP cohorts, and amitriptyline or co-codamol (codeine-paracetamol) in PHN. Paracetamol, co-dydramol (paracetamol-dihydrocodeine) and capsaicin were also often prescribed in one or more condition. Most first-line treatments comprised only one therapeutic class. Use of antiepileptics licensed for neuropathic pain treatment had increased since 2002-2005. Amitriptyline was the only antidepressant prescribed commonly as a first-line treatment. CONCLUSION: The UK incidence of diagnosed PHN has increased with the incidence of back-pain and post-operative pain unclear. While use of licensed antiepileptics increased, prescribing of therapy with little evidence of efficacy in neuropathic pain is still common and consequently treatment was often not in-line with current guidance.

Carbamazepine for acute and chronic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine is used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of carbamazepine for acute and chronic pain management (except headaches). SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of carbamazepine in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, SIGLE and Cochrane CENTRAL to June 2010, reference lists of retrieved papers, and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs reporting the analgesic effects of carbamazepine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted results and scored for quality. Numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and adverse event withdrawal. Issues of study quality, size, duration, and outcomes were examined. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen included studies (12 cross-over design; three parallel-group) with 629 participants.Carbamazepine was less effective than prednisolone in preventing postherpetic neuralgia following acute herpes zoster (1 study, 40 participants). No studies examined acute postoperative pain.Fourteen studies investigated chronic neuropathic pain: two lasted eight weeks, others were four weeks or less (mean 3 weeks, median 2 weeks). Five had low reporting quality. Ten involved fewer than 50 participants; mean and median maximum treatment group sizes were 34 and 29. Outcome reporting was inconsistent.Most placebo controlled studies indicated that carbamazepine was better than placebo. Five studies with 298 participants provided dichotomous results; 70% improved with carbamazepine and 12% with placebo. Carbamazepine at any dose, using any definition of improvement was significantly better than placebo (70% versus 12% improved; 5 studies, 298 participants); relative benefit 6.1 (3.9 to 9.7), NNT 1.7 (1.5 to 2.0). Four studies (188 participants) reporting outcomes equivalent to 50% pain reduction or more over baseline had a similar NNT.With carbamazepine, 66% of participants experienced at least one adverse event, and 27% with placebo; relative risk 2.4 (1.9 to 3.1), NNH 2.6 (2.1 to 3.5). Adverse event withdrawals occurred in12 of 323 participants (4%) with carbamazepine and 0 of 310 with placebo. Serious adverse events were not reported consistently; rashes were associated with carbamazepine. Five deaths occurred in patients on carbamazepine, with no obvious drug association. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Carbamazepine is effective in chronic neuropathic pain, with caveats. No trial was longer than four weeks, of good reporting quality, using outcomes equivalent to at least moderate clinical benefit. In these circumstances, caution is needed in interpretation, and meaningful comparison with other interventions is not possible.

WITHDRAWN: Gabapentin for acute and chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: February 2009: The authors are aware of unpublished trial data for Gabapentin which could affect the results of this review. This information together with that from trials published since 2005, will be considered when this review is updated in 2009.Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of pain since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of gabapentin for pain management in clinical practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised trials of gabapentin in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified by MEDLINE (1966 to Nov 2004), EMBASE (1994 to Nov 2004), SIGLE (1980 to Jan 2004) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004). Additional studies were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators. Date of most recent search: January 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials reporting the analgesic effects of gabapentin in participants with subjective pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent review authors, and trials were quality scored. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and drug-related study withdrawal. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen reports describing 15 studies of gabapentin were considered eligible (1468 participants). One was a study of acute pain. The remainder included the following conditions: post-herpetic neuralgia (two studies), diabetic neuropathy (seven studies), a cancer related neuropathic pain (one study) phantom limb pain (one study), Guillain Barré syndrome (one study), spinal chord injury pain (one study) and various neuropathic pains (one study).The study in acute post-operative pain (70 participants) showed no benefit for gabapentin compared to placebo for pain at rest.In chronic pain, the NNT for improvement in all trials with evaluable data is 4.3 (95% CI 3.5 to 5.7). Forty two percent of participants improved on gabapentin compared to 19% on placebo. The number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse events leading to withdrawal from a trial was not significant. Fourteen percent of participants withdrew from active arms compared to 10% in placebo arms. The NNH for minor harm was 3.7 (95% CI 2.4 to 5.4). The NNT for effective pain relief in diabetic neuropathy was 2.9 (95% CI 2.2 to 4.3) and for post herpetic neuralgia 3.9 (95% CI 3 to 5.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to show that gabapentin is effective in neuropathic pain. There is limited evidence to show that gabapentin is ineffective in acute pain.

Single dose oral mefenamic acid for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Mefenamic acid is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). It is most often used for treating pain of dysmenorrhoea in the short term (seven days or less), as well as mild to moderate pain including headache, dental pain, postoperative and postpartum pain. It is widely available in many countries worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of single dose oral mefenamic acid in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to December 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Single oral dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of mefenamic acid for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for methodological quality and the data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed total pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) over 4 to 6 hours was used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. These derived results were used to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals, the relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies with 842 participants met the inclusion criteria; 126 participants were treated with mefenamic acid 500 mg, 67 with mefenamic acid 250 mg, 197 with placebo, and 452 with lignocaine, aspirin, zomepirac or nimesulide. Participants had pain following third molar extraction, episiotomy and orthopaedic surgery. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours with a single dose of mefenamic acid 500 mg compared to placebo was 4.0 (2.7 to 7.1), and the NNT to prevent use of rescue medication over 6 hours was 6.5 (3.6 to 29). There were insufficient data to analyse other doses or active comparators, or numbers of participants experiencing any adverse events. No serious adverse events or adverse event withdrawals were reported in these studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral mefenamic acid 500 mg was effective at treating moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, based on limited data. Efficacy of other doses, and safety and tolerability could not be assessed.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review updates parts of two earlier Cochrane reviews investigating effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage pain, predominantly for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain management. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified randomised trials of gabapentin in acute, chronic or cancer pain from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources. The date of the most recent search was January 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain with assessment of pain intensity and/or pain relief, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTs), concentrating on IMMPACT (Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit, and to harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies (3571 participants), studied gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 78% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. Using the IMMPACT definition of at least moderate benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 14 studies with 2831 participants, 43% improving with gabapentin and 26% with placebo; the NNT was 5.8 (4.8 to 7.2). Using the IMMPACT definition of substantial benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 13 studies with 2627 participants, 31% improving with gabapentin and 17% with placebo; the NNT was 6.8 (5.6 to 8.7). These estimates of efficacy are more conservative than those reported in a previous review. Data from few studies and participants were available for other painful conditions.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin can expect to have at least one adverse event (66%), withdraw because of an adverse event (12%), suffer dizziness (21%), somnolence (16%), peripheral oedema (8%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (4%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for comparisons with other active treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin provides pain relief of a high level in about a third of people who take if for painful neuropathic pain. Adverse events are frequent, but mostly tolerable. More conservative estimates of efficacy resulted from using better definitions of efficacy outcome at higher, clinically important, levels, combined with a considerable increase in the numbers of studies and participants available for analysis.

Single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data. OBJECTIVES: To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.

Interference with work in fibromyalgia: effect of treatment with pregabalin and relation to pain response.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in chronic pain often collect information about interference with work as answers to component questions of commonly used questionnaires but these data are not normally analysed separately. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from four large trials of pregabalin for fibromyalgia lasting 8-14 weeks. We analysed data on interference with work, inferred from answers to component questions of Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Short Form 36 Health Survey, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, including "How many days in the past week did you miss work, including housework, because of fibromyalgia?" from FIQ. Analyses were performed according to randomised treatment group (pregabalin 150-600 mg daily or placebo), pain improvement (0-10 numerical pain rating scale scores at trial beginning vs. end), and end of trial pain state (100 mm visual analogue pain scale [VAS]). RESULTS: Comparing treatment group average outcomes revealed modest improvement over the duration of the trials, more so with active treatment than with placebo. For the 'work missed' question from FIQ the change for patients on placebo was from 2.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) days of work lost per week at trial beginning to 1.9 (SD 2.1) days lost at trial end (p < 0.01). For patients on 600 mg pregabalin the change was from 2.1 (SD 2.2) days to 1.6 (SD 2.0) days (p < 0.001). However, the change in days of work lost was substantial in patients with a good pain response: from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.97 (SD 1.6) days (p < 0.0001) for those experiencing >/= 50% pain improvement and from 1.9 (SD 2.2) days to 0.73 (SD 1.4) days (p < 0.0001) for those achieving a low level of pain at trial end (<30 mm on the VAS). Patients achieving both >/= 50% pain improvement and a pain score <30 mm on the VAS had the largest improvement, from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.60 (SD 1.3) days (p < 0.0001). Analysing answers to the other questions yielded qualitatively similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Effective pain treatment goes along with benefit regarding work. A reduction in time off work >1 day per week can be achieved in patients with good pain responses.

Mean analgesic consumption is inappropriate for testing analgesic efficacy in post-operative pain: analysis and alternative suggestion.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Post-operative analgesic consumption is often used as a surrogate measure for pain; analyses of mean data assume a Gaussian distribution and use parametric statistics to assess statistical differences, often in small samples. We used a large individual patient dataset to examine the distribution of analgesic consumption, the validity of such analyses and alternative dichotomous outcomes. METHODS: Analysis of individual patient data from 913 patients over 48 post-operative hours in five randomised trials. Patients had either epidural injection of placebo or morphine (as sulphate and extended release epidural morphine) and use of patient-controlled analgesia. Post-operative fentanyl consumption was calculated over 0-24, 24-48 and 0-48 h. RESULTS: The distribution of analgesic consumption for all patients over the periods 0-24, 24-48 and 0-48 h was exponential. Most patients used less than 750 µg fentanyl over 48 h; 34% used over 1000 µg fentanyl (100 mg morphine), 13% over 2000 µg and 5% over 3000 µg. Mean, median and mode were very different; 20% of patients consumed almost 60% of post-operative analgesic, and standard deviations were generally larger than means. A useful dichotomous outcome was less than 750 µg fentanyl consumed over 48 h, a level associated with very good or excellent patient pain rating. Use of very good or excellent patient pain rating differentiated between different doses of epidural morphine. CONCLUSION: Because of a highly skewed distribution, post-operative analgesic consumption is an uncertain method of measuring analgesic efficacy of an intervention designed to limit pain during and after surgery.

Pregabalin in fibromyalgia: meta-analysis of efficacy and safety from company clinical trial reports.

OBJECTIVES: Meta-analysis of pregabalin trials in FM using company trial reports, which provide more detailed information about trials than published papers. FM is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life. METHODS: Reports of five high-quality randomized trials (3808 patients) of pregabalin in FM were obtained from Pfizer. Four trials (2754 patients) were of classical trial design and one was an enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design. Outcomes for meta-analysis from the four trials with classical design were pooled in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Significant benefit of pregabalin over placebo was seen for a variety of outcomes including mean pain and sleep scores, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief and most of the individual domains of short-form 36. Only a minority of patients achieve moderate or substantial pain relief. The proportions of patients with any adverse event, somnolence or dizziness were also significantly greater with pregabalin than with placebo. There was no difference with regard to serious adverse events. A dose-response relationship was apparent for at least 50% pain relief and for adverse event outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin is effective in treating FM and is relatively safe. The size of therapeutic effect is similar to that with other recent interventions such as duloxetine and the combination of tramadol and paracetamol. Enriched enrolment randomized withdrawal design gives similar results to classical trial designs in FM.

Zolmitriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Eletriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily NSAIDs, rubefacients, capsaicin, lidocaine, and opioids) for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.

Single dose oral codeine, as a single agent, for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Codeine is an opioid metabolised to active analgesic compounds, including morphine. It is widely available by prescription, and combination drugs including low doses of codeine are commonly available without prescription. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, the time to onset of analgesia, the time to use of rescue medication and any associated adverse events of single dose oral codeine in acute postoperative pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed to November 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Single oral dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of codeine for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for methodological quality and data independently extracted by two review authors. Summed total pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) over 4 to 6 hours were used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief, which were used to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals, the relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours. Numbers using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Data on adverse events and withdrawals were collected. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included (1223 participants received codeine 60 mg, 27 codeine 90 mg, and 1252 placebo). Combining all types of surgery (33 studies, 2411 participants), codeine 60 mg had an NNT of at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours of 12 (8.4 to 18) compared with placebo. At least 50% pain relief was achieved by 26% on codeine 60 mg and 17% on placebo.Following dental surgery the NNT was 21 (12 to 96) (15 studies, 1146 participants), and following other types of surgery the NNT was 6.8 (4.6 to 13) (18 studies, 1265 participants). The NNT to prevent use of rescue medication within 4 to 6 hours was 11 (6.3 to 50) (11 studies, 765 participants, mostly non-dental); the mean time to its use was 2.7 hours with codeine and 2.0 hours with placebo. More participants experienced adverse events with codeine 60 mg than placebo; the difference was not significant and none were serious. Two adverse event withdrawals occurred with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Single dose codeine 60 mg provides good analgesia to few individuals, and does not compare favourably with commonly used alternatives such as paracetamol, NSAIDs and their combinations with codeine, especially after dental surgery; the large difference between dental and other surgery was unexpected. Higher doses were not evaluated.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (2769 participants, 4062 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12, 5.2 and 5.0 for 2-hour pain-free and 1- and 2-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain. Nausea, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced more with paracetamol than with placebo at 2 hours (NNTs of 7 to 11); more individuals were free of any functional disability at 2 hours with paracetamol (NNT 10); and fewer participants needed rescue medication over 6 hours (NNT 6).Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data. There was no significant difference between the paracetamol plus metoclopramide combination and sumatriptan for relief of "light/noise sensitivity" at 2 hours, but slightly more individuals needed rescue medication over 24 hours with the combination therapy (NNT 17).Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more "major" adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, and the addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; "major" adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.

Topical NSAIDs for acute pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Use of topical NSAIDs to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions is widely accepted in some parts of the world, but not in others. Their main attraction is their potential to provide pain relief without associated systemic adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from randomised, double-blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of topically applied NSAIDs in acute pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and our own in-house database to December 2009. We sought unpublished studies by asking personal contacts and searching on-line clinical trial registers and manufacturers web sites. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, active or placebo (inert carrier)-controlled trials in which treatments were administered to adult patients with acute pain resulting from strains, sprains or sports or overuse-type injuries (twisted ankle, for instance). There had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included; most compared topical NSAIDs in the form of a gel, spray, or cream with a similar placebo, with 3455 participants in the overall analysis of efficacy. For all topical NSAIDs combined, compared with placebo, the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for clinical success, equivalent to 50% pain relief, was 4.5 (3.9 to 5.3) for treatment periods of 6 to 14 days. Topical diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and piroxicam were of similar efficacy, but indomethacin and benzydamine were not significantly better than placebo. Local skin reactions were generally mild and transient, and did not differ from placebo. There were very few systemic adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were insufficient data to reliably compare individual topical NSAIDs with each other or the same oral NSAID. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs can provide good levels of pain relief, without the systemic adverse events associated with oral NSAIDs, when used to treat acute musculoskeletal conditions.

Cervico-thoracic or lumbar sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update on 'Sympathectomy for neuropathic pain' originally published in Issue 2, 2003. The concept that many neuropathic pain syndromes (traditionally this definition would include complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS)) are "sympathetically maintained pains" has historically led to treatments that interrupt the sympathetic nervous system. Chemical sympathectomies use alcohol or phenol injections to destroy ganglia of the sympathetic chain, while surgical ablation is performed by open removal or electrocoagulation of the sympathetic chain, or minimally invasive procedures using thermal or laser interruption. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from randomised, double blind, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of chemical and surgical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain. Sympathectomy could be compared with placebo (sham) or other active treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library to May 2010. We screened references in the retrieved articles and literature reviews, and contacted experts in the field of neuropathic pain. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled studies assessing the effects of sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data. No pooled analysis of data was possible. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study satisfied our inclusion criteria, comparing percutaneous radiofrequency thermal lumbar sympathectomy with lumbar sympathetic neurolysis using phenol in 20 participants with CRPS. There was no comparison of sympathectomy versus sham or placebo. No dichotomous pain outcomes were reported. Average baseline scores of 8-9/10 on several pain scales fell to about 4/10 initially (1 day) and remained at 3-5/10 over four months. There were no significant differences between groups, except for "unpleasant sensation", which was higher with radiofrequency ablation. One participant in the phenol group experienced postsympathectomy neuralgia, while two in the radiofrequency group and one in the phenol group complained of paresthaesia during needle positioning. All participants had soreness at the injection site. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The practice of surgical and chemical sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and CRPS is based on very little high quality evidence. Sympathectomy should be used cautiously in clinical practice, in carefully selected patients, and probably only after failure of other treatment options.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

Ibuprofen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers do not seek professional help, relying instead on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce symptoms commonly associated with migraine headaches. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 22 April 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered ibuprofen to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and number needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies (4373 participants, 5223 attacks) compared ibuprofen with placebo or other active comparators; none combined ibuprofen with a self-administered antiemetic. All studies treated attacks with single doses of medication. For ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (26% versus 12% with placebo), 2-hour headache relief (57% versus 25%) and 24-hour sustained headache relief (45% versus 19%) were 7.2, 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. For ibuprofen 200 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (20% versus 10%) and 2-hour headache relief (52% versus 37%) were 9.7 and 6.3, respectively. The higher dose was significantly better for 2-hour headache relief than the lower dose. Soluble formulations of ibuprofen 400 mg were better than standard tablets for 1-hour, but not 2-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia and functional disability were reduced within 2 hours, and fewer participants used rescue medication with ibuprofen compared with placebo. Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.Ibuprofen 400 mg did not differ from rofecoxib 25 mg for 2-hour headache relief, 24-hour headache relief or use of rescue medication. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.

Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is produced in the skin after sun-light exposure and can also be obtained through food. Vitamin D deficiency has recently been linked with a range of diseases including chronic pain. Observational and circumstantial evidence suggests that there may be a role for vitamin D deficiency in the aetiology of chronic pain conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of vitamin D supplementation in chronic painful conditions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to September 2009. This was supplemented by searching the reference lists of retrieved articles, textbooks and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised double blind trials of vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo or with active comparators for the treatment of chronic pain conditions in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Pooled analysis was not undertaken due to paucity and heterogeneity of data. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies, with a total of 294 participants, were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study quality, the chronic painful conditions that were investigated, and the outcome measures reported. Only one study reported a beneficial effect, the others found no benefit of vitamin D over placebo in treating chronic pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for the use of vitamin D for chronic pain in adults is poor at present. This is due to low quality and insufficient randomised controlled trials in this area of research.

Rizatriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.