Leveraging the functionality of Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to enhance data collection and quality in the Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study.

BACKGROUND: The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study is a double-blind, prospective, clinical trial investigating analgesic effectiveness in the management of acute post-surgical pain after impacted third molar extraction across five clinical sites. Specifically, Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study examines a commonly prescribed opioid combination (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) against a non-opioid combination (ibuprofen/acetaminophen). The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study employs a novel, electronic infrastructure, leveraging the functionality of its data management system, Research Electronic Data Capture, to not only serve as its data reservoir but also provide the framework for its quality management program. METHODS: Within the Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study, Research Electronic Data Capture is expanded into a multi-function management tool, serving as the hub for its clinical data management, project management and credentialing, materials management, and quality management. Research Electronic Data Capture effectively captures data, displays/tracks study progress, triggers follow-up, and supports quality management processes. RESULTS: At 72% study completion, over 12,000 subject data forms have been executed in Research Electronic Data Capture with minimal missing (0.15%) or incomplete or erroneous forms (0.06%). Five hundred, twenty-three queries were initiated to request clarifications and/or address missing data and data discrepancies. CONCLUSION: Research Electronic Data Capture is an effective digital health technology that can be maximized to contribute to the success of a clinical trial. The Research Electronic Data Capture infrastructure and enhanced functionality used in Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study provides the framework and the logic that ensures complete, accurate, data while guiding an effective, efficient workflow that can be followed by team members across sites. This enhanced data reliability and comprehensive quality management processes allow for better preparedness and readiness for clinical monitoring and regulatory reporting.

Analgesic efficacy of naproxen sodium versus hydrocodone/acetaminophen in acute postsurgical dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid/acetaminophen combinations may be overly prescribed in many post-surgical situations where a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with equal or greater efficacy, fewer central nervous system side effects, and no risk for opioid abuse could be substituted. We compared a single, non-prescription dose of naproxen sodium 440 mg (NapS) against hydrocodone plus acetaminophen 10/650 mg (HYD+APAP) in post-impaction surgery pain. METHODS: Single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in moderate-severe pain after surgical removal of impacted third molars (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04307940). Patients (n = 212) received NapS, HYD+APAP, or placebo and were assessed over 12 hours. Primary endpoint: summed pain intensity difference from 0 to 12 hours (SPID0-12). Secondary endpoints: pain intensity, pain relief, time to rescue medication, duration of pain at least half gone. Others: onset of pain relief, global assessment of treatment, adverse events. RESULTS: All 221 randomized patients formed the safety population and were included in the intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis. Nine patients discontinued treatment or had protocol violations, and 212 patients were included in the per-protocol, primary efficacy population. Both active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo. NapS was significantly more effective than HYD+APAP regarding SPID0-12 (p = 0.01; primary endpoint), total pain relief (0-6 and 0-12 hours; p < 0.05), time to rescue medication (p < 0.001), and duration of pain at least half gone (p < 0.001). HYD+APAP was not statistically superior to NapS for any endpoint. More adverse events were reported with HYD+APAP (n = 63) than NapS (n = 2) and placebo (n = 20), including nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. CONCLUSION: In moderate-to-severe postsurgical dental pain, a single dose of NapS was at least as effective as HYD+APAP in the early hours, significantly more effective at reducing pain intensity and providing greater pain relief over 12 hours, and was better tolerated. When not contraindicated, NapS should be considered a preferred alternative to opioid combinations for acute pain. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04307940; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04307940).

The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study (OARS)-a comparison of opioid vs. non-opioid combination analgesics for management of post-surgical pain: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Everyday people die unnecessarily from opioid overdose-related addiction. Dentists are among the leading prescribers of opioid analgesics. Opioid-seeking behaviors have been linked to receipt of initial opioid prescriptions following the common dental procedure of third molar extraction. With each opioid prescription, a patient's risk for opioid misuse or abuse increases. With an estimated 56 million tablets of 5 mg hydrocodone annually prescribed after third molar extractions in the USA, 3.5 million young adults may be unnecessarily exposed to opioids by dentists who are inadvertently increasing their patient's risk for addiction. METHODS: A double-blind, stratified randomized, multi-center clinical trial has been designed to evaluate whether a combination of over-the-counter non-opioid-containing analgesics is not inferior to the most prescribed opioid analgesic. The impacted 3rd molar extraction model is being used due to the predictable severity of the post-operative pain and generalizability of results. Within each site/clinic and gender type (male/female), patients are randomized to receive either OPIOID (hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/300 mg) or NON-OPIOID (ibuprofen/acetaminophen 400/500 mg). Outcome data include pain levels, adverse events, overall patient satisfaction, ability to sleep, and ability to perform daily functions. To develop clinical guidelines and a clinical decision-making tool, pain management, extraction difficulty, and the number of tablets taken are being collected, enabling an experimental decision-making tool to be developed. DISCUSSION: The proposed methods address the shortcomings of other analgesic studies. Although prior studies have tested short-term effects of single doses of pain medications, patients and their dentists are interested in managing pain for the entire post-operative period, not just the first 12 h. After surgery, patients expect to be able to perform normal daily functions without feeling nauseous or dizzy and they desire a restful sleep at night. Parents of young people are concerned with the risks of opioid use and misuse, related either to treatments received or to subsequent use of leftover pills. Upon successful completion of this clinical trial, dentists, patients, and their families will be better able to make informed decisions regarding post-operative pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04452344 . Registered on June 20, 2020.

Current methods and challenges for acute pain clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical setting of acute pain has provided some of the first approaches for the development of analgesic clinical trial methods. OBJECTIVES: This article reviews current methods and challenges and provides recommendations for future design and conduct of clinical trials of interventions to treat acute pain. CONCLUSION: Growing knowledge about important diverse patient factors as well as varying pain responses to different acute pain conditions and surgical procedures has highlighted several emerging needs for acute pain trials. These include development of early-phase trial designs that minimize variability and thereby enhance assay sensitivity, minimization of bias through blinding and randomization to treatment allocation, and measurement of clinically relevant outcomes such as movement-evoked pain. However, further improvements are needed, in particular for the development of trial methods that focus on treating complex patients at high risk of severe acute pain.

Clinical trial designs and models for analgesic medications for acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents: ACTTION recommendations.

Clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of analgesics across all pediatric age cohorts are needed to avoid inappropriate extrapolation of adult data to children. However, the selection of acute pain models and trial design attributes to maximize assay sensitivity, by pediatric age cohort, remains problematic. Acute pain models used for drug treatment trials in adults are not directly applicable to the pediatric age cohorts-neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents. Developmental maturation of metabolic enzymes in infants and children must be taken into consideration when designing trials to test analgesic treatments for acute pain. Assessment tools based on the levels of cognitive maturation and behavioral repertoire must be selected as outcome measures. Models and designs of clinical trials of analgesic medications used in the treatment of acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents were reviewed and discussed at an Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) Pediatric Pain Research Consortium consensus meeting. Based on extensive reviews and continuing discussions, the authors recommend a number of acute pain clinical trial models and design attributes that have the potential to improve the study of analgesic medications in pediatric populations. Recommendations are also provided regarding additional research needed to support the use of other acute pain models across pediatric age cohorts.

A randomized, double-blind, celecoxib- and placebo-controlled study of the effectiveness of CS-706 in acute postoperative dental pain.

BACKGROUND: CS-706 is a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective inhibitor with an in vitro selectivity ratio (COX-1:COX-2) similar to that of celecoxib. It has exhibited analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antitumor properties in animal models. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the tolerability of single doses of CS-706 and compared the analgesic efficacy of CS-706 with that of celecoxib and placebo in the dental pain model. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled study. Healthy male and female subjects with moderate to severe pain intensity (PI) after dental surgery were randomized ( approximately 50 per group) to receive a single oral dose of CS-706 10, 50, 100, or 200 mg; celecoxib 400 mg; or placebo. PI and pain relief (PR) were measured on categorical and visual analog scales through 24 hours after the dose. The primary efficacy variable was the time-weighted sum of PR scores at 4 hours after the dose (TOPAR4). The onset of analgesia was assessed by calculating the pain intensity difference (PID). Perceptible and meaningful pain relief were assessed using a 2-stopwatch method. RESULTS: The majority of subjects were female (62.0%) and white (59.5%). Subjects' mean (SD) age was 22.6 (3.9) years, and their mean body mass index was 25.3 (5.1) kg/m(2). All doses of CS-706 were associated with significant analgesic efficacy compared with placebo based on the primary end point, TOPAR4 (P<0.001), and on all secondary end points (P<0.05, comparisons of all CS-706 doses vs placebo) with the exception of time to 100% PR for CS-706 10 mg. Single 50-, 100-, and 200-mg doses of CS-706 also were significantly more effective than celecoxib for TOPAR4 (P=0.036, P=0.004, and P=0.006, respectively). The onset of analgesia (PID >or= 1) for all CS-706 doses occurred within 1 hour after dosing (P<0.001 vs placebo). The median duration of analgesia, measured as the time to administration of rescue medication, was significantly greater for all doses of CS-706 compared with placebo (5.7 hours for CS-706 10 mg, >24 hours for CS-706 50, 100, and 200 mg, and 1.7 hours for placebo; P<0.001 for CS-706 50, 100, and 200 mg). These data suggest that once-daily administration of CS-706 may be effective in providing relief of acute pain. The incidence of adverse events was similar among all treatment groups. Adverse events occurring in >or= 5 % of subjects in any treatment group were nausea, vomiting, dry socket, dizziness, headache, and paresthesia. CONCLUSION: Single doses of CS-706 had significant analgesic efficacy compared with celecoxib and placebo in the relief of postoperative dental pain in the healthy subjects enrolled in this study.

Exploring the Interplay between Rescue Drugs, Data Imputation, and Study Outcomes: Conceptual Review and Qualitative Analysis of an Acute Pain Data Set.

In placebo-controlled acute surgical pain studies, provisions must be made for study subjects to receive adequate analgesic therapy. As such, most protocols allow study subjects to receive a pre-specified regimen of open-label analgesic drugs (rescue drugs) as needed. The selection of an appropriate rescue regimen is a critical experimental design choice. We hypothesized that a rescue regimen that is too liberal could lead to all study arms receiving similar levels of pain relief (thereby confounding experimental results), while a regimen that is too stringent could lead to a high subject dropout rate (giving rise to a preponderance of missing data). Despite the importance of rescue regimen as a study design feature, there exist no published review articles or meta-analysis focusing on the impact of rescue therapy on experimental outcomes. Therefore, when selecting a rescue regimen, researchers must rely on clinical factors (what analgesics do patients usually receive in similar surgical scenarios) and/or anecdotal evidence. In the following article, we attempt to bridge this gap by reviewing and discussing the experimental impacts of rescue therapy on a common acute surgical pain population: first metatarsal bunionectomy. The function of this analysis is to (1) create a framework for discussion and future exploration of rescue as a methodological study design feature, (2) discuss the interplay between data imputation techniques and rescue drugs, and (3) inform the readership regarding the impact of data imputation techniques on the validity of study conclusions. Our findings indicate that liberal rescue may degrade assay sensitivity, while stringent rescue may lead to unacceptably high dropout rates.

Rofecoxib 50 mg and valdecoxib 20 or 40 mg in adults and adolescents with postoperative pain after third molar extraction: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose studies.

OBJECTIVE: These studies assessed the comparative efficacy of rofecoxib and valdecoxib in the treatment of acute postoperative dental pain. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose studies were conducted in patients undergoing extraction of > or =2 third molars, with > or =1 mandibular impaction, who experienced moderate or severe pain after extraction. In study 1, patients were randomized in a 4:4:1 ratio to receive rofecoxib 50 mg, valdecoxib 20 mg, or placebo. In study 2, which was an exploratory study, patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive reofecoxib 50 mg, valdecoxib 40 mg, or palcebo. The primary efficacy end point was total pain relief at 12 hours (TOPAR12) for rofecoxib compared with valdecoxib 20 mg (study 1) or valdecoxib 40 mg (study 2). Tolerability was assessed based on clinical adverse experiences (AEs) and vital signs. These studies were performed before both agents were withdrawn from the market. RESULTS: In study 1, 200 patients were randomized to receive rofecoxib 50 mg, 201 to valdecoxib 20 mg, and 49 to placebo. In study 2, 51 patients were randomized to receive rofecoxib 50 mg, 50 to valdecoxib 40 mg, and 24 to placebo. The majority of patients in both studies were female (approximately 54%) and white ( approximately 66%), with a mean age of approximately 22 years and a mean weight of approximately 75 kg. Most (approximately 58%) patients reported experiencing moderate postoperative pain. In study 1, mean TOPAR12 scores were 30.7 for rofecoxib 50 mg, 28.9 for valdecoxib 20 mg, and 5.5 for placebo; in study 2, TOPAR12 scores were 27.0 for rofecoxib 50 mg, 28.6 for valdecoxib 40 mg, and 6.9 for placebo. In both studies, the active treatments were comparable in terms of the primary end point and were statistically superior to placebo (P<0.001). In study 1, rofecoxib was associated with a longer median time to use of rescue medication compared with valdecoxib 20 mg (>24 hours vs 23 hours 58 minutes; P=0.010) and a significantly smaller proportion of patients using rescue medication over 24 hours (35.0% vs 50.2%; P<0.001). In study 2, there were no significant differences in the median time to use of rescue medication or the proportion of patients using rescue medication between active treatments. There were no significant differences in total pain relief at 4 or 8 hours, patients' global assessment, onset of analgesia, or AEs between active treatments in either study. The incidence of clinical AEs in study 1 was similar for rofecoxib 50 mg, valdecoxib 20 mg, and placebo (39.5%, 36.8%, and 49.0%, respectively). In study 2, AEs occurred significantly less frequently with rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo (35.3% vs 70.8%, respectively; P<0.01); there was no significant difference between the rate of AEs with valdecoxib 40 mg (50.0%) and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 50 mg had comparable analgesic efficacy to valdecoxib 20 and 40 mg in these patients with pain after dental surgery. All active treatments were well tolerated.

Research design considerations for single-dose analgesic clinical trials in acute pain: IMMPACT recommendations.

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.

Valdecoxib for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. A randomized, double-blind comparison with placebo and naproxen.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficacy of valdecoxib with placebo and naproxen sodium for relieving menstrual cramping and pain due to primary dysmenorrhea. DESIGN: Single-center, double-blind study with a 4-period, 4-sequence crossover design. Patients assessed pain intensity and pain relief at regular intervals up to 12 hours following the initial dose. SETTING: Privately owned outpatient clinic. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty patients with moderate to severe menstrual cramping were randomized. Eighty-seven patients completed all treatment cycles. INTERVENTIONS: Valdecoxib 20 mg or 40 mg, naproxen sodium 550 mg, or placebo twice a day as required for < or =3 days in a single menstrual cycle. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both doses of valdecoxib (20 and 40 mg) were comparable to naproxen sodium and superior to placebo at all time points assessed for each of the primary end points. Valdecoxib and naproxen sodium had comparable onset and duration of action. Although the study design allowed patients 2 doses per day, only 15% and 20% of patients in the valdecoxib 20 mg and valdecoxib 40 mg groups, respectively, required remedication within the first 12 hours. The incidence of adverse events was similar between active and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Valdecoxib provided a fast onset of analgesic action, a level of efficacy similar to naproxen sodium, and a high level of patient satisfaction in the relief of menstrual pain due to primary dysmenorrhea. Valdecoxib was effective and well tolerated and thus appears to be a viable treatment for menstrual pain due to primary dysmenorrhea.

The time to onset and overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the time to onset of analgesia of rofecoxib based on a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled, postoperative oral surgery pain studies. METHODS: A search on MEDLINE and of Merck data on file was conducted to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis inclusion criteria required that patients were treated with a single oral dose of rofecoxib 50 mg when they experienced moderate or severe pain after surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars; study design involved patient randomization, double-blinding, and matching placebo, and onset data from individual patients were available. The meta-analysis of time to onset also required that studies used the two-stopwatch method. Eleven studies fulfilled the onset criteria and included patients who received a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 1220) or placebo (N = 483). These studies were analyzed to determine time to onset of analgesia, time to perceptible pain relief, percentage of patients achieving onset of analgesia, and duration of analgesia. Six of the 11 studies included a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (N = 303) and were included in the onset meta-analysis for comparison. The meta-analysis of overall efficacy also required that data on total pain relief scores over 8 hours were available. Over-all effectiveness of analgesia was based on analysis of 13 studies involving 1330 rofecoxib patients and 570 placebo patients on the endpoints of total pain relief scores over 8 hours and patient global assessment of response to therapy at 24 hours. Eight of the 13 studies with a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug comparator (N = 391) were included for the efficacy meta-analysis. RESULTS: Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups in each study. Median time to onset of analgesia for rofecoxib was 34 minutes (95% CI, 31-38 minutes), significantly faster than placebo, which did not achieve onset within the 4 hours the assessment was conducted (P < 0.001). Duration of analgesia for rofecoxib 50 mg was > 24 hours. Rofecoxib achieved a greater mean total pain relief score over 8 hours than placebo (17.4 versus 4.4; P < 0.001) and a greater patient response rate on patient global assessment of response to therapy at 24 hours than placebo (73% versus 16%; P < 0.001). Outcomes were similar between the rofecoxib group and the nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug group. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of over 1200 rofecoxib-treated patients, a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg demonstrated a rapid onset of analgesia in approximately half an hour combined with sustained effectiveness, supporting its use as a treatment of acute pain.

Pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac.

PURPOSE: This study compared the pharmacokinetic properties and safety profile of low-dose (18- and 35-mg) diclofenac capsules manufactured using SoluMatrix Fine Particle Technology (Trademark of iCeutica Inc. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and the technology is licensed to Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) for exclusive use in NSAIDs), which produces submicron-sized drug particles with enhanced dissolution properties, to those of diclofenac potassium immediate-release (IR) 50-mg tablets. METHODS: This Phase 1, single-center, randomized, open-label, single-dose crossover study was conducted in 40 healthy volunteers. Subjects received, in randomized order, SoluMatrix diclofenac 18- or 35-mg capsules in the fasting condition, SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules under fed conditions, and diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets under fasting and fed conditions. Pharmacokinetic parameters (T(max), C(max), AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞)) were calculated from the concentrations of diclofenac in the plasma. Absorption, food effect, and dose proportionality were determined using a mixed-model ANOVA for C(max), AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞). Tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events, physical examination findings, vital sign measurements: clinical laboratory test results. FINDINGS: Overall, 35 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 52 years completed the study. The mean age of the subjects was 33.4 years, and approximately half were men (47.5%). Median T(max) values were similar between the low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules and the diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets (both, ~1.0 hour). The mean maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) after the administration of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules was 26% lower than that with diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets under fasting conditions (868.72 vs 1194.21 ng/mL). The administration of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac 35-mg capsules was associated with a 23% lower overall systemic exposure compared with that of diclofenac potassium IR 50-mg tablets under fasting conditions. Food decreased the rate but not the overall extent of absorption of SoluMatrix diclofenac. No serious AEs and no clinically significant abnormalities in physical examination findings, including vital sign measurements, or clinical laboratory test results, were noted during this study. IMPLICATIONS: The pharmacokinetic properties of low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac capsules in the healthy volunteers in this study suggest rapid diclofenac absorption as measured by T(max). Low-dose SoluMatrix diclofenac capsules represent a potential option for the management of acute and osteoarthritis-related pain.

Assay sensitivity of pain intensity versus pain relief in acute pain clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity. PERSPECTIVE: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.

Delayed-onset muscle soreness: a pilot study to assess analgesic study design features.

Based on a thorough review of the available literature in the delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) model, we identified multiple study design characteristics that are considered to be normative in acute pain research but have not been followed in a majority of published DOMS experiments. We designed an analgesic investigation using the DOMS model that both complied with current scientifically accepted standards for the conduct of analgesic studies and demonstrated reasonable assay sensitivity. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled within-subject study compared the efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium 1% with a matching placebo in reducing pain associated with DOMS. After exercise, subjects reporting DOMS received topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% (DSG 1%) applied to one leg and placebo to the other every 6 hours for 48 hours. Pain intensity was assessed at rest, upon standing, and when walking in the 48 hours after initial drug application (T0). The primary end point was the reduction in pain intensity (SPID 24) on walking. Subjects receiving DSG 1% had less pain while walking compared with those receiving placebo at 24 hours (SPID 24 = 34.9 [22.9] and 23.6 [19.4], respectively; P = 0.032). This investigation used experimental techniques that have been vetted in the field of exercise physiology and superimposed techniques that are considered to be best practice in the field of analgesic research. Over time and with the help of colleagues in both fields of study, similar investigations will validate design features that impact the assay sensitivity of analgesic end points in DOMS models. In addition, the study confirmed the analgesic efficacy of topical DSG 1% over placebo in subjects experiencing DOMS.

Reporting of adverse events and statistical details of efficacy estimates in randomized clinical trials of pain in temporomandibular disorders: Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Statistical methods and adverse events (that is, harms) data affect the accuracy of conclusions about the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). The authors reviewed the quality of reporting in TMD clinical trials to highlight practices that are in need of improvement. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors included articles published between 1969 and May 31, 2013, in which the investigators reported randomized clinical trials of TMD treatments with pain as a principal outcome variable. Investigators in trials of nonpharmacologic and noninvasive treatments were required to at least mask the participants and assessors; all others were required to be double masked. RESULTS: Ninety articles qualified for this review: 39 published between 1971 and 2005 (older articles) and 51 published between 2006 and 2013 (newer articles). Specification of primary outcome analyses, methods to accommodate missing data, and adverse event collection methods and rates were generally poor. In some cases, there was apparent improvement from the older to the newer cohort; however, reporting of these methodological details remained inadequate even in the newer articles. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review is designed to alert authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of TMD clinical trials to these issues and improve reporting quality in the future.

Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in the treatment of postoperative dental pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute pain, with similar analgesic efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Diclofenac sodium is the most commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug worldwide; it is effective for the treatment of pain as well as the signs and symptoms associated with the painful conditions of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg, and placebo over 8-hour and 24-hour periods in patients with moderate to severe pain after oral surgery. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars were randomized to receive a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg given every 8 hours), or placebo. Patients rated pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments at prespecified times throughout the 24-hour period after initial dosing. Overall analgesic efficacy was determined by total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) and 24 hours (TOPAR24) and patient global assessments at 8 and 24 hours. Onset of analgesic effect was determined by using the 2-stopwatch method for confirmed perceptible pain relief. Peak analgesic effect was the maximum pain relief attained during the first 8 hours. The duration of analgesic effect was determined by median time to rescue analgesia use. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were randomized to treatment: 121 received rofecoxib, 121 received diclofenac sodium, and 63 received placebo. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Overall, 61.3% experienced moderate pain and 38.7% experienced severe pain; 53.1% were female; and the mean age was 23.4 years. The overall analgesic efficacy, as assessed by TOPAR8, of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly greater than a single dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (20.5 vs 8.2) and placebo (20.5 vs 5.9). Patient global assessment at 8 hours was also significantly better for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. TOPAR24 was significantly greater for a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (64.1 vs 25.1) and placebo (64.1 vs 19.2). At 24 hours, the patient global assessment for rofecoxib was significantly better than that achieved with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. The onset of analgesic effect was significantly more rapid for rofecoxib than for enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo (median times: 31 minutes, >4 hours, and >4 hours, respectively). The peak analgesic effect was significantly greater for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (3.2 vs 1.5) and placebo (3.2 vs 1.1). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer for rofecoxib than enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (median times: >24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes) and placebo (>24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes). Enteric-coated diclofenac sodium was numerically greater than placebo for the key end points measuring overall efficacy (total pain relief and patient global assessment), but diclofenac sodium did not provide as much analgesic effect as expected for a drug effective for pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis and did not differ significantly from placebo. Overall, both rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium were generally well tolerated, although the rofecoxib group had a significantly lower incidence of clinical and drug-related adverse events than the enteric-coated diclofenac sodium group. CONCLUSIONS: A single 50-mg dose of rofecoxib provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 8 hours, more rapid onset of analgesia, greater maximum analgesic effect, and longer duration of effect than a single 50-mg dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with oral surgery. Compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg every 8 hours), a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 24 hours.

A randomized controlled study comparing rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo in post-bunionectomy pain.

OBJECTIVE: The relative efficacy of rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo were compared in the treatment of acute pain after bunionectomy surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, two-part study of 252 patients with moderate-to-severe pain the day after first metatarsal bunionectomy. Patients were treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 85), enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 100 mg (N = 85), or placebo (N = 82) on study Day 1 (Part I), and subsequently with daily rofecoxib 50 mg or placebo (diclofenac patients switched to placebo) over study Days 2-5 (Part II). Patients rated their pain at 16 time points over the first 24 h. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 8 h (TOPAR8). Pre-specified secondary endpoints on Day 1 included onset of analgesia, peak pain relief, and duration of response. For Part II, supplemental analgesia use with rofecoxib compared to placebo was pre-specified for analysis over Days 2-5, with the focus on Days 2-3. Adverse experiences were recorded over Days 1-5. RESULTS: For TOPAR8 scores, rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo (9.5 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001) and diclofenac (9.5 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001). Onset of analgesia was more rapid with rofecoxib than placebo (p = 0.003) and diclofenac (p = 0.019); proportion of patients achieving onset within 4 h with rofecoxib, diclofenac, and placebo was 46%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. Peak pain relief was greater with rofecoxib (1.8) than diclofenac (1.2, p = 0.004) and placebo (1.0, p < 0.001). Diclofenac and placebo patients required supplemental analgesia sooner than rofecoxib patients (2:03 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001 and 1:41 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001). Rofecoxib patients used significantly less (p < 0.001) supplemental analgesia than placebo patients over Days 2-3 (1.1 tablets/day vs. 2.1 tablets/day) and Days 2-5 (0.9 tablets/day vs. 1.8 tablets/day). No significant differences in adverse experiences between treatments were seen. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo on all measures of treatment of post-bunionectomy pain. Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than diclofenac sodium 100 mg based on Day 1 endpoints of total pain relief, onset time, and duration of response. All study medications were generally well tolerated.

Comparison of rofecoxib and a multidose oxycodone/ acetaminophen regimen for the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg with a single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h as well as with a multidose regimen of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg followed by oxycodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg over 24 h. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, two-phase study, patients with moderate to severe pain after surgical extraction of >or= 2 third molars, including one mandibular impaction, were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg (singledose phase) followed by 5/325 mg every 6h as needed (multidose phase), or placebo. Patients rated their pain relief and intensity at 18 time points over 24 h. Efficacy was measured over 6 and 24 h by total pain relief (TOPAR), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID), and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Primary endpoint for the single dose comparison was TOPAR over 6 h; SPID was the key 24-h endpoint. Onset of analgesic effect, peak analgesic single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen. effect, and duration of analgesic effect were also evaluated. Adverse experiences were recorded. RESULTS: 271 patients were randomized to treatment with rofecoxib (n = 121), oxycodone/acetaminophen (n = 120), or placebo (n = 30). For the single dose comparison, rofecoxib-treated patients achieved pain relief at least as effective as oxycodone/acetaminophentreated patients as assessed by TOPAR6 (12.9 vs 11.3, 95% CI on difference = [-0.1, 3.2], p = 0.059). Patients also rated a single dose of rofecoxib as at least as effective as multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h on SPID24 (21.9 vs 18.1, 95% CI on difference = [-1.0, 8.8], p = 0.122). Patients treated with oxycodone/ acetaminophen had a shorter time to onset of analgesia than patients treated with rofecoxib (24 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). Patients in the active treatment groups achieved similar peak effects during the single-dose phase. Individuals treated with rofecoxib demonstrated a longer duration of analgesic effect than those treated with a Patients on active treatment demonstrated better efficacy than patients on placebo on these prespecified endpoints (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Fewer rofecoxib than oxycodone/acetaminophen patients experienced adverse events (47.9 vs 75.8%, p < 0.001), including nausea (19.0 vs 42.5%, p < 0.001), vomiting (9.9 vs 24.2%, p < 0.01), and dizziness (7.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg achieved an overall analgesic effect at least as effective as patients treated with a single-dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h and multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h, with fewer adverse experiences of nausea (p < 0.001), vomiting (p < 0.01), and dizziness (p < 0.001).

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing the analgesic effect of etoricoxib to placebo, naproxen sodium, and acetaminophen with codeine using the dental impaction pain model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall analgesic effect, including time to onset, peak and duration of effect for etoricoxib 120 mg, a new COX-2 selective inhibitor, in patients with acute pain to that of placebo. Naproxen sodium 550 mg and acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg were the active comparators. METHODS: A total of 201 patients with moderate to severe pain following surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars, of which at least the mandibular tooth was impacted, were randomly allocated to receive single oral doses of placebo (n = 50), etoricoxib 120 mg (n = 50), naproxen sodium 550 mg (n = 51), or acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg (n = 50). The endpoints included total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8, primary end point), sum of pain intensity difference over 8 hours, patient's global evaluation, onset, peak, and duration of analgesia. RESULTS: Etoricoxib 120 mg had a significantly greater least squares (LS) mean TOPAR8 score than placebo (20.9 vs 5.4; P < 0.001) and acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg (20.9 vs 11.5; P < 0.001), and a similar LS mean TOPAR8 score to naproxen sodium 550 mg (20.9 vs 21.3). All three active treatments had rapid onset of analgesia, median time approximately 30 minutes. The duration of analgesic effect, defined as median time to rescue medication use, was >24 hours for etoricoxib, 20.8 hours for naproxen sodium, 3.6 hours for acetaminophen/codeine, and 1.6 hours for placebo. DISCUSSION: Etoricoxib is a new COX-2 selective inhibitor under development for treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain. In this study, etoricoxib 120 mg provided rapid and long-lasting pain relief to patients with moderate-to-severe postdental surgery pain. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated.

The analgesic efficacy of valdecoxib vs. oxycodone/acetaminophen after oral surgery.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted two studies to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase, or COX, -2-specific inhibitor, valdecoxib, with oxycodone/ acetaminophen in patients who have undergone oral surgery. METHODS: In total, 205 eligible subjects in Study A and 201 in Study B were randomized to receive a single oral dose of valdecoxib (20 or 40 milligrams), a combination of oxycodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 1,000 mg or placebo. Eligible subjects experienced moderate-to-severe pain within six hours of surgery during which two or more impacted third molars were extracted. Analgesic efficacy was assessed over 24 hours or until the patient required rescue analgesia. RESULTS: In both studies, subjects receiving either dose of valdecoxib experienced a rapid onset of analgesia and (among those who received valdecoxib 40 mg) a level of pain relief comparable with that of those who received oxycodone/ acetaminophen. Both valdecoxib doses had a significantly longer duration of analgesic effect than did oxycodone/acetaminophen. Pooled safety data demonstrated that each valdecoxib dose had a tolerability profile superior to that of oxycodone/ acetaminophen and similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Orally administered valdecoxib is as rapidly acting and effective as oxycodone/acetaminophen, and it has a superior duration of analgesic effect in patients after oral surgery. Valdecoxib has a tolerability profile superior to that of oxycodone/acetaminophen. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The current standard of care for alleviating acute pain after oral surgery has rested largely on conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioid/analgesic combination products. The studies reported here suggest that the COX-2-specific inhibitor valdecoxib offers an efficacious and safe alternative to other analgesics used to treat pain after oral surgery.