DESIGN: Network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise therapy with oral NSAIDs and paracetamol directly or indirectly in knee or hip OA.
RESULTS: A total of n=152 RCTs (17 431 participants) were included. For pain relief, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol at or nearest to 4 (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.12, 95% credibility interval (CrI) -1.74 to 1.50; n=47 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.22, 95% CrI -0.05 to 0.49; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.17, 95% CrI -0.77 to 1.12; n=9 RCTs). Similarly, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol in functional improvement at or nearest to 4 (SMD=0.09, 95% CrI -1.69 to 1.85; n=40 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.06, 95% CrI -0.20 to 0.33; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.05, 95% CrI -1.15 to 1.24; n=9 RCTs).
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise has similar effects on pain and function to that of oral NSAIDs and paracetamol. Given its excellent safety profile, exercise should be given more prominence in clinical care, especially in older people with comorbidity or at higher risk of adverse events related to NSAIDs and paracetamol.CRD42019135166.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since we have only included one small and very low-quality trial, with a high risk of bias across several domains, we are unable to conclude whether TENS is harmful or beneficial for managing pain in people with SCD. There is a need for a well-designed, adequately-powered, RCT to evaluate the role of TENS in managing pain in people with SCD.
AIM: To investigate the attitudes and perceptions of morphine use in cancer pain in advanced cancer patients and their caregivers and to examine the influence of caregivers' attitudes and perceptions on patients' acceptance of morphine.
DESIGN: Qualitative study involving semi-structured individual interviews transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 18 adult opioid-naïve patients with advanced cancer and 13 caregivers (n = 31) were recruited at a private tertiary hospital via convenience sampling.
RESULTS: Attitudes and perceptions of morphine were influenced by previous experiences. Prevalent themes were similar in both groups, including perceptions that morphine was a strong analgesic that reduced suffering, but associated with end-stage illness and dependence. Most participants were open to future morphine use for comfort and effective pain control. Trust in doctors' recommendations was also an important factor. However, many preferred morphine as a last resort because of concerns about side effects and dependence, and the perception that morphine was only used at the terminal stage. Caregivers' attitudes toward morphine did not affect patients' acceptance of morphine use.
CONCLUSION: Most participants were open to future morphine use despite negative perceptions as they prioritized optimal pain control and reduction of suffering. Focused education programs addressing morphine misperceptions might increase patient and caregiver acceptance of opioid analgesics and improve cancer pain control.
METHODS: The whole study was carried out on 48 adult Wistar rats (24 male: 12 obese and 12 lean and 24 female: 12 obese and 12 lean). Each male and female rat group was further subdivided into two groups (n = 6/group) and treated with normal saline/tramadol for 5 days. On the fifth day, 15 min after tramadol/normal saline treatment, animals were tested for pain perception toward noxious stimuli. Later, endogenous 17 beta-estradiol and free testosterone levels in serum were estimated through ELISA methods.
RESULTS: The present study revealed that female rats experienced more pain sensitivity to noxious stimuli compared to male rats. High-fat diet-induced obese rats experienced more pain sensations to noxious stimuli than lean rats. Obese male rats were found to have significantly low free testosterone and high 17 beta-estradiol levels compared to lean male rats. An increase in serum 17 beta-estradiol level led to increased pain sensation to noxious stimuli. While an increase in free testosterone level resulted in the lowering of pain sensation to noxious stimuli.
CONCLUSION: The analgesic effect of tramadol was more pronounced in male rats compared to female rats. The analgesic effect of tramadol was more marked in lean rats compared to obese rats. Additional research to elucidate obesity-induced endocrine changes and the mechanisms driving sex hormones in pain perception is needed to foster future interventions to reduce disparities in pain.
METHODS: We recruited 33 (age range from 21 to 72 years) adult patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 and above, who were scheduled for non-cardiac surgeries. Intravenous oxycodone was administered after induction of general anesthesia and blood samples were collected up to 24 h after oxycodone administration. Plasma concentrations of oxycodone were assayed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and 253 concentration-time points were used for pharmacokinetic analysis using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.
RESULTS: Intravenous oxycodone pharmacokinetics were well described by a two-compartment open model. The estimated total clearance and central volume of distribution of oxycodone are 28.5 l/h per 70 kg and 56.4 l per 70 kg, respectively. Total body weight was identified as a significant covariate of the clearance and central volume of distribution. Dosing simulations based on the final model demonstrate that a starting dose of 0.10 mg/kg of intravenous oxycodone is adequate to achieve a target plasma concentration and repeated doses of 0.02 mg/kg may be administered at 1.5-h intervals to maintain a plasma concentration within an effective analgesic range.
CONCLUSIONS: A population pharmacokinetic model using total body weight as a covariate supports the administration of 0.10 mg/kg of intravenous oxycodone as a starting dose and repeated doses of 0.02 mg/kg at 1.5-h intervals to maintain targeted plasma concentrations for analgesia in the obese adult population.
AIM OF THE STUDY: To explore the antinociceptive (acute pain) and anti-neuropathic (chronic pain) activities of Lotus corniculatus leaves essential oil (LCEO) in addition to uncovering the possible mechanisms of antinociception.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: LCEO as well as the pure oleanolic acid (OA) compound, were assayed for their effects on acute (formalin induced paw licking test or FIPT) and chronic (cervical contusion injury models on the fifth cervical vertebra or CCS; 14-day intervals) pain. The possible involvements of NO-cGMP-K+ channel, TRPV, dopamine, cannabinoid, PPAR, adrenergic, and opioid mechanisms in the antinociceptive activity of LCEO have studied by formalin test. The levels of p53 and inflammatory markers were measured using a streptavidin biotin immune peroxidase complex and ELISA methods, respectively.
RESULTS: The LCEO and OA exerted antinociceptive activity in the first-phase of FIPT. Pretreatment with antagonists of TRPV1, dopamine D2, cannabinoid type1 and 2, and NO-cGMP-K+ channel blockers (glibenclamide, L-NAME and methylene blue) attenuated the antinociceptive effect of LCEO in FIPT. In addition, LCEO and OA meaningfully reduced hyperalgesia (days 6-14) and mechanical allodynia (days 2-14) in the CCS model. LCEO suppressed the apoptotic marker (p53) in CCS model and also ameliorated IL-2, TNF-α, and IL-1 in the spinal cord.
CONCLUSION: Finally, LCEO inhibited acute (possibly via the modulation of opioid, TRPV, dopamine, cannabinoid mechanisms as well as NO-cGMP-K+ channel) and chronic pain (via suppressing apoptotic and inflammatory markers) in male rats. The results also suggest that OA has analgesic activity against acute and chronic pain conditions.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.
RESULTS: The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (rs =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The added positive impact of ondansetron on postoperative pain control alongside its anti-emetic effect made it a unique novel option for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.