METHODS: The study was an interventional and crossover comparison. Twenty-one patients with TN were administered with LTG in comparison to CBZ. The clinical trials comprised two phases of 40 days each, with an intervening three-day washout period. The final titration in dose for LTG was 400 mg and 1,200 mg for CBZ. Efficacy of the medications involved was determined by visual analog scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS). Side effects were recorded through marking of the profiles of side effects encountered on administration of LTG and CBZ, together with baseline haematological, hepatic and renal investigations.
RESULTS: Both on VAS and VRS assessments, in terms of proportion of patients, CBZ benefitted 90.5% (19/21) of the patients with pain relief (p 0.05). Meanwhile, LTG inflicted 14% (3/21) of the patients with haematological, hepatic and renal derangements, as compared with 48% (10/21) on CBZ.
CONCLUSION: LTG is generally an effective and safe treatment for management of TN, compared to CBZ.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study, we enrolled 40 children undergoing tonsillectomy. Anesthetic care was standardized. Intraoperative analgesia was provided with remifentanil 0.5 microg x kg(-1) followed by an infusion of 0.25 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Group I (ketamine, n = 20) received a bolus dose of ketamine 0.5 mg x kg(-1) followed by a continuous infusion of 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) before start of surgery. The infusion was stopped when surgery ended. Group II (placebo, n=20) received normal saline in the same manner. Pain was assessed postoperatively using the Children's Hospital Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS; range of scores 4 13), and total morphine consumption was recorded in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Patients were transferred to the ward and morphine was administered via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device and analgesia was recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 - 10).
RESULTS: Intraoperative remifentanil consumption was not different between the ketamine group (0.29+/-0.09 microg x kg x min(-1) ) and the control group (0.24+/-0.07 microg x kg x min(-1)). There were no significant differences between CHEOPS scores and VAS score between the two groups. The total mean morphine consumption in the ward was not significantly different between the two groups: 376.5 +/-91.6 microg x kg(-1) with ketamine and 384.4+/-97.3 microg x kg(-1) with placebo. The time-to-first analgesic requirement was also similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Small-dose ketamine did not decrease postoperative pain after tonsillectomy in children when added to a continuous intraoperative remifentanil infusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINHAL, CENTRAL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant websites were searched for randomized controlled trials published in the English language involving adults with chronic pain. Studies were included if one of the intervention arms had received pharmacist-led medication review independently or as part of a multidisciplinary intervention. Risk of bias was assessed for all the included studies.
RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 583 unique articles including 5 randomized controlled trials. Compared with control, meta-analysis showed that participants in the intervention group had: a 0.8-point reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.28 to -0.36] and a 0.7-point reduction (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.20) at 6 months; a 4.84 point (95% CI, -7.38 to -2.29) and -3.82 point (95% CI, -6.49 to -1.14) improvement in physical functioning on a 0- to 68-point function subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at 3 and 6 months, respectively; and a significant improvement in patient satisfaction equivalent to a "small to moderate effect."
DISCUSSION: Pharmacist-led medication review reduces pain intensity and improves physical functioning and patient satisfaction. However, the clinical significance of these findings remain uncertain due to small effect size and nature of reported data within clinical trials that limits recommendation of wider clinical role of pharmacist in chronic pain management.