Search

Objectives: Pain treatment in acute musculoskeletal injuries usually consists of paracetamol, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids. It would be beneficial to determine whether paracetamol is as effective as other analgesics. The objective of this study was to evaluate available evidence regarding efficacy of paracetamol in these patients., Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane and relevant trial registers were searched from inception to 14 February 2018 by two independent reviewers to detect all randomised studies with adult patients with acute minor musculoskeletal injuries treated with paracetamol as compared with other analgesics. There were no language or date restrictions. Two independent reviewers evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Primary outcome was decrease in pain scores during the first 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included pain decrease beyond 24 hours, need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events., Results: Seven trials were included, evaluating 2100 patients who were treated with paracetamol or NSAIDs or the combination of both as comparisons, of which only four studies addressed the primary outcome. No studies were found comparing paracetamol with opioids. There were no differences in analgesic effectiveness within and beyond 24 hours, nor in need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. Overall, quality of evidence was low. Because of methodological inconsistencies, a meta-analysis was not possible., Conclusions: Based on available evidence, paracetamol is as effective as NSAIDs or the combination of both in treating pain in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries in the acute setting. The quality of evidence is low., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The management of acute traumatic pain is a crucial component of prehospital care and yet the assessment and administration of analgesia is highly variable, frequently suboptimal, and often determined by consensus-based regional protocols., Objective: To develop an evidence-based guideline (EBG) for the clinical management of acute traumatic pain in adults and children by advanced life support (ALS) providers in the prehospital setting. Methods. We recruited a multi-stakeholder panel with expertise in acute pain management, guideline development, health informatics, and emergency medical services (EMS) outcomes research. Representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (sponsoring agency) and a major children's research center (investigative team) also contributed to the process. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to guide the process of question formulation, evidence retrieval, appraisal/synthesis, and formulation of recommendations. The process also adhered to the National Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline (EBG) model process approved by the Federal Interagency Council for EMS and the National EMS Advisory Council., Results: Four strong and three weak recommendations emerged from the process; two of the strong recommendations were linked to high- and moderate-quality evidence, respectively. The panel recommended that all patients be considered candidates for analgesia, regardless of transport interval, and that opioid medications should be considered for patients in moderate to severe pain. The panel also recommended that all patients should be reassessed at frequent intervals using a standardized pain scale and that patients should be re-dosed if pain persists. The panel suggested the use of specific age-appropriate pain scales., Conclusion: GRADE methodology was used to develop an evidence-based guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma. The panel issued four strong recommendations regarding patient assessment and narcotic medication dosing. Future research should define optimal approaches for implementation of the guideline as well as the impact of the protocol on safety and effectiveness metrics.

Background: Chronic or persistent pain is a common problem in older adults and is often associated with significant physical disability and psychosocial problems. The potential benefits, risks, and costs of pharmacotherapy as a mainstay in the treatment of moderate to severe pain in this population must be well-understood and weighed accordingly. Recent treatment guidelines have been introduced that can guide decision making to optimize pain-related treatment outcomes in older individuals, Objectives and Results: This review article describes and summarizes key evidence-based recommendations that were derived by a committee convened by the American Geriatrics Society in order to provide guidance to optimize pharmacotherapy in the management of persistent pain in older individuals., Conclusions: It is postulated that ongoing education of clinicians who treat older patients with persistent moderate to severe pain will lead to improved outcomes in this vulnerable population., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: There has been a growing recognition of the need for better pharmacologic management of chronic pain among older adults. To address this need, the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium sponsored an "Expert Panel Discussion on the Pharmacological Management of Chronic Pain in Older Adults" conference in September 2010 to identify research gaps and strategies to address them. Specific emphasis was placed on ascertaining gaps regarding use of opioid and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications because of continued uncertainties regarding their risks and benefits., Design: Eighteen panel members provided oral presentations; each was followed by a multidisciplinary panel discussion. Meeting transcripts and panelists' slide presentations were reviewed to identify the gaps and the types of studies and research methods panelists suggested could best address them., Results: Fifteen gaps were identified in the areas of treatment (e.g., uncertainty regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of commonly prescribed analgesics), epidemiology (e.g., lack of knowledge regarding the course of common pain syndromes), and implementation (e.g., limited understanding of optimal strategies to translate evidence-based pain treatments into practice). Analyses of data from electronic health care databases, observational cohort studies, and ongoing cohort studies (augmented with pain and other relevant outcomes measures) were felt to be practical methods for building an age-appropriate evidence base to improve the pharmacologic management of pain in later life., Conclusion: Addressing the gaps presented in the current report was judged by the panel to have substantial potential to improve the health and well-being of older adults with chronic pain., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background and Purpose: Certain miscellaneous idiopathic headache disorders, which are regarded as entities, are grouped in Chapter 4 of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Recent epidemiological research suggests that these headache disorders are underdiagnosed., Objectives: To give expert recommendations for the different drug and non-drug treatment procedures of these different headache disorders based on a literature search and on consensus of an expert panel., Methods: All available medical reference systems were screened for all kinds of clinical studies on these headache disorders. The findings in these studies were evaluated according to the recommendations of the EFNS resulting in level A, B or C recommendations and good practice points., Recommendations: For all headache disorders, acute and prophylactic drug treatment is recommended based on case series and on expert consensus. Furthermore, recommendations for the differential diagnoses are given because these headache disorders can also present with a symptomatic form. The most effective drug for the majority of these headache disorders is indomethacin, mostly applied as long-term or short-term prophylaxis., (© 2011 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology © 2011 EFNS.)

Objective: To collect data on pain management in paediatric oncology with respect to the WHO ladder approach. SETTING, DESIGN, PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight German tertiary care paediatric oncology centres prospectively documented all their in-patient pain treatment courses from June 1999 to December 2000. Pain was scored using a 1-6 faces scale., Results: Two hundred and twenty four patients (median age, 9 years; range 0.2-32.1) were enrolled. Three hundred and thirty three pain episodes comprising a total of 2265 treatment days were documented. Pain was mostly therapy associated. The most frequently administered non-opioid analgesics were dipyrone and paracetamol. On WHO step 2, tramadol was almost the only opioid used. During tramadol monotherapy average daily pain scores were lower than with a combination of tramadol and non-opioid analgesics. On WHO step 3, morphine was at least part of the analgesic regimen on most treatment days. Strong opioids were combined with a non-opioid analgesic on 41% of the treatment days. The mean intravenous morphine equivalence dose was 0.034 mg/kg/h. During opioid and non-opioid combination therapy, adverse effects were more frequent, and average pain scored higher than on opioid monotherapy., Conclusions: WHO-guidelines were closely followed in Germany and seem to provide effective analgesia for children with cancer pain. In our patient group there is no evidence that a combination of an opioid with a non-opioid is more effective than opioid therapy alone in in-patient paediatric oncology pain treatment.