Search

Liberia's community health program went from concept to nationwide scale in 4 years due to the Liberian Government's vision and its partnership with implementing organizations and donors. The next community health policy will tackle the unfinished agenda related to quality, resilience, and sustainability. Liberia's experience offers valuable lessons for innovating, and institutionalizing a compensated, effective cadre of community health assistants., Key Messages Liberia's national community health program went from dispersed pilots to nationwide scale within 4 years. A network of policy entrepreneurs from the Liberian government, donors, and implementing partners capitalized on several windows of opportunity to achieve this success. First, they seized the evidence from a series of pilot projects and—during a point of significant global momentum around community health—evaluated the agenda. Second, they leveraged the impact of the community health workers during the Ebola virus disease outbreak to propel forward a consolidated, paid cadre with significant political and financial backing. Policy makers and program managers should consider coalition building and identifying diverse champions as an essential ingredient for impacting large-scale change, even in the face of significant challenges. Liberia's community health program is bolstered by significant research and evidence. However, the policy entrepreneurs who brought the community leaders, Government of Liberia stakeholders, donors, and partners around the table to buy into a common program has been the “secret sauce” of the program's success.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with their use in clinical trials.

Background: Rubefacients (containing salicylates or nicotinamides) cause irritation of the skin, and are believed to relieve various musculo-skeletal pains. They are available on prescription, and are common components in over-the-counter remedies. A non-Cochrane review in 2004 found limited evidence for efficacy. Objectives: To review current evidence for efficacy and safety of topically applied rubefacients in acute and chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions in adults. Search strategy: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, and reference lists of articles were searched; last search December 2008. Selection criteria: Randomised, double blind, placebo or active controlled clinical trials of topical rubefacient for musculoskeletal pain in adults, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, and reporting outcomes at close to 7 (minimum 3, maximum 10) days for acute conditions and 14 (minimum 7) days or longer for chronic conditions. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data. Relative benefit or risk and number needed to treat to benefit or harm (NNT or NNH) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Acute and chronic conditions were analysed separately. Main results: Six placebo and one active controlled studies (560 and 137 participants) in acute pain, and seven placebo and two active controlled studies (489 and 90 participants) in chronic pain were included. All used topical salicylates. The evidence in acute conditions was not robust; using only better quality, valid studies, there was no difference between topical rubefacient and topical control, though overall, including lower quality studies, the NNT for clinical success compared with placebo was 3.2 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.9). In chronic conditions the NNT was 6.2 (95% CI: 4.0 to 13) compared with topical placebo. Adverse events and withdrawals occurred more often with rubefacients than placebo, but analyses were sensitive to inclusion of individual studies, so not robust. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions against active controls. Authors' conclusions: The evidence does not support the use of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for acute injuries, and suggests that in chronic conditions their efficacy compares poorly with topical non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Topical salicylates seem to be relatively well tolerated in the short-term, based on limited data. There is no evidence at all for topical rubefacients with other components. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Background: Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used mainly in treating pain associated with arthritis. The usual oral dose for osteoarthritis is 15 mg daily, but lower doses of 7.5 mg are advised in older patients. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of single dose oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events. Search strategy We searched Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (June 2009); EMBASE (June 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral meloxicam for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We planned to use area under the "pain relief versus time" curve to derive the proportion of participants with meloxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations; to use number needed to treat to benefit (NNT); the proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period; time to use of rescue analgesia; information on adverse events and withdrawals. Main results: No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral meloxicam in patients with established postoperative pain. Authors' conclusions In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral meloxicam in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressant drug being used for induction and maintenance of remission of lupus nephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Evidence about its use was sought from full publications and abstracts of randomised trials and cohort studies by using a variety of search strategies. Efficacy and adverse event outcomes were sought. Five randomised trials enrolled patients with World Health Organization (WHO) class III, IV, or V (mostly IV) lupus nephritis, predominantly comparing MMF (1 to 3 g daily) with cyclophosphamide and steroid. Complete response and complete or partial response was significantly more frequent with MMF than with cyclophosphamide, with numbers needed to treat of 8 (95% confidence interval 4.3 to 60) to induce one additional complete or partial response, with wide confidence intervals. Death was reported less frequently with MMF (0.7%, 1 death in 152 patients) than with cyclophosphamide (7.8%, 12 deaths in 152 patients), with a number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) one death of 14 (8 to 48). Hospital admission was also lower with MMF (1.7% versus 15%; NNTp 7.4 [4.8 to 16]). Serious infections, leucopaena, amenorrhoea, and hair loss were all significantly less frequent with MMF than with cyclophosphamide, but diarrhoea was significantly more common with MMF. Ten of 18 cohort studies enrolled only patients with lupus nephritis (author-defined or WHO class III to V). Seven of these 10 reported that complete or partial response with MMD (mostly 1 or 2 g daily) with steroid occurred in 121/151 (20%). Adverse events were generally similar in cohort studies with and without only patients with lupus nephritis. In all 18 cohorts, gastrointestinal adverse events (diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting) occurred in 30%, infection in 23%, and serious infection in 4.3%. Adverse event discontinuations occurred in 14% and lack of efficacy occurred in 10%. There was a single death with MMF, a mortality rate over the course of 1 year of approximately 0.2%. The results form a basis on which to plan future studies and provide a guide for the use of MMF in lupus nephritis until results of larger studies are available. At least one such study is under way.

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: This review updates a 1999 Cochrane review showing that ibuprofen at various doses was effective in postoperative pain in single dose studies designed to demonstrate analgesic efficacy. New studies have since been published. Ibuprofen is one of the most widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) analgesics both by prescription and as an over-the-counter medicine. Ibuprofen is used for acute and chronic painful conditions. Objectives: To assess analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen in single oral doses for moderate and severe postoperative pain in adults. Search strategy: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to May 2009. Selection criteria: Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered ibuprofen (any formulation) in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk and number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) were calculated. 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 were collected. Main results: Seventy-two studies compared ibuprofen and placebo (9186 participants). Studies were predominantly of high reporting quality, and the bulk of the information concerned ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg. For at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo the NNT for ibuprofen 200 mg (2690 participants) was 2.7 (2.5 to 3.0) and for ibuprofen 400 mg (6475 participants) it was 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). The proportion with at least 50% pain relief was 46% with 200 mg and 54% with 400 mg. Remedication within 6 hours was less frequent with higher doses, with 48% remedicating with 200 mg and 42% with 400 mg. The median time to remedication was 4.7 hours with 200 mg and 5.4 hours with 400 mg. Sensitivity analysis indicated that pain model and ibuprofen formulation may both affect the result, with dental impaction models and soluble ibuprofen salts producing better efficacy estimates. Adverse events were uncommon, and not different from placebo. Authors' conclusions: The very substantial amount of high quality evidence demonstrates that ibuprofen is an effective analgesic in treating postoperative pain. NNTs for 200 mg and 400 mg ibuprofen did not change significantly from the previous review even when a substantial amount of new information was added. New information is provided on remedication. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Background: Etodolac is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, with evidence of efficacy in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Its analgesic efficacy in postoperative pain has not been clearly established. There are no systematic reviews on Etodolac's use in this condition. Objectives: To assess the analgesic efficacy of etodolac in single oral doses for moderate and severe postoperative pain. Search strategy: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to May 2009. Selection criteria: Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered etodolac (any formulation) in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) were calculated. 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 were collected. Main results: Nine studies (1459 participants) compared etodolac and placebo. Studies were of adequate reporting quality, and the majority of participants had pain following dental extractions. The dose of etodolac used was 25 mg to 1200 mg, with most of the information for 100 mg and 200 mg. For at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours compared with placebo the NNT for etodolac 100 mg (498 participants) was 4.8 (3.5 to 7.8) and for etodolac 200 mg (670 participants) it was 3.3 (2.7 to 4.2). Very limited information with the extended release formulation did not suggest improved benefit for this outcome. The proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 41% with 100 mg and 44% with 200 mg. Remedication was needed by about 60% with etodolac 200 mg or 400 mg over 6 to 8 hours, compared with almost 80% with placebo. Adverse events were uncommon, and not significantly different form placebo. Authors' conclusions: Etodolac 200 mg may be a useful analgesic in postoperative pain, with efficacy similar to paracetamol 1000 mg and celecoxib 200 mg. Higher doses may provide analgesia equivalent to more commonly used drugs, such as ibuprofen 400 mg, naproxen 500 mg and diclofenac 50 mg. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Background: Tenoxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and is widely available in other countries worldwide. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral tenoxicam in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of single dose oral tenoxicam in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events. Search strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2009), MEDLINE (March 2009); EMBASE via Ovid (March 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral tenoxicam for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with tenoxicam experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use of rescue analgesia, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected. Main results: Not one of sixteen studies identified by the searches and examined in detail studied oral tenoxicam in patients with established postoperative pain and therefore no results are available. Authors' conclusions: In the absence of evidence of efficacy for oral tenoxicam in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified at present. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies is lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes which are effective, there is no urgent research agenda for this particular drug. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

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. Naproxen is a non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID); its efficacy in acute migraine has not been established by systematic reviews. Co‐therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of naproxen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared with placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Relief Database, together with two online databases (www.gsk‐clinicalstudyregister.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov) and reference lists, for studies to 22 May 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐ or active‐controlled studies, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm, using naproxen alone or with an antiemetic to treat a migraine headache episode. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate risk ratios and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared with placebo or a different active treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies using naproxen 275 mg, 500 mg, or 825 mg to treat attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity. Overall, 1241 participants took naproxen (275 mg to 825 mg), 229 took sumatriptan 50 mg, 173 took naratriptan 2.5 mg, and 1092 took placebo. No studies combined naproxen with an antiemetic. Studies using naproxen 275 mg provided no useable data for analysis. Naproxen (500 mg and 825 mg) was better than placebo for pain‐free response and headache relief. At two hours, the NNT for pain‐free response was 11 (95% CI 8.7 to 17) (17% response with naproxen, 8% with placebo; risk ratio 2.0 (1.6 to 2.6), moderate quality) and for headache relief was 6.0 (4.8 to 7.9) (45% response with naproxen, 29% with placebo; risk ratio 1.6 (1.4 to 1.8), moderate quality). The NNT for sustained pain‐free response during the 24 hours post dose was 19 (13 to 34) (12% response with naproxen, 6.7% with placebo), and for sustained headache relief during the 24 hours post dose was 8.3 (6.4 to 12) (30% response with naproxen, 18% with placebo). Analysing only the lower dose of 500 mg of naproxen did not significantly change the results. Adverse events, which were mostly mild or moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal, were more common with naproxen than with placebo when the 500 mg and 825 mg doses were considered together, but not when the 500 mg dose was analysed alone. There were insufficient data for analysis of naproxen compared with sumatriptan, and no data suitable for analysis of naproxen compared with naratriptan. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Naproxen is statistically superior to placebo in the treatment of acute migraine, but the NNT of 11 for pain‐free response at two hours suggests that it is not a clinically useful treatment. Cochrane reviews examining other commonly used analgesics for acute migraine have reported better (lower) NNT results for the same outcome. Naproxen is not clinically useful as a stand‐alone analgesic in acute migraine, as it is effective in fewer than 2 people in 10.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2010 (Kirthi 2010). 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 METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 10 March 2010 for the original review and to 31 January 2013 for the update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-controlled studies, or both, using aspirin 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: No new studies were found for this update. 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.Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.Additional metoclopramide significantly reduced nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no new studies since the last version of this review. 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.

Die klinische Bewertung nicht objektivierbarer Symptome, z.B. Schmerzen, zu lehren, ist eine didaktische Herausforderung. Die Bewertung von Schmerzen erscheint komplex, denn erstens finden diverse Schmerzskalen Anwendung (visuelle Analogskala [VAS], numerische Bewertungsskala, verbale Bewertungsskala[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA)

BACKGROUND: Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat pain from a wide range of chronic conditions including neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity to noxious stimuli, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. There is uncertainty about the efficacy and tolerability of capsaicin for treating painful chronic neuropathies. This is an update of an earlier review of topical capsaicin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults that looked at all doses and formulations of capsaicin. The original review has now been split: here we consider only formulations using a low concentration of capsaicin (< 1%) applied several times daily over several weeks, while another review will consider a single application of capsaicin at a high concentration. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied low-concentration (< 1%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Oxford Pain Relief Database, searched to July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks' duration, using low-concentration (< 1%) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and validity, and extracted data. Information was extracted on numbers of participants with pain relief (clinical improvement) after at least six weeks, and with local skin reactions, and used to calculate relative risk (or risk ratio, RR) and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) and harm (NNH). Details of definition of pain relief and specific adverse events were sought. MAIN RESULTS: No additional studies were identified for this update of low concentration capsaicin. Included studies were published before 1996. Six studies (389 participants in total) compared regular application of low dose (0.075%) capsaicin cream with placebo cream. There was substantial heterogeneity in results, probably as a result of the small number of studies each with small numbers of participants, as well as the different pain conditions studied and different definitions of "clinical success" reported. Only two studies reported data for the preferred primary outcome of at least 50% pain relief, and there were too few data for pooled analysis. Local skin reactions were more common with capsaicin, usually tolerable, and attenuated with time; the NNH for repeated low-dose application was 2.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 3.1). All studies satisfied minimum criteria for quality and validity, but maintenance of blinding remains a potential problem. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of low-concentration capsaicin cream in the treatment of neuropathic pain. The information we have suggests that low-concentration topical capsaicin is without meaningful effect beyond that found in placebo creams; given the potential for bias from small study size, this makes it unlikely that low-concentration topical capsaicin has any meaningful use in clinical practice. Local skin irritation, which was often mild and transient but may lead to withdrawal, was common. Systemic adverse effects were rare.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly taken orally, but they are also available in topical preparations to be applied to or rubbed onto the skin of a painful joint, typically one affected by arthritis, with the aim of relieving pain locally. Topical NSAIDs are widely used in some parts of the world for acute and chronic painful conditions, but have not been universally accepted until recently. One of the problems has been that older clinical studies were generally short, lasting four weeks or less, and short duration studies are not regarded as adequate in ongoing painful conditions. OBJECTIVES: To examine the use of topical NSAIDs in chronic musculoskeletal pain, focusing on studies of high methodological quality, and examining the measured effect of the preparations according to study duration. The principal aim was to estimate treatment efficacy in longer duration studies of at least 8 weeks. SEARCH METHODS: A series of electronic searches, together with bibliographic searches, and searches of in-house databases were combined with electronic searches of clinical trial registers and manufacturers of topical NSAIDs, or companies known to be actively researching topical NSAIDs. There had to be at least 10 participants in each treatment arm, with application of treatment at least once daily. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double blind studies with placebo or active comparators, where at least one treatment was a topical NSAID product, in any topical formulation (cream, gel, patch, solution), in studies lasting at least two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and validity, and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Information was available from 7688 participants in 34 studies from 32 publications; 23 studies compared a topical NSAID with placebo. Topical NSAIDs were significantly more effective than placebo for reducing pain due to chronic musculoskeletal conditions. The best data were for topical diclofenac in osteoarthritis, where the NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 8 to 12 weeks compared with placebo was 6.4 for the solution, and 11 for the gel formulation. There were too few data of good quality to calculate NNTs for other individual topical NSAIDs compared with placebo. Direct comparison of topical NSAID with an oral NSAID did not show any difference in efficacy. There was an increase in local adverse events (mostly mild skin reactions) with topical NSAIDs compared with placebo or oral NSAIDs, but no increase in serious adverse events. Gastrointestinal adverse events with topical NSAID did not differ from placebo, but were less frequent than with oral NSAIDs.A substantial amount of data from unpublished studies was unavailable. Much of this probably relates to formulations that have never been marketed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs can provide good levels of pain relief; topical diclofenac solution is equivalent to that of oral NSAIDs in knee and hand osteoarthritis, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. Formulation can influence efficacy. The incidence of local adverse events is increased with topical NSAIDs, but gastrointestinal adverse events are reduced compared with oral NSAIDs.

Background: Parecoxib was the first COX-2 available for parenteral administration, and may, given intravenously or intramuscularly, offer advantages over oral medication when patients have nausea and vomiting or are unable to swallow, such as in the immediate postoperative period. Objectives: Assess the efficacy of single dose intravenous or intramuscular parecoxib in acute postoperative pain, the requirement for rescue medication, and any associated adverse events. Search strategy: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE in November 2008. Selection criteria Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of parecoxib compared with placebo for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with parecoxib and placebo experiencing at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours, using validated equations. The number-needed-to-treat-to- benefit (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use of rescue analgesia, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals were also collected. Main results: Seven studies (1446 participants) were included. There was no significant difference between doses, or between intravenous and intramuscular administration for 50% pain relief over 6 hours: NNTs compared with placebo were 3.1 (2.4 to 4.5), 2.4 (2.1 to 2.8), and 1.8 (1.5 to 2.3) for 10, 20, and 40 mg parecoxib respectively. Fewer participants required rescue medication over 24 hours with parecoxib than placebo: parecoxib 40 mg was significantly better than parecoxib 20 mg (NNTs to prevent use of rescue medication 7.5 (5.3 to 12.8) and 3.3 (2.6 to 4.5) respectively; P < 0.0007). Median time to use of rescue medication was 3.1 hours, 6.9 hours and 10.6 hours with parecoxib 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg respectively, and 1.5 hours with placebo. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, rarely led to withdrawal, and did not differ in frequency between groups. No serious adverse events were reported with parecoxib or placebo. Authors' conclusions: A single dose of parecoxib 20 mg or 40 mg provided effective analgesia for 50 to 60% of those treated compared to about 15% with placebo, and was well tolerated. Duration of analgesia was longer, and significantly fewer participants required rescue medication over 24 hours with the higher dose. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Background: Nefopam is a centrally-acting but non-opioid analgesic drug of the benzoxazocine chemical class, developed in the early 1970s. It is widely used, mainly in European countries, for the relief of moderate to severe pain as an alternative to opioid analgesic drugs, and used in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral nefopamin acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of single dose oral nefopam in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events. Search strategy: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to May 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994); and reference lists of studies found. Selection criteria: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral nefopam for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with nefopam and placebo experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations. The number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use of rescue analgesia, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected. Main results: No included studies were identified after examining in detail thirteen studies on oral nefopam in participants with established postoperative pain. Authors' conclusions: In the absence of evidence of efficacy for oral nefopam in acute postoperative pain, its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies are lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of available drugs of this and similar classes, there is no urgent research agenda. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

BACKGROUND: Etoricoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain. The drug is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). A number of studies in acute postoperative pain have now been published. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of etoricoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Oxford Pain Database, and reference lists of articles. Date of the most recent search: December 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral etoricoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review and quality, and extracted data. The area under the pain relief versus time curve was used to derive the proportion of participants prescribed etoricoxib or placebo with at least 50% pain relief over six hours, using validated equations. Relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) were calculated. Information on use of rescue medication was used to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. Information on adverse effects was also collected. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies (880 participants) were included in the review. All five studies reported on 120 mg, with 655 participants in a comparison with placebo. At least 50% pain relief was reported by 64% with etoricoxib 120 mg and 10% with placebo (NNT 1.9 (1.7 to 2.1)). For dental studies only the NNT was 1.6 (1.5 to 1.8). Two studies also reported on higher doses of 180 and 240 mg, with 249 participants. At least 50% pain relief was reported by 79% with etoricoxib 120 mg and 12% with placebo (NNT 1.5 (1.3 to 1.7)).Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication when taking etoricoxib 120 mg than those taking placebo (NNT to prevent remedication 2.4 (2.1 to 2.9)), and the median time to use of rescue medication was 20 hours. Adverse events were reported at a similar rate to placebo, with no serious events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Single dose oral etoricoxib produces high levels of good quality pain relief after surgery. The 120 mg dose is as effective as, or better than, other commonly used analgesics.

Background This review is an update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2009 on single dose oral dexibuprofen (S(+)-ibuprofen) for acute postoperative pain in adults. Dexibuprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) licensed for use in rheumatic disease and other musculoskeletal disorders in the UK, and widely available in other countries worldwide. It is an active isomer of ibuprofen. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral dexibuprofen in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies in patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over four to six hours, using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties. Objectives To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of single dose oral dexibuprofen for acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised studies using almost identical methods and outcomes. Search methods Searches were run for the original review in 2009 and subsequent searches have been run in August 2013. We did not find any new published studies as a result of the updated search. We searched for randomised studies of dexibuprofen in acute postoperative pain in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane LIbrary), and for clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources. Selection criteria Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies of oral dexibuprofen for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We extracted pain relief or pain intensity data and converted it into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, from which relative risk and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. We collected information on adverse events and withdrawals. Main results New data were identified for this update in one unpublished trial synopsis (BR1160 1995) in addition to the single study (Dionne 1998) that was included in the original review. In both studies dexibuprofen gave high levels of response, with 51/96 (53%) participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief with dexibuprofen 200 mg and 35/50 (70%) with dexibuprofen 400 mg, compared with 75/147 (51%) with racemic ibuprofen 400 mg, and 12/62 (13%) with placebo. The numbers of participants was too small to calculate NNTs with any meaning. The median time to additional analgesic use was greater than four hours for all active therapies, but about two hours for placebo. Adverse events were generally of mild or moderate intensity and consistent with events normally associated with anaesthesia and surgery. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Additional data did not alter the conclusions from the earlier review. Authors' conclusions The information from these two studies in acute postoperative pain suggested that dexibuprofen may be a useful analgesic, but at doses not very different from racemic ibuprofen, for which considerably more evidence exists.

Background: Lornoxicam is one of the oxicam class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), producing analgesic and antipyretic effects in part through the non-selective inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase-1 and -2. It is prescribed for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, acute lumbar-sciatica conditions and for postoperative pain management. Lornoxicam is available in 31 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Far East and South America, and is becoming more widely available. 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 lornoxicam in acute postoperative pain. Search strategy: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed to June 2009. Selection criteria: Single oral dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lornoxicam 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 over 6 hours (TOTPAR 6) 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 (CIs), the relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over 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 Three studies, with 628 participants, met the inclusion criteria; 434 participants were treated with various doses (2 mg to 32 mg) of lornoxicam, 118 with placebo, and 76 with other active therapies. All the participants had pain following third molar extraction, and study duration was 8 to 24 hours. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 6 hours after a single dose of lornoxicam 8 mg was 2.9 (2.3 to 4.0). There were insufficient data to analyse other doses or use of rescue medication. No serious adverse events or withdrawals were reported by any of the studies. Authors' conclusions Oral lornoxicam is effective at treating moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, based on limited data. Adverse events did not differ significantly from placebo. Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.