Analgesic efficacy and plasma concentration of three analgesics in pain after lower third molar removal.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Acetaminophen↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “ANALGESICS”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
[Analgesia and age. I. Age-conditioned changes in the analgesic effect of strong analgesics in rats].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Aging↗
[Objective evaluation of the analgesic effect of fentanyl and the factors affecting the effectiveness of the analgesic].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adult↗
[Experimental clinical study of the analgesic action of various components of general electroanesthesia without pharmacologic anesthetics and analgesics].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adult↗
Analgesic use in dentistry in a tertiary hospital in western Nepal.
The present study had been planned to determine the pattern of drug utilization of analgesics (non-opioid and opioid analgesics) in dental outpatients in a referral hospital in western Nepal. A total of 1820 prescriptions of dental patients attending the dental outpatient at Manipal Teaching Hospital (MTH), Fulbari, Pokhara, Nepal were collected by a random once-weekly survey between March 2001 and February 2002. The analgesic-containing prescriptions (n = 1346) were separated from the total prescriptions collected. This information was compiled, scored and analyzed in consultation with dentists using WHO guidelines. There were more female patients (56%) than male patients (44%) in this study. The dental disorders most frequently reported in our study were diseases of pulp and periapical tissue (36.5%), gingivitis and periodontal diseases (28.5%) and dental caries (16%) etc. In total, 74% prescriptions contained analgesics which are the second-most commonly prescribed drugs after anti-microbials (44.9%) in dental OPD. The total analgesics prescribed were 1358 that account for 36.7% of total drugs prescribed. Only 5 and 37.8% of analgesics were prescribed generically and from the essential drug list of WHO respectively. All the analgesics were administered orally which included 89.7 and 10.3% of non-opioid analgesics and opioid analgesics (propoxyphene and dextropopoxyphene) respectively. The average duration of analgesic use was 3.5 +/- 0.3 days. The most commonly prescribed non-opioid analgesic was ibuprofen (41%) followed by nimesulide (22%). A total of 38.9% analgesics were fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of two drugs and the most common analgesic combination used was ibuprofen + paracetamol and paracetamol + opioid analgesics. All opioid analgesics were prescribed in combination with paracetamol (10.3%) only. In total, 1.6% analgesics were prescribed concomitantly with gastroprotective agents. All gastroprotective agents (n = 22) were prescribed concomitantly with opioid analgesics only. No gastroprotective was used when NSAIDs were prescribed alone or in combination with paracetamol. Our present study indicate that all the analgesics were prescribed in oral dosage forms but analgesics prescribed in generic name (5%) and from essential drug lists (37.8%) were very less. There was an inclination to prescribe the older non-opioid analgesics. Selection of analgesics was quite rational in our study but some lacunae were observed. A total of 38.9% analgesics were FDCs and most common FDC analgesics were ibuprofen + paracetamol. Avoiding unnecessary FDCs may help in reducing prescribing costs because FDCs usually cost more than single ingredient preparations. It is best to avoid combination therapy with more than one non-opioid analgesic; there is little evidence of extra benefit to the patient and the incidence of side effects generally is additive. Prescribing generic names aids in avoiding confusion and minimizing the costs. In the present study, coprescription of gastroprotective agents with analgesic use was low compared to a previous study but when opioid analgesics were prescribed, concurrent use of gastroprotective agents were irrational as opioid analgesics usually decrease the secretion of hydrochloric acid. It is also surprizing that, no gastroprotective was used when NSAIDs were prescribed alone, irrespective of sex, age, dose or duration or type of NSAID treatment in our study. There is a clear need for the development of prescribing guidelines and educational initiatives to encourage the rational and appropriate use of analgesics in dentistry.
Adolescent↗
A Pain Monitoring Program for nurses: effect on the administration of analgesics.
Both physicians and nurses are responsible for adequate pain management. The aim of this study was to assess pain management behavior of physicians and nurses, and to evaluate the effects of a Pain Monitoring Program for nurses on the extent to which nurses administer analgesics. The Pain Monitoring Program consisted of two components: educating nurses about pain, pain assessment and pain management; and implementing daily pain assessment by means of a numeric rating scale. Several outcomes were distinguished to evaluate the administration of analgesics by nurses: the prescribed analgesics by physicians, the administered analgesics by nurses, and the discrepancy between the ordered and the administered analgesics. The effects of the Pain Monitoring Program on these outcomes were measured in a quasi-experimental design with a non-equivalent control group. In total, 703 patients participated: 358 patients in the control group and 345 in the intervention group. Patients were interviewed twice, i.e. at the beginning and at the end of hospitalization. Results of the control group showed that at the first interview 70% of the patients were prescribed analgesics by physicians and only 74% of those patients were actually administered analgesics by nurses. Consequently, 50% of the patients in pain received analgesics. The administered analgesics was in absolute agreement with the prescribed analgesics in 60% of the patients with routine analgesics and in 85% of the patients with PRN analgesics. The relative difference between ordered and administered routine analgesics was small, namely 15% for opioids and 20% for non-opioids. Similar results of the control group were found for the second interview. In addition, the results showed that the Pain Monitoring Program was effective in improving nurses' administration of analgesics. At the first interview more patients received analgesics that were prescribed on a PRN basis and the doses of administered routine non-opioids including PRN increased. At the time of the second interview, more patients received weak opioids. The Pain Monitoring Program was especially effective in patients with moderate to severe pain. However, the discrepancy between the analgesics ordered by physicians and actually administered by nurses did not change as a result of the Pain Monitoring Program. Based on this study it can be concluded that the use of a simple method such as a numeric rating scale together with pain education for nurses is effective in improving the administration of analgesics by nurses. These are important results because nurses play an essential role in helping patients to cope with their pain. Because the Pain Monitoring Program (PMP) was effective in a heterogeneous population in multiple care settings, the possibility of implementing the PMP in routine nursing practice should be considered.
Adult↗
Prescription and nonprescription analgesic use in Sweden.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze patterns of prescription and nonprescription analgesic use in the general Swedish population, in association with predisposing factors, enabling factors, need, and health behavior. DESIGN: Cross-sectional interview survey. SETTING: The Swedish Surveys of Living Conditions for the 2-year period 1988-1989. PARTICIPANTS: A probability sample of all inhabitants of Sweden aged 18-84 years (n = 11996). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescription and nonprescription analgesic use during a 2-week period. RESULTS: Women reported use of analgesics both with and without prescriptions to a greater extent than did men. Among women, 12.2% reported prescription analgesic use and 30.4% reported nonprescription analgesic use. The corresponding proportions among men were 7.2% and 20.0%, respectively. In the descriptive analyses, prescription analgesic use was most common among persons aged 45 years and older, while use of nonprescription analgesics was most common in people aged 18-44 years. The polychotomous logistic regression analyses showed that headache and musculoskeletal pain were strongly associated with prescription analgesic use to a similar extent among men and women. Headache was associated with nonprescription analgesic use among men and women, but a gender difference was found in the association between musculoskeletal pain and nonprescription analgesic use. Women with musculoskeletal pain used nonprescription analgesics to a greater extent than did men with musculoskeletal pain. Poor health--measured as self-perceived health status and physical function--and high use of health care were related only to prescription analgesic use. Smoking and being overweight were associated with prescription analgesic use among men and with nonprescription analgesic use among women; alcohol consumption was associated with both types of analgesic use only among women. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that men and women differ in their choice between prescription and nonprescription analgesics and that the choice between prescription and nonprescription analgesics is influenced by an individual's pain, self-perceived health, and lifestyle.
Adolescent↗
Frequent analgesic use at population level: prevalence and patterns of use.
Statistics and prescription database studies show that analgesics are widely utilized, but do not tell anything about either the factors behind analgesic use or how over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics are being used. We aimed to study the prevalence of frequent use of prescribed and OTC analgesics. We also investigated the background factors related to frequent analgesic use and assessed rationality of analgesic usage patterns. We addressed a postal survey to a random stratified population sample of 6500 Finnish people aged 15-74 years. The response rate was 71% (n=4542) after exclusion of unobtainable addressees (n=68). Individuals reporting analgesic use 'daily' or 'a few times a week' were categorized as frequent users. After adjusting for age and sex, the overall prevalence of daily analgesic use was 8.5%, and the prevalence of analgesic use a few times a week 13.6%. The adjusted prevalence of using exclusively prescribed analgesics daily or a few times a week was 8.7%, and that of utilizing purely OTC analgesics 8.8%. The overall prevalence of concomitant frequent use of both prescribed and OTC analgesics was 4.6%. Multinominal logistic regression analyses showed that frequent analgesic use was related especially to daily or continuous pain and high pain intensity. Low mood and not being employed also increased the probability for daily analgesic use. Frequent analgesic use seems to be common at population level. Concomitant use of both prescribed and OTC analgesics can be considered irrational, as it increases the risk of adverse events.
Adolescent↗
Emergency department analgesic use in pediatric trauma victims with fractures.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency of emergency department analgesic use in children with presumably painful fractures who are also at risk for associated multiple injuries and to determine whether there are specific factors that distinguish those who are prescribed analgesics from those who are not. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective review of a computerized trauma registry. SETTING: Regional pediatric ED and trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred thirty-three injured children met trauma team activation criteria from January 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. Of these 433, we selected the 121 children who had fractures of the pelvis, long bones, ankle, wrist, or clavicle. Of these 121, we excluded the 22 children who underwent endotracheal intubation. Trauma registry data from the prehospital and ED phases of care from the remaining 99 children were reviewed for this study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Of the study group, 53% (52 of 99) received analgesics, all narcotics. Excluding the 46 children with multi-system injuries, only 62% (33 of 53) received analgesics. Patients in both the analgesic (52) and no-analgesic groups (47) were mildly to moderately injured based on initial ED trauma scores and vital signs. No statistical or clinical significant differences were found between the analgesic group and the no-analgesic group when comparing age, sex, race, mechanism of injury, vehicle speed, height of fall, time elapsed from injury until arrival at the ED, transport method, prehospital analgesic use, mortality, Injury Severity Score, and initial ED vital signs, Glasgow Coma Scale, Trauma Score, and Pediatric Trauma Score. Fifty-nine percent (ten of 17) of the children with associated internal injuries limited to the chest or abdomen received analgesics compared with 62% (33 of 53) in those with isolated fracture (P = .8). Those with an associated head injury (31%, nine of 29) received analgesics less frequently than those with isolated fracture (62%, 33 of 53) (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that ED analgesic use was low in these mildly to moderately injured children with presumably painful fractures who are also at risk for associated multiple injuries. Head injury was associated with especially low analgesic use. We did not identify other specific factors that distinguished those who received analgesics from those who did not. Further investigation is required to determine if after the initial evaluation, a larger proportion of mildly to moderately injured trauma victims with fractures are appropriate candidates for ED analgesic use.
Adolescent↗
Analgesic rebound headache in clinical practice: data from a physician survey.
BACKGROUND: Frequent, excessive use of over-the-counter or prescription analgesics may lead to analgesic rebound headache. Little is known about the magnitude of the health problem posed by analgesic rebound headache, its epidemiology, the characteristics of analgesic rebound headache sufferers, or about physicians' approaches to treatment. METHODS: Four hundred seventy-three practitioners, who had previously expressed an interest in the treatment of headache, were mailed a questionnaire designed to capture information about the frequency and management of analgesic rebound headache and about the characteristics of analgesic rebound headache sufferers. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 174 practitioners (37%) from 40 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. More than 40% of respondents indicated that analgesic rebound headache was present in at least 20% of their patients. On average, the physicians reported that 73% of patients with analgesic rebound headache were women. Analgesic rebound headache was most likely to occur in patients aged 31 to 40 years. No one analgesic was consistently identified as causative, although acetaminophen, butalbital + aspirin + caffeine, and aspirin were commonly used by patients. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that depression was commonly observed in analgesic rebound headache sufferers; 77% indicated that physical conditions (especially gastrointestinal symptoms) were commonly observed. A variety of therapeutic strategies, including pharmacotherapy, were used in the management of analgesic rebound headache. CONCLUSION: Analgesic rebound headache was recognized as a distinct entity and a substantive component in more than 40% of the practices of 174 surveyed practitioners. General practitioners, who see a wide variety of patient types with a spectrum of complaints, need to be able to diagnose analgesic rebound headache by taking a good history.
Adult↗
Pediatric emergency department analgesic practice.
OBJECTIVE: To review recent acute pain management care issues in a pediatric emergency department (ED) in order to identify opportunities for a performance improvement program. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective chart review. SETTING: Urban pediatric hospital ED. PARTICIPANTS: Between January 1 and December 31, 1994 consecutive patients identified by ED chart review with the following three acute painful conditions were included; sickle cell vasoocclusive crisis (VOC) not complicated by fever or neurologic symptoms, isolated lower extremity long bone fractures < 12 hours old that did not require a reduction, and second degree burns < 12 hours old. Data collection concluded when between 50 and 55 episodes of each painful condition were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ED analgesic administration, initial analgesic dose, initial time elapsed to analgesic administration, notation of pain relief, and home analgesic instruction. Recommended analgesic starting doses were chosen from the 1992 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Clinical Practice Guidelines. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: ED analgesic use for VOC was 100%, for fracture was 31%, and for burn was 26%. A recommended starting analgesic dose was given to 78% with VOC, 69% with fracture, and 79% with burn. Mean time to initial analgesic for VOC was 52 minutes, for fracture was 86 minutes, and for burn was 29 minutes. In those given analgesics, notation of pain relief for fracture was 19% and for burn was 29%, this improved for VOC where it was 88%. Home analgesic instruction for VOC was 100%, for fracture was 74%, and for burn was 27%. CONCLUSION: These data from 1994 document suboptimal analgesic use and home analgesic instruction for children in our ED with burns and fractures. Other opportunities in our ED for acute pain management improvement include optimizing initial analgesic doses, shortening the time elapsed to initial analgesic administration, and documenting the response to pain management.
Acute Disease↗
Patterns of post-operative analgesic usage in adults and children.
There appears to be a general tendency towards under-usage of analgesics not only in children but also in adults. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of analgesic usage in adults and children admitted for major intra-abdominal surgery. All patients who had intra-abdominal surgery at University Science Malaysia Hospital (USM Hospital) from 1st January to 31st March 1995 were included in the study. Children were patients of 12 years and below and adults were patients above 12 years of age. Data including age, sex, weight, type of analgesics used, the number of patients who had analgesics ordered and administered post-operatively were obtained from the patients' medical record. A total of 48 children and 67 adults were studied. Narcotic analgesics were the most common analgesics ordered both in adults (95.5%) and in children (97%). Post-operative analgesics were ordered significantly more often for adults 67 (100%) than for children 33 (69%) (p < 0.0001). In adults, 70% of patients who had analgesics ordered post-operatively had their analgesics administered, but in children only 39.4% of patients had their analgesics administered (p < 0.001). The most common route of administration was intramuscular in both adults (95.5%) and children (88%). Analgesics were more likely to be administered in the intensive care units (100%) than in the surgical wards (60%) (p = 0.049). Elective or emergency surgery and the time of day when surgery was performed did not affect the frequency of analgesics ordered or administered. In summary, children in this hospital had less analgesics ordered and administered following intra-abdominal surgery compared to adults. The results of this study imply that increased attention should be given to relieve postoperative pain with analgesic drugs in children.
Abdomen↗
A benefit-risk assessment of caffeine as an analgesic adjuvant.
Caffeine has been an additive in analgesics for many years. However, the analgesic adjuvant effects of caffeine have not been seriously investigated since a pooled analysis conducted in 1984 showed that caffeine reduces the amount of paracetamol (acetaminophen) necessary for the same effect by approximately 40%. In vitro and in vivo pharmacological research has provided some evidence that caffeine can have anti-nociceptive actions through blockade of adenosine receptors, inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase-2 enzyme synthesis, or by changes in emotion state. Nevertheless, these actions are only considered in some cases. It is suggested that the actual doses of analgesics and caffeine used can influence the analgesic adjuvant effects of caffeine, and doses that are either too low or too high lead to no analgesic enhancement. Clinical trials suggest that caffeine in doses of more than 65 mg may be useful for enhancement of analgesia. However, except for in headache pain, the benefits are equivocal. While adding caffeine to analgesics increases the number of patients who become free from headache [rate ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.58], it also leads to more patients with nervousness and dizziness (relative risk = 1.60, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.03). It is suggested that long-term use or overuse of analgesic medications is associated with rebound headache. However, there is no robust evidence that headache after use or withdrawal of caffeine-containing analgesics is more frequent than after other analgesics. Case-control studies have shown that caffeine-containing analgesics are associated with analgesic nephropathy (odds ratio = 4.9, 95% CI 2.3 to 10.3). However, no specific contribution of caffeine to analgesic nephropathy can be identified from these studies. Whether caffeine produces nephrotoxicity on its own, or increases nephrotoxicity due to analgesics, is yet to be established.
Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic↗
Analgesic nephropathy: an important cause of chronic renal failure.
Study of case-notes and autopsy reports of patients with renal disease suggests that analgesic nephropathy is responsible for at least 12 per cent of cases of chronic renal failure, Between 1970 and 1975 eight new cases of analgesic nephropathy were seen annually in a population of three-quarters of a million. This is equivalent to an incidence of 490 new cases per year in England and Wales. Fifty-five patients with analgesic nephropathy were followed from one to 84 months for a total of 190 patient years. Changes in renal function were correlated with bacteriuria, hypertension and analgesic consumption. One-third of the cases had been misdiagnosed and analgesic abuse was only revealed by thorough examination of case-notes and autopsy records, together with careful questioning of patients and relatives. A number of cases had been classified as chronic pyelonephritis. The calculated survival rate at five years was 44 per cent. Mortality was related to the level of analgesic consumption and the degree of renal failure at the time of diagnosis. The prognosis was poor if serum creatinine at presentation was greater than 400 mumol/l. There was no significant correlation between deterioration in renal function and bacteriuria or hypertension. Forty-two per cent of the patients were taking analgesics for arthritis; 27 per cent had rheumatoid arthritis. Most had been taking large quantities of analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin. Renal papillary necrosis was present in only 26 per cent on intravenous urography but was found in all those examined at autopsy. Twenty thousand, two hundred and twenty-nine autopsy reports were examined for the presence of renal disease. Renal papillary necrosis was found in 0.41 per cent, and could be attributed to analgesic nephropathy in 24 per cent. In patients under 65 years of age analgesic nephropathy appeared to be a more frequent cause of death than chronic pyelonephritis. The report indicates the need for careful enquiry about analgesic consumption in all patients with renal disease, and emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis and cessation of analgesics in suspected cases of analgesic nephropathy.
Adult↗
An investigation into the prescribing of analgesics.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prescribing of analgesic agents in a defined South African patient population. DESIGN: Retrospective drug utilisation study. SETTING: Prescribing behaviour of a sample of 50 dispensing doctors in Port Elizabeth. Data were obtained from a medical aid which used a formulary system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of central nervous system drugs that analgesics comprised; proportion of patients using combination analgesics; cost of analgesics. RESULTS: On average, 83.3% of all central nervous system drugs dispensed were analgesic agents. These agents represented 70.9% of the total cost of central nervous system drugs. A high percentage (82.2%) of the analgesic agents dispensed were combination or polycomponent analgesics. The combination analgesic tablet, consisting of paracetamol, meprobamate, caffeine and codeine phosphate, was the most frequently prescribed central nervous system drug. This product accounted on average for 40.4% of all analgesics dispensed. Nearly half (46.0%) of all the analgesics dispensed by the sample of doctors were available without a prescription. CONCLUSION: The high prescribing rate of combination analgesic prescription was a cause for concern, given the dependence-producing potential of some of the ingredients, e.g. meprobamate. The prescribing and use of analgesics should be carefully monitored by further drug utilisation studies in light of the serious adverse effects, such as analgesic nephropathy, associated with the longterm use of these agents.
Analgesics↗
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.
Adolescent↗
A drug use evaluation of selected opioid and nonopioid analgesics in the nursing facility setting.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the medical conditions for which selected analgesics are most frequently prescribed in nursing facilities (NFs), describe the use of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic pain therapies, and determine the frequency and quality of pain assessment in NF residents. DESIGN: A multicenter, 3-month retrospective drug use evaluation conducted by consultant pharmacists. SETTING: Eighty-nine NFs having no more than 25% of their patient census representing special populations (e.g., head trauma). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2065 adult NF residents who received at least one selected analgesic. MEASUREMENTS: Primary indication for analgesics, pain type, method of pain assessment, nonpharmacologic therapies for pain, prescribed analgesics and regimens, and comorbid conditions were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 54.3% of residents had one indication for analgesic therapy, 31.0% had two indications, and 14.7% had three or more indications. Arthritis was the most prevalent indication for analgesics (41.7% of residents), followed by bone fracture (12.4%) and other musculoskeletal conditions (9.7%). More residents (76.8%) were reported to have chronic pain than acute pain (19.9%), and 3.0% had both chronic and acute pain. Pain type was unknown for 0.2% of residents. Observational pain assessments were used more frequently (for 55.9% of residents) than objective methods (16.6%), and pain was not assessed in 40.6% of residents. Most residents (69.4%) received no nonpharmacologic treatment for pain. Of the 2542 opioid and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescriptions, 67.6% were for opioids, 24.8% were for NSAIDs, and 7.6% were for tramadol. Propoxyphene-containing drugs were the most frequently prescribed opioid group, and propoxyphene with acetaminophen was the most frequently prescribed analgesic (35.6% of all analgesics). Most analgesics (63.2%) were prescribed on an as-needed (prn) basis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show a lack of adequate pain assessments, little use of nonpharmacologic interventions, and inappropriate use of analgesic medication. The small percentage of residents with chronic pain assessed objectively suggests the difficulty of monitoring pain progression in NFs. The prescribing of analgesic for most residents (with propoxyphene used most often, long-acting opioids used infrequently, and frequent prn use) was inconsistent with recommended pain therapy in older people and attests to the urgent need to educate NF practitioners on the appropriate use of analgesics.
Adult↗
Understanding the causes of problematic pain management in sickle cell disease: evidence that pseudoaddiction plays a more important role than genuine analgesic dependence.
Treatment of painful episodes in sickle cell disease (SCD) is sometimes complicated by disputes between patients and staff and patient behaviors that raise concerns about analgesic misuse. Those concern-raising behaviors could indicate either drug seeking caused by analgesic dependence or pseudoaddiction caused by undertreatment of pain. To make a systematic assessment of concern-raising behaviors and examine their associations with other factors, including DSM-IV symptoms of substance dependence, individual, in-depth interviews with SCD patients were conducted to apply pre-established criteria for concern-raising behaviors. These included disputes with staff tampering with analgesic delivery systems, passing prescribed analgesics from one person to another, being suspected or accused of analgesic misuse, self-discharging from hospital, obtaining analgesic prescriptions from multiple sources, using illicit drugs, and injecting analgesics. Assessments were also made of pain-related symptoms of substance dependence (where behaviors resemble substance dependence but reflect attempts to manage pain, increasing the risk of pseudoaddiction), non-pain-related symptoms of substance dependence (where substance dependence reflects analgesic use beyond pain management), and pain coping strategies (using the Pain Coping Strategies Questionnaire). Inter-rater reliability for the assessment of concern-raising behaviors was high, with Kappa coefficients of 0.63 to 1.0. The most frequent concern-raising behaviors were disputes with staff about pain or analgesics. The least frequent were tampering with analgesic delivery systems and passing analgesics between patients in hospital. The odds of concern-raising behaviors in hospital were raised eightfold by less use of ignoring pain as a coping strategy, and more than doubled by each additional pain-related symptom of substance dependence. Non-pain-related symptoms of substance dependence had no independent effect on concern-raising behaviors. Concern-raising behaviors were more closely associated with pain behaviors that make patients vulnerable to misperceptions of substance dependence than they were with genuine substance dependence. The results show how pseudoaddiction can adversely influence hospital pain management, and suggest that more emphasis should be placed on patients' pain and analgesic needs when responding to concern-raising behaviors in hospital.
Analgesics↗