Article

Single dose oral sulindac for acute postoperative pain in adults

Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, West Wing (Level 6), John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 9DU.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2009; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007540.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sulindac 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. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral sulindac 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.
To assess the efficacy of single dose oral sulindac in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies up to June 2009.
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral sulindac for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.
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.
No studies were identified by the searches that examined oral sulindac in patients with established postoperative pain.
In the absence of evidence of efficacy, at present, for oral sulindac 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.

0 Followers
 · 
47 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data. To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone. We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event. The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours. There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Sulindac sulfide, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), stimulates apoptosis of tumor cells and is thus effective against malignancy. In analogy to apoptosis of nucleated cells, erythrocytes may undergo eryptosis, an apoptosis-like suicidal erythrocyte death, characterized by cell shrinkage and cell membrane scrambling with phosphatidylserine-exposure at the cell surface. Stimulators of eryptosis include increase of cytosolic Ca(2+)-activity ([Ca(2+)](i)) and ceramide formation. The present study explored, whether sulindac sulfide stimulates eryptosis. Methods: [Ca(2+)](i) was estimated from Fluo-3 fluorescence, cell volume from forward scatter, phosphatidylserine-exposure from binding of fluorescent annexin-V, hemolysis from hemoglobin release, and ceramide abundance utilizing fluorescent antibodies. Results: A 48 h exposure to sulindac sulfide (≤ 20 µM) was followed by significant increase of [Ca(2+)](i), enhanced ceramide abundance, decreased forward scatter and increased percentage of annexin-V-binding erythrocytes. Sulindac sulfide triggered slight but significant hemolysis. Removal of extracellular Ca(2+) significantly blunted, but did not abrogate the effect of sulindac sulfide (20 µM) on annexin-V-binding. Conclusion: Sulindac sulfide stimulates the suicidal death of erythrocytes or eryptosis, an effect paralleled by Ca(2+)-entry, ceramide formation, cell shrinkage and phosphatidylserine-exposure.
    Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry 09/2012; 30(4):1072-1082. DOI:10.1159/000341483
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The medical impact of pain has triggered efforts of drug development directed toward new analgesic targets or repurposing of known drugs for use in pain therapy. Ongoing research requires cost-saving instruments to translate basic science knowledge into clinically effective analgesic compounds. This review re-examined the prediction of clinical analgesia by human experimental pain models as a basis for model selection in phase I studies. The overall prediction of analgesic efficacy or failure of a drug correlated well between experimental and clinical settings. However, correct model selection requires more detailed information about which model predicts which clinical pain condition. We hypothesized that if an analgesic drug was effective in an experimental pain model and also in a clinical pain setting, then the model might be predictive for the particular clinical setting and should be selected in drug development of analgesics targeted at the particular clinical pain condition. The validity of the prediction increases with increasing numbers of analgesic drug classes for which this agreement was shown. From available evidence only five clinical pain conditions were correctly predicted by seven different pain models for at least three different drugs. Most of these models combine a sensitization method. The analysis also identified several models with low impact with respect to the clinical translation. Thus, the presently identified agreements and non-agreements between analgesic effects on experimental and on clinical pain may serve as a solid basis to identify complex sets of human pain models that bridge basic science with clinical pain research.
    British Journal of Pharmacology 10/2012; 168(3). DOI:10.1111/bph.12023