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: 6.03). 10/2009; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007540.pub2
Source: PubMed


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.

4 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: All analgesic drugs (painkillers) are tested in standardised clinical studies of people with established pain following surgery, and often after removal of third molar (wisdom) teeth. In all these studies the participants have to have at least moderate pain in order for there to be a sensitive measure of pain-relieving properties. The Cochrane Library has 35 reviews of oral analgesic interventions, with 38 different drugs, at various doses involving 45,000 participants in about 350 studies. This overview sought to bring all this information together, and to report the results for those drugs with reliable evidence about how well they work or any harm they may do in single oral doses. For some drugs there were no published trials, for some inadequate amounts of information, and for some adequate information but with results that would have been overturned by just a few unpublished studies with no effect. None of these could be regarded as reliable. However, amongst the data there were still 46 drug/dose combinations with reliable evidence. No drug produced high levels of pain relief in all participants. The range of results with single-dose analgesics in participants with moderate or severe acute pain was from 70% achieving good pain relief with the best drug to about 30% with the worst drug. The period over which pain was relieved also varied, from about two hours to about 20 hours. Typically adverse event rates were no higher with analgesic drugs than with placebo, except often with opioids (for example, codeine, oxycodone) where more participants experienced them. Commonly used analgesic drugs at the recommended or licensed doses produce good pain relief in some, but not all, patients with pain. The reasons for this are varied, but patients in pain should not be surprised if drugs they are given do not work for them. Alternatives analgesic drugs or procedures should be found that do work.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 09/2011; 9(9):CD008659. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor
  • [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 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • 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 · 4.84 Impact Factor