Effect of neurolytic celiac plexus block on pain relief, quality of life, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. A randomised clinical trial of the effect of informed consent on the analgesic activity of placebo and naproxen in cancer pain. A double blind randomized study of oral clodronate in the treatment of bone metastases from tumors poorly responsive to chemotherapy. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as the first step in cancer pain therapy: double-blind, within-patient study comparing nine drugs. Determining the effectiveness of a clinical-practice intervention in improving the control of pain in outpatients with cancer. The comparative analgesic efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for painful osteoarthritis. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover trial comparing the safety and efficacy of oral sustained-release hydromorphone with immediate-release hydromorphone in patients with cancer pain. Canadian Palliative Care Clinical Trials Group. Efficacy and safety of avocado/soybean unsaponifiables in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee and hip. A prospective, multicenter, three-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Prevention of NSAID-induced gastric ulcer with misoprostol: multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The PLACORHEN study: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized radionuclide study with (186)Re-etidronate in hormone-resistant prostate cancer patients with painful bone metastases. Placebo Controlled Rhenium Study. Breakthrough cancer pain: a randomized trial comparing oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR). Randomized trial of opioids versus tricyclic antidepressants for radiation-induced mucositis pain in head and neck cancer. Flurbiprofen for the treatment of bone pain in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Palliation of pain associated with metastatic bone cancer using samarium-153 lexidronam: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. A double-blind study with placebo control of intramuscular ketorolac tromethamine in the treatment of cancer pain. Randomized trial of single dose versus fractionated palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases. Medical therapy of malignant nerve pain. A randomised double-blind explanatory trial with naproxen versus slow-release morphine. The efficacy and safety of aceclofenac versus placebo and naproxen in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. The analgesic efficacy of clodronate compared with placebo in patients with painful bone metastases from prostatic cancer. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of diclofenac/misoprostol in Alzheimer's disease. Efficacy of 12 months' misoprostol as prophylaxis against NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. A placebo-controlled trial. Ketorolac, a new non-opioid analgesic: a double-blind trial versus pentazocine in cancer pain. Amitriptyline in neuropathic cancer pain in patients on morphine therapy: a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treatment of postoperative pain after cardiac surgery. Duodenal and gastric ulcer prevention with misoprostol in arthritis patients taking NSAIDs. Misoprostol Study Group. Efficacy and safety of tramadol/acetaminophen tablets (Ultracet) as add-on therapy for osteoarthritis pain in subjects receiving a COX-2 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Double-blind evaluation of short-term analgesic efficacy of orally administered diclofenac, diclofenac plus codeine, and diclofenac plus imipramine in chronic cancer pain. A double-blind evaluation of the analgesic efficacy and toxicity of oral ketorolac and diclofenac in cancer pain. The TD/10 recordati Protocol Study Group. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial for treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients. Comparison between celiac plexus block and morphine treatment on quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer pain. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of nonprescription doses of naproxen and naproxen sodium with ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and placebo in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a pooled analysis of five studies.
Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive tumor associated with high mortality. Optimal pain control may improve quality of life (QOL) for these patients.
                To test the hypothesis that neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) vs opioids alone improves pain relief, QOL, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.
                Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Enrolled (October 1997 and January 2001) were 100 eligible patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer experiencing pain. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year or until death.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NCPB or systemic analgesic therapy alone with a sham injection. All patients could receive additional opioids managed by a clinician blinded to the treatment assignment.
                Pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale), QOL, opioid consumption and related adverse effects, and survival time were assessed weekly by a blinded observer.
                Mean (SD) baseline pain was 4.4 (1.7) for NCPB vs 4.1 (1.8) for opioids alone. The first week after randomization, pain intensity and QOL scores were improved (pain intensity, P< or =.01 for both groups; QOL, P<.001 for both groups), with a larger decrease in pain for the NCPB group (P =.005). From repeated measures analysis, pain was also lower for NCPB over time (P =.01). However, opioid consumption (P =.93), frequency of opioid adverse effects (all P>.10), and QOL (P =.46) were not significantly different between groups. In the first 6 weeks, fewer NCPB patients reported moderate or severe pain (pain intensity rating of > or =5/10) vs opioid-only patients (14% vs 40%, P =.005). At 1 year, 16% of NCPB patients and 6% of opioid-only patients were alive. However, survival did not differ significantly between groups (P =.26, proportional hazards regression).
                Although NCPB improves pain relief in patients with pancreatic cancer vs optimized systemic analgesic therapy alone, it does not affect QOL or survival. To determine whether informed consent in a therapeutic trial modifies the analgesic effect of naproxen and placebo, we conducted a prospective, randomised, single dose, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly selected to receive or not information concerning the study. All patients included were then given a single dose of naproxen and placebo according to a crossover, double-blind design. Forty-nine patients with mild or moderate cancer pain which did not need narcotic analgesics entered the study. Twenty-five received both treatments without any information and constituted the uninformed group. Twenty-four had a complete information about the trial; six refused to participate. The 18 others constituted the informed-consent group. Visual analogue scales of pain before and 30, 60, 120 and 180 min after the intake of naproxen and placebo were recorded. As an analgesic, naproxen was more effective than placebo in both groups of patients (p = 0.001). For naproxen as well as for placebo, the analgesic effect was better in the informed-consent group compared to the uninformed group (p = 0.012). The difference in therapeutic activity between naproxen and placebo was moderately higher in the uninformed patients (p = 0.08). We concluded that, in contrast with parallel studies, giving information in a crossover, placebo-controlled trial may increase the apparent efficacy of both the tested agent and the placebo, and decrease the perceived difference the two. Bisphosphonates are used in oncology as a means of decreasing complications due to bone metastases, in association with anticancer treatment, especially in patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and myeloma. Little is known about the effects of bisphosphonates on bone metastases from other tumors and in particular from tumors for which no effective treatment is available. We conducted a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of oral clodronate in patients with bone metastases from tumors poorly responsive to chemotherapy, with the aims of evaluating the effects of this drug on symptoms control and bone metastases evolution. Sixty-six patients with poorly responsive tumors such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), bladder cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, kidney cancer, melanoma and metastatic carcinoma of unknown origin entered the study. Patients were randomized to receive either clodronate 1,600 mg/day for one year or identical placebo-containing tablets. Various parameters such as Karnofsky performance status, pain score (measured by a visual-analogue scale) and analgesic requirement were recorded at monthly intervals. Of the 66 patients enrolled, 9 were observed for one month or less; 7 were followed for two months; only 50 patients were followed for more than 2 months and could be adequately evaluated. At 3 months both clodronate and placebo-treated patients had a decrease in Karnofsky performance status, with the decrease being more evident in the placebo group. Mean pain scores showed an increase of pain in patients receiving placebo and a decrease of pain in patients receiving clodronate, although the difference failed to be statistically significant. Analgesics requirement increased in both groups, but significantly more in patients receiving placebo (p = 0.042), in whom increase in opioid requirements was particularly evident. Toxicity was low, with occasional gastroenteric discomfort in both groups. The main problem of this study was the difficulty in recruiting an adequate number of patients and following them for a sufficient period of time: general conditions rapidly deteriorated in many patients, and approximately 25% of the 66 enrolled were not considered evaluable; few patients survived for the length of the study, one year. This might partly account for the lack of significance of some of the parameters under study. With these limits, oral clodronate demonstrated some efficacy in symptom control and in reducing the need for analgesics. The efficacy and tolerability of acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol, diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, pirprofen, sulindac, naproxen and suprofen were compared in the treatment of cancer pain. In a double-blind, within-patient randomized study, each drug was given for 1 week to eight patients and for another week to a further eight patients. A total of 65 patients were effectively treated; only 48 completed week 1 and 41 completed week 2. Naproxen, diclofenac and indomethacin were highly effective in pain relief (tested by means of a 100 mm visual analogue scale) and were relatively well tolerated. It is concluded that these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be considered as first choice in the treatment of cancer pain. To determine the effectiveness of a clinical-practice intervention in improving the control of pain in outpatients with cancer.
                Between July 5 and September 30, 1995, a randomized, controlled trial of 510 cancer outpatients and 13 oncologists was conducted at 23 clinics in Indiana. All the patients completed assessments of their pain, their pain regimens, and the degrees of relief received; they were surveyed again by mail four weeks after their clinic visits. The intervention group's clinical charts contained a summary of the completed pain scales; the oncologists who treated these patients were instructed to review the summary sheet prior to an evaluation. This summary was not available for the oncologists treating the patients in the control group. Each patient's pain management index (PMI) was calculated: the patient's pain medication level was rated on a scale of 0 to 3; the patients's pain level was rated on a scale of 0 to 3 and then subtracted from the first rating. A negative PMI was interpreted as representing insufficient treatment. Data were analyzed with several statistical tests.
                In all, only 320 patients who reported cancer-related pain were used in the analysis: 160 to 260 in the control group and 160 of 250 in the intervention group. The groups were similar with respect to demographics, cancer sites, and performance status. A significant difference (p = .0162) in the physicians' prescription patterns was found. In the control group, prescriptions for 86% of the patients did not change, with no decrease in analgesic prescriptions; for 14% of the patients analgesic prescriptions increased. In the intervention group, analgesic prescriptions changed for 25% of the patients, decreasing for 5% and increasing for 20%. A decrease in the incidence of pain described as more than life's usual aches and pains was found for the intervention group (p = .05). No significant difference was found between the groups for the patients undertreated for pain, as measured by PMIs.
                Although analgesic regimens were altered significantly when the physicians understood more about the patient's pain, cancer pain management remains a complex problem. Future studies should focus on the long-term systematic incorporation of simple pain-assessment tools into daily outpatient oncology practices as well as on innovative ways to address other aspects of managing cancer pain. Thirty-six non-hospitalized subjects with chronic pain from OA of the knee participated in an evaluation of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and naproxen, an NSAID. All pre-experiment treatment was withdrawn. Each subject experienced in some order three 3-week treatment phases: NSAID plus placebo TENS; TENS plus placebo drug; and double placebo. A broad range of pain measures was used, including daily diary ratings, and four-times-per-day ratings entered into a small electronic data logger (the PIPER) worn by the subject. A substantial placebo response occurred across all conditions, which may have masked treatment differences. Broad comparisons across subjects, combining the four main measures of pain, found no significant differences among the three experimental treatments. Analysis of diary and PIPER data for individuals suggested that, in a small minority of subjects, the NSAID plus placebo TENS combination may be more effective than double placebo. The PIPER ratings seemed to tap aspects of the pain experience different from those captured by conventional measures, suggesting the value of very frequent pain assessments, such as those entered by a subject into the PIPER, in the study of chronic pain. To study the relation between reported drug performance in published trials and support of the trials by the manufacturer of the drug under evaluation, we studied a sample of trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used in the treatment of arthritis.
                All randomized control trials of NSAIDs published between September 1987 and May 1990 identified by MEDLINE were reviewed. If an article met the following criteria (n = 61), it was selected: trials involving adult patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 180), use of nonsalicylate NSAIDs marketed in the United States (n = 101), randomized control trial (n = 81), duration of the trial 4 or more days (n = 78), and use of an efficacy outcome measure (n = 61). Reviewers, "blinded" to manufacturer status, evaluated the narrative interpretation of results and extracted numeric data on efficacy and toxicity. Manufacturer-associated trials were defined as those that acknowledged an association with a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Because of the scarcity of non-manufacturer-associated trials (n = 9), we report only on the manufacturer-associated articles.
                Fifty-two publications (85.2%) representing 56 trials were associated with a manufacturer. The manufacturer-associated drug was reported as comparable with (71.4%) or superior to (28.6%) the comparison drug in all 56 trials. These narrative claims of superiority were usually justified with trial data. Of the trials identifying one drug as less toxic (n = 22), the manufacturer-associated drug's safety was reported as superior to the comparison drug in 86.4% of cases. Justification for the narrative interpretation of the trial findings regarding less toxicity was provided in only 12 (54.5%) of 22 trials.
                The manufacturer-associated NSAID is almost always reported as being equal or superior in efficacy and toxicity to the comparison drug. These claims of superiority, especially in regard to side effect profiles, are often not supported by trial data. These data raise concerns about selective publication or biased interpretation of results in manufacturer-associated trials. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new slow-release preparation of hydromorphone (SRH) in the treatment of cancer pain.
                Ninety-five adult patients from three Canadian Palliative Care Centers with no evidence of mental impairment received treatment for cancer pain with an oral opioid analgesic. After informed consent was obtained, patients underwent titration to a stable dose of immediate-release hydromorphone (IRH) for 48 hours, and were then randomized to receive IRH or SRH for 5 days in a double-blind basis. During day 6, a crossover took place, and patients received the alternate drug for 5 days. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and ordinal scale (OS). Side effects were assessed using VAS. Patients and investigators made a blinded global rating of efficacy a blinded final choice between SRH and IRH.
                In 75 assessable patients, pain intensity of the VAS and OS were (mean +/- SD) 27 +/- 21 and 1.3 +/- 0.6 on IRH, versus 29 +/- 21 (P = .13) and 1.3 +/- 0.6 (P = .19) on SRH, respectively. The total number of extra doses of opioids, global rating, and final blinded choice by both patients and investigators were not significantly different between IRH and SRH. Differences in side effects were not significant.
                Our findings suggest that SRH is as safe and effective as IRH in the treatment of cancer pain. One of the objectives of symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis is to reduce the need for drugs with a less favorable safety profile, mainly analgesics and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We conducted a three-month, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial to evaluate the efficacy of avocado/soybean unsaponifiables in terms of NSAID use reduction. Patients with primary femorotibial or hip osteoarthritis (OA) (ACR criteria and Kellgren-Lawrence radiological stage IB, II, or III) of at least six months' duration with regular pain for more than three months requiring therapy with NSAID (visual analog scale score > or = 25 mm and Lequesne's index on therapy > or = 4) were given one capsule per day of avocado/soybean unsaponifiables or a placebo for three months. During the first 45 days, patients in both groups were also given one of seven predefined NSAIDs. The primary efficacy criteria was the rate of patients taking back a NSAID and the delay before re-intake. Secondary efficacy criteria were the total dose of NSAID, overall ratings by the patient and by the physician, the visual analog scale pain score and the functional index. Of the 164 included patients, 163 were evaluable, 80 in the active drug group and 83 in the placebo group. Mean age was 62.9 +/- 8.8 years. The diagnosis was femorotibial OA in 101 patients and hip OA in 62. Data were collected on day 45 in 153 patients (77 on the active drug and 76 on the placebo). The number of patients who took back NSAID therapy was significantly smaller in the group treated by avocado/soybean unsaponifiables (33; 43.4%) than in the placebo group (53; 69.7%) (P < 0.001). Also, beyond day 54, the time spent off NSAID therapy was shorter in the placebo group. The functional index showed a significantly greater improvement in the active drug group (-2.3 +/- 2.6) than in the placebo group (-1.0 +/- 2.6) (P < 0.01). Pain scores over time were similar in the two groups. Overall patient ratings were significantly better in the active drug group (P < 0.01). Safety was oggd in both groups. After six weeks, avocado/soybean unsaponifiables reduced the need for NSAID in patients with lower limb OA. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out to see whether the synthetic E prostaglandin, misoprostol, would prevent gastric ulcer induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). 420 patients with osteoarthritis and NSAID-associated abdominal pain were studied; they were receiving ibuprofen, piroxicam, or naproxen. Endoscopy was done at entry and after 1, 2, and 3 months of continuous treatment with 100 micrograms or 200 micrograms misoprostol or placebo, given four times daily with meals and at bedtime, concurrently with the NSAID. Abdominal pain was rated independently by patients and physicians. A treatment failure was defined as development of a gastric ulcer. Gastric ulcers (0.3 cm in diameter or greater) occurred less frequently (p less than 0.001) in both misoprostol treatment groups (5.6% 100 micrograms and 1.4% 200 micrograms) than in the placebo group (21.7%). The significant difference in ulcer formation between the placebo and the misoprostol treatment groups remained when comparisons were restricted to ulcers greater than 0.5 cm in diameter (12.3% placebo, 4.2% 100 micrograms misoprostol, and 0.7% 200 micrograms misoprostol). Mild to moderate, self-limiting diarrhoea was the most frequently reported adverse effect attributed to misoprostol. These results provide the first clear indication that NSAID-induced ulcers are preventable. (186)Re-1,1-hydroxyethylidene diphosphonate (etidronate) can be used for the palliative treatment of metastatic bone pain. A randomized, placebo-controlled study using (186)Re-etidronate was conducted on end-stage prostate cancer patients with metastatic bone pain.
                Pain relief was assessed using an electronic diary containing questions reflecting the multidimensional character of chronic pain. The diary was marked twice daily for a maximum of 14 wk (2 wk before and 12 wk after the injection). Pain response was determined using a specific decision rule in which pain intensity, medication index, and daily activities were the core determinants. A positive response day was defined as a day on which pain intensity was reduced > or = 25% compared with baseline values, while medication index and daily activities were at least constant, or on which pain intensity was reduced < 25% and medication index or daily activities improved > or = 25%, without worsening of the remaining factor. The total response (%) was defined as the number of positive response days divided by the number of days of follow-up.
                Of the 111 included patients, 79 were evaluable (43 (186)Re-etidronate, 36 placebo). Thirty-two patients were excluded from the analysis because of incomplete datasets. The total response of the patients treated with (186)Re-etidronate varied from 0% to 96% (mean, 27%, or 23/84 d). In the placebo group, the total response varied from 0% to 80% (mean, 13%, or 11/84 d; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05). The number of patients who requested radiotherapy was higher in the placebo group (67%) than in the (186)Re-etidronate group (44%) (relative risk, 1.51; Fisher's exact test, P = 0.069).
                This randomized controlled trial confirmed that, compared with placebo, (186)Re-etidronate resulted in a significantly longer pain response in the treatment of bone pain from metastasized prostate cancer. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC); Actiq) is a drug delivery formulation used for management of breakthrough cancer pain. Previous studies with open-label comparisons indicated OTFC was more effective than patients' usual opioid for breakthrough pain. The objective of this study was to compare OTFC and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR) for management of breakthrough pain in patients receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen. This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multiple crossover study was conducted at 19 US university- and community-based hospitals and clinics and comprised 134 adult ambulatory cancer patients. Patients were receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen equivalent to 60-1000 mg/day oral morphine or 50-300 microg/h transdermal fentanyl, were using a 'successful' MSIR dose (15-60 mg) as defined by entry criteria, and were experiencing 1-4 episodes of breakthrough pain per day. In open-label fashion, OTFC was titrated such that a single unit (200-1600 microg) provided adequate pain relief with acceptable side effects. Successfully titrated patients entered the double-blind phase of the study and received ten prenumbered sets of randomized capsules and oral transmucosal units. Five sets were the successful OTFC dose paired with placebo capsules, and five sets were placebo OTFC paired with capsules containing the successful MSIR dose. Patients took one set of study medication for each episode of target breakthrough pain. Pain intensity (PI), pain relief (PR) and global performance of medication (GP) scores were recorded. Pain intensity differences (PID) were calculated and 15-min PID was the primary efficacy variable. Adverse events were recorded. Sixty-nine percent of patients (93/134) found a successful dose of OTFC. OTFC yielded outcomes (PI, PID, and PR) at all time points that were significantly better than MSIR. GP also favored OTFC and more patients opted to continue with OTFC than MSIR following the study. Somnolence, nausea, constipation, and dizziness were the most common drug-associated side effects. In conclusion, OTFC was more effective than MSIR in treating breakthrough cancer pain. Patients who receive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer are likely to develop painful mucositis. The pain is characterized by a burning or stinging sensation similar to neuropathic pain sensations. The purpose of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of a tricyclic antidepressant (TC), commonly used in the treatment of neuropathic pain, with the effect of opioids on radiation-induced mucositis pain. Forty-three patients receiving 66-68 Gy external radiation according to the DAHANCA guidelines (the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Study Group) were randomized to either morphine or TC when mucositis pain was insufficiently managed with weak analgesics. Patients with insufficient pain control in either treatment arm received supplementary medication from the opposite treatment arm. Pain was evaluated weekly using a VAS scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The degree of mucositis and the degree of depression were measured at the same time intervals. Twenty-two patients entered the opioid arm and 21 the TC arm. Two patients in each arm were non-evaluable. VAS pain scores were significantly reduced in the opioid treatment arm one week after randomization (p = 0.01). Eight patients in the TC arm were managed with TC alone, but for 11 patients it was necessary to add morphine. The 20 evaluable patients in the morphine arm required no additional treatment. There were no significant differences in side effects between the two groups. Higher pain scores in the TC arm, but not in the opioid arm, were significantly correlated with higher BDI scores. Some head and neck cancer patients with radiation-induced nucositis pain may have sufficient pain control on TC alone. This might be useful in patients with relative counter-indications to opioid treatment. Two investigators enrolled 26 women with metastatic breast carcinoma in a six-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of flurbiprofen (Ansaid, Upjohn) and placebo. The study was designed to determine the efficacy of flurbiprofen in reducing bone pain due to metastatic breast cancer. Pain score, overall performance, and concomitant use of narcotics were evaluated. The overall mean differences in pain scores between flurbiprofen and placebo showed better control of pain during treatment with flurbiprofen. None of these differences approached statistical significance. Evaluation of overall performance status reached statistical significance in one investigator's group. Three out of four patients reported decreased consumption of acetaminophen/aspirin plus codeine combinations while receiving flurbiprofen. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of samarium-153 (153Sm) lexidronam (EDTMP) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
                Patients with painful bone metastases secondary to a variety of primary malignancies were randomized to receive 153Sm-EDTMP 0.5 or 1.0 mCi/kg, or placebo. Treatment was unblinded for patients who did not respond by week 4, with those who had received placebo eligible to receive 1.0 mCi/kg of active drug in an open-label manner. Patient and physician evaluations were used to assess pain relief, as was concurrent change in opioid analgesia.
                One hundred eighteen patients were enrolled onto the study. Patients who received 1.0 mCi/kg of active drug had significant reductions in pain during each of the first 4 weeks in both patient-rated and physician-rated evaluations. Pain relief was observed in 62% to 72% of those who received the 1.O-mCi/kg dose during the first 4 weeks, with marked or complete relief noted in 31% by week 4. Persistence of pain relief was seen through week 16 in 43% of patients who received 1.0 mCi/kg, of active drug. A significant correlation (P = .01) was observed between reductions in opioid analgesic use and pain scores only for those patients who received 1.0 mCi/kg 153Sm-EDTMP. Bone marrow suppression was mild, reversible, and not associated with grade 4 toxicity.
                A single dose of 1.0 mCi/kg of 153Sm-EDTMP provided relief from pain associated with bone metastases. Pain relief was observed within 1 week of administration and persisted until at least week 16 in the majority of patients who responded. The analgesic efficacy of ketorolac tromethamine was compared to placebo in 126 patients suffering moderate or severe chronic pain due to cancer in a double-blind parallel randomized study. Ketorolac was administered intramuscularly in doses of 10, 30 or 90 mg. Pain intensity and pain relief were assessed for 6 hours by scoring standard verbal scales and an overall assessment of the medication was given by the patients and the observer on completion of the study. Each dose of ketorolac was statistically superior to placebo for the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) but no difference was seen between the three ketorolac regimens. When the ketorolac groups are combined, there was a significantly better pain relief as compared to placebo. The global evaluation scores were also statistically superior in the ketorolac groups combined than in the placebo group. A total of 15 patients reported minor adverse events, 10 being after ketorolac doses. This study shows that single intramuscular doses of ketorolac of 10 mg and above are effective in the relief of cancer pain, and are associated with a low incidence of side-effects. Data in the literature suggest that for painful bone metastases a single dose is as effective as fractionated radiotherapy. In the present multicentre prospective trial, the effects of 8 Gy x1 and 5 Gy x4 were compared.
                A total of 241 patients were randomized to 8 Gy (122 patients) or 20 Gy (119 patients). The primary tumour was in the breast in 39% of patients, in the prostate in 34% of patients, in the lung in 13% of patients and in other locations in 14% of patients. Outcome measures were pain relief as measured by VAS and in half of the patients also by a five-point categorical pain scale, global quality of life (QoL) and analgesic consumption. Evaluation was performed before and 4, 8, 12 and 20 weeks after treatment.
                A total of 239 patients were evaluable for response. The two groups did not differ with respect to age, sex, primary tumour, metastasis localization, analgesic consumption (type and dose), performance status, prior systemic treatment, degree of pain and QoL. The treatment was completed as planned in 98% of patients. The degree of pain relief did not differ between the two treatment groups. At 4 weeks the difference in pain relief was 6% (95% CI 7, 20%) and at 8 weeks the difference was 13% (95% CI 3, 28%). Neither was there any significant difference in the duration of pain relief, the number of new painful sites and the need for reirradiation and toxicity was minor.
                The present randomized study showed that a single fraction of 8 Gy was as effective as 5 Gy x4 in relieving pain from bone metastasis. It is uncertain whether there exists a nociceptive component in malignant nerve pain responsive to NSAIDs and opioids. 20 patients with malignant nerve pain were randomly assigned to treatment with naproxen 1500 mg versus slow-release morphine 60 mg daily during 1 week, followed by cross-over medication during the second week in a double-blind, double-dummy protocol. In the 16 evaluable patients, a significant (P < 0.05) reduction of 26% (S.E. +/- 7.9) in pain intensity was reached at day 7, compared to baseline pain. At day 7, significant pain relief of 32% (P < 0.05) was observed in the naproxen group, but not in the morphine group (21%, P = 0.14). Patients using morphine needed approximately twice as much paracetamol rescue than patients using naproxen. Additional pain relief could be observed in 4/9 patients with cross-over medication. These data support the concept of a nociceptive component in malignant nerve pain responding to NSAIDs and opioids, and favour the combination of both an anti-inflammatory drug and an opioid for symptomatic pain relief. To determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of aceclofenac 100 mg and compare that with placebo and naproxen 500 mg in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
                In this double-blind, prospective, multicentre, randomised, three-way, crossover study, women were randomly assigned to receive one of six treatment sequences, comprising single oral doses of aceclofenac 100 mg, naproxen 500 mg or placebo, when menstrual pain reached a predetermined level of severity. A single dose of the assigned study medication was taken on three menstrual periods; a different medication was taken on each treatment day. Analgesic efficacy was determined by self-reported analgesia scoring and participants' and investigators' global evaluation of treatment effectiveness. Measurements also included physical examination and adverse events.
                Total pain relief scores were not statistically significantly different for aceclofenac and naproxen, and both were statistically significantly more effective than placebo (p = 0.019 and 0.002, respectively). This finding was supported by secondary endpoints including sum of pain intensity differences (SPID/8), peak analgesia (peak pain intensity and peak pain relief), and participants' and investigators' overall evaluation of effectiveness. Both aceclofenac and naproxen were well tolerated.
                Aceclofenac (100 mg) and naproxen (500 mg) effectively treated the pain associated with primary dysmenorrhoea, and both were more effective than placebo at easing menstrual pain assessed by various pain relief criteria. Fifty-five patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer and painful bone metastases were randomised either to placebo or to clodronate 300 mg i.v. for 3 days, followed by oral clodronate 3200 mg for four weeks. Pain intensity was assessed using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). Mean overall pain as well as mean pain during the best and worst periods were recorded. Forty-six patients were evaluable for efficacy. No significant differences were found between the two treatments. As regards mean worst pain a substantial numerical fall was registered for the treatment group, 21 mm, but the improvement was not significant compared to that of the placebo group. This was probably due to the limited number of patients (the study was prematurely ended due to problems recruiting patients). In conclusion, no significant differences were found between the treatment arm and the controls, in contrast to results from previous studies. Possible explanations are that the doses in this study were generally lower than in previous studies, the mean baseline pain was substantially lower and that the current study was placebocontrolled. Our data indicate that if clodronate is to be used for the alleviation of bone pain in prostate cancer, patients with high baseline should be selected and high intravenous doses should be given at start of the treatment. Previous studies suggest a potential benefit from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Prescribing NSAIDs, however, carries the risk of significant gastrointestinal adverse events.
                To study whether treatment with an NSAID prevents expected decline in AD patients and evaluate whether co-administration of the gastro-protective agent, misoprostol, with an NSAID is safe in AD.
                The efficacy and safety of diclofenac in combination with misoprostol (D/M) was evaluated in 41 patients with mild-moderate AD in a prospective 25-week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy measures comprised the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive and noncognitive subsections, Global Deterioration Scale, Clinical Global Impression of Change, Mini-Mental State Examination, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Physical Self-Maintenance Scale, and a caregiver-rated Global Impression of Change.
                There were no group differences with any of the outcome measures in an intent-to-treat analysis. There were some nonsignificant trends for the placebo group to have deteriorated more than the D/M-treated patients. Withdrawal rates were 12 of 24 in the D/M group and 2 of 17 in the placebo group. There were no serious drug-related adverse events.
                This pilot study, with small treatment numbers, did not demonstrate a significant effect of NSAID treatment in AD, but the trends observed justify further investigations with a larger number of participants. D/M is safe in AD patients, but its tolerability is not optimal. We performed a 12-month, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study to determine the long term effect of misoprostol (600-800 micrograms/d) in the prevention of gastric ulcers and gastroduodenal erosions in 83 arthritis patients on chronic NSAID therapy. Patients underwent endoscopy at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months. At the initial endoscopy, 12 patients had an ulcer (11 gastric), which was healed prior to randomization. Seventy eligible patients reached the 3 month endoscopy. Four (12.5%) of the 32 patients given misoprostol developed a gastric ulcer compared with 11 (28.9%) of the 38 on placebo (p < 0.05, life-table analysis). Six of the 11 patients with an initial gastric ulcer developed a further gastric ulcer, compared to 9 of 58 patients without an initial ulcer (p < 0.05). We conclude that misoprostol decreases the cumulative development of NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. Patients with a previous NSAID-ulcer have a higher risk of further ulceration. A randomized double-blind trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy of a new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic drug, ketorolac, in the treatment of cancer pain compared with the opioid pentazocine. A total of 40 patients with moderate to severe cancer pain were studied, 20 patients being treated with 10 mg ketorolac given orally every 6 h and 20 receiving 50 mg pentazocine given orally every 6 h for up to 7 days. A reduction in the severity of the pain was recorded in both treatment groups with no significant difference in efficacy being found between the two therapies, although withdrawals due to adverse reactions were significantly less in the ketorolac-treated group (p less than 0.005). It is concluded that ketorolac may be a useful and more acceptable alternative to opioids in the treatment of cancer pain. Amitriptyline is the most common analgesic adjuvant used in cancer patients with neuropathic pain, even though no specific studies have demonstrated a benefit. A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study was designed to evidence the effects of amitriptyline in patients with neuropathic cancer pain.
                Sixteen advanced cancer patients with neuropathic pain on systemic morphine therapy, no longer receiving oncologic treatment, presenting moderate pain (about 4 or more, but less than 7, on a numerical scale of 0-10) in the last week, and given a stable morphine dose in the last 2 days were admitted to the study. During the first week of study, patients were administered 25 mg of amitriptyline or equivalent drops of placebo at night for 3 days and 50 mg for the following 4 days. Doses for patients aged more than 65 years were 15 mg (first 3 days) and 30 mg (3 days after). After a week, a crossover took place for the second week, with the other treatment at an inverse sequence. Opioid consumption, pain intensity, symptoms and adverse effects, mood, sleep, patient's preference, quality of life before starting the study, the first week after and the second week after were recorded.
                No significant benefits in analgesia were found in the global pain intensity of the previous week of treatment, the least pain intensity or the pain evaluated just after a week of treatment, at the moment of the visit, when amitriptyline was compared with placebo. A significant difference was evidenced for the worst pain (P < 0.035). No differences in opioid doses during the period of study were found. Drowsiness, confusion and dry mouth were significantly more intense with amitriptyline than with placebo (P < 0.036, 0.003, and 0.034, respectively). There were no substantial differences between the two treatments in Spitzer's quality of life score and for each item. No differences in patients' preference for the two treatment periods were found. The analgesic effects of amitriptyline were slight and associated with adverse effects.
                In light of the results obtained in the study, the extensive use of the drug for cancer pain should be questioned. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used as analgesic in postoperative pain to reduce opioid side effects, such as drowsiness and nausea. However, NSAIDs have not been used extensively in cardiac surgical patients due to the fear of untoward effects on gastric, renal, and coagulation parameters. This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of three NSAIDs for pain control in CABG patients.
                One hundred and twenty patients scheduled for elective CABG surgery were enrolled in randomized, double blind, controlled study. Standardized fast track cardiac anesthesia was used. One dose of drug (75 mg diclofenac, 100 mg ketoprofen, 100 mg indomethacin, or placebo) was given pr one hour before tracheal extubation and a second dose 12 hr later. Pain was treated with morphine iv and acetaminophen po. Visual analogue pain scores were recorded at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 hr after the first dose of drug.
                There were no differences among the groups in pain scores. Only patients who received diclofenac required less morphine than patients in the control group (P < 0.05). When the total amounts of pain medications were computed to morphine equivalents, only patients in the diclofenac group received less pain medications than the placebo group (P < 0.05). Proportion of patients with postoperative increase of creatinine level (20% and over) did not differ between placebo and drug groups.
                Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be used for analgesia management post CABG surgery in selected patients. Diclofenac appears to have the best analgesic effects by reducing the morphine and other analgesic requirement postoperatively. To determine the efficacy of misoprostol for the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced duodenal and gastric ulcers in arthritis patients receiving NSAID therapy.
                A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial.
                Six hundred thirty-eight private, Veterans Affairs, health maintenance, and academic practices.
                Six hundred thirty-eight patients with chronic inflammatory or noninflammatory arthritis who were taking an NSAID but who did not have a gastric or duodenal ulcer on screening endoscopy received treatment with ibuprofen, piroxicam, naproxen, sulindac, tolmetin, indomethacin, or diclofenac daily for 3 months. Four hundred fifty-five (71%) patients completed the trial.
                Patients meeting the entry criteria were randomized to receive either misoprostol, 200 micrograms, or placebo, four times a day for 12 weeks.
                The endoscopy was repeated at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The development of a duodenal or gastric ulcer (defined as a circumscribed mucosal defect > or = 0.5 cm in diameter and with perceptible depth) was regarded as prophylactic failure.
                By 12 weeks, a duodenal ulcer developed in 2 of 320 (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 3.9%) patients randomized to receive misoprostol, compared with 15 of 323 (4.6%; CI, 2.8% to 8%) patients receiving placebo (P = 0.002). A gastric ulcer developed in 6 of 320 (1.9%; (CI, 0.8% to 4.4%) patients, compared with in 25 of 323 (7.7%; CI, 5.1% to 11.4%), respectively.
                Misoprostol significantly lowers the frequency of both duodenal and gastric ulcer development in patients who require long-term therapy with NSAIDS. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tramadol 37.5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg combination tablets (tramadol/APAP) as add-on therapy for subjects with osteoarthritis (OA) pain inadequately controlled by COX-2 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID).
                This 91-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled subjects with symptomatic OA for >/= 1 year who experienced at least moderate pain [visual analog scale (VAS) score >/= 50/100 mm] despite treatment with stable doses of celecoxib (>/= 200 mg/day) or rofecoxib (>/= 25 mg/day). Tramadol/APAP or matching placebo was titrated to 4 tablets/day on Day 10 and thereafter as needed up to 8 tablets/day. The primary efficacy measure was final VAS score; secondary measures included final pain relief rating scores, subject/investigator overall medication assessments, rate and time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy, and selected quality-of-life/physical functioning scores.
                Of 307 subjects randomized, 306 taking celecoxib (56.5%) or rofecoxib (43.5%) were included in the intent-to-treat population (n = 153 tramadol/APAP, 153 placebo). Mean final VAS scores for tramadol/APAP plus COX-2 NSAID were significantly lower than placebo plus COX-2 NSAID (41.5 vs 48.3; p = 0.025) and mean final pain relief rating scores were significantly higher (p = 0.002). Subjects taking tramadol/APAP showed significant improvements compared with placebo in subject/investigator medication assessments, as well as in the WOMAC Physical Function and the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 Role-Physical measures. The most common treatment-related adverse events for tramadol/APAP were somnolence (6.5%), nausea (4.6%), and constipation (3.3%). Mean tramadol/APAP dose was 4.1 tablets (154 mg tramadol/ 1332 mg APAP).
                Tramadol 37.5 mg/APAP 325 mg combination tablets were effective and safe as add-on therapy with COX-2 NSAID for treatment of OA pain. A prospective double-blind randomized trial was conducted on 184 cancer patients with moderate to severe chronic pain to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac alone (50 mg q.i.d.) or in combination with a weak opioid (codeine 40 mg q.i.d.), or with an anti-depressant (imipramine, 10 or 25 mg t.i.d.). All demographic and clinical characteristics including cancer type, presence of bone metastases, baseline pain severity, neuropathic and nociceptive pain, and depressive state, were well balanced between the three treatment groups. The main analysis of the study was on the VAS scores at visit 2 (day 4). The mean VAS values for both associations imipramine plus diclofenac and codeine plus diclofenac were similar to the association placebo plus diclofenac. Patients on imipramine plus diclofenac and on placebo plus diclofenac were withdrawn mainly for inadequate efficacy, while patients on codeine plus diclofenac discontinued equally for inadequate efficacy or adverse events. In conclusion, in a short-term evaluation the addition of a tricyclic anti-depressant or a weak opioid to diclofenac did not provide further analgesia with respect to diclofenac administration alone. To compare the analgesic efficacy and toxicity of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic drug, ketorolac (Toradol, Recordati spa, Milan) 10 mg p.o. (t.i.d.) with diclofenac (Voltaren, Novartis Farma, Origglo, VA) 50 mg p.o. (t.i.d.) in cancer patients with moderate to severe chronic pain.
                The study was a multicenter randomized double-blind cross-over trial. Each treatment lasted 7 days, after which the patients crossed over to the other drug. Pain intensity was evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS) after the first dose and by the 5-point verbal rating scale (VRS) by the patient and by the physician following the 7-day treatment.
                A total of 138 advanced cancer patients were enrolled in the study. Overall 251 single-dose administrations (117 cross-over observations) and 257 multiple treatments (127 cross-over experiments) were assessable. After a single administration of ketorolac and diclofenac, no significant difference could be observed in analgesic activity, as indicated by the area under the pain-intensity time curve (AUC0-8), in the maximum efficacy, or the duration of efficacy of the two drugs. The Westlake confidence intervals of the AUC0-8 ratio (ketorolac: diclofenac) (1.07; 90% CI, 0.94-1.19), of the maximum efficacy ratio (1.03; 90% CI, 0.92-1.14), and the duration of efficacy ratio (1.05; 90% CI, 0.97-1.11) showed the bioequivalence of the two drugs. Satisfactory pain relief was reported for multiple 7-day treatments, with no significant differences between the two therapies: according to the physician's evaluation, in 93/128 (73%; 95% CI, 65-80%) ketorolac treatments and 91/129 (71%; 95% CI, 63-78%) diclofenac treatments; according to the patient's evaluation, in 83/128 cases (65%; 95% CI, 57-73%) after ketorolac and in 74/129 cases (57%; 95% CI, 49-66%) after diclofenac. Adverse symptoms were acceptable with both drugs. Interestingly, a pronounced sequence effect was found: gastric disturbances after ketorolac were observed mainly (10 out of 15 observed events) when the drug was given to patients pretreated with diclofenac. Patients with cancer frequently experience episodes of acute pain, i.e., breakthrough pain, superimposed on their chronic pain. Breakthrough pain is usually treated with short-acting oral opioids, most of which provide some relief after 15-20 minutes, with peak effects after 30-45 minutes. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC), a unique formulation of the opioid fentanyl, has been shown to provide meaningful pain relief within 5 minutes in patients following surgery. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of OTFC for cancer-related breakthrough pain.
                Patients who were 18 years of age or older, receiving the equivalent of at least 60 mg oral morphine or at least 50 microg transdermal fentanyl per day for chronic cancer-related pain, and experiencing at least one episode of breakthrough pain per day were studied. After titration to an effective OTFC dose, subjects were given 10 randomly ordered treatment units (seven OTFC units and three placebo units) in the form of identical lozenges. If acceptable pain relief was not achieved within 30 minutes, subjects were instructed to take their previous breakthrough pain medication (i.e., rescue medication). Pain intensity, pain relief, and use of rescue medication were evaluated at 15-minute intervals over a 60-minute period.
                Eighty-nine of 92 patients who received the randomized treatment were assessable (i.e., treated with at least one unit of OTFC and one unit of placebo). OTFC produced significantly larger changes in pain intensity and better pain relief than placebo at all time points (two-sided P<.0001). Episodes treated with placebo required the use of rescue medication more often than episodes treated with OTFC (34% versus 15%; relative risk = 2.27; 95% confidence interval = 1.51-3.26; two-sided P<.0001).
                OTFC appears effective in the treatment of cancer-related breakthrough pain. Twenty-one patients with pancreatic cancer pain were studied to evaluate the effectiveness of celiac plexus block (CPB) on pain relief and quality of life (QOL), compared to the traditional NSAID-morphine treatment. The criteria were morphine consumption, visual analogue pain scale (VAS), performance status (PS) determined by medical and nursing staffs, and answers to QOL questionnaires. Morphine consumption, VAS, PS, and self-assessed QOL scores were taken when the administration of morphine was necessary for pain relief and those scores were used as control. Morphine consumption and the VAS score were recorded at regular weekly intervals and the PS and QOL scores were measured every 2 weeks thereafter. CPB was performed within 2-3 days after the control measurement. The VAS scores of the patients receiving CPB (n = 10) were statistically lower for the first 4 weeks after the procedure than those of the patients receiving the standard NSAID-morphine treatment (n = 11) during the same time period after the control measurement. Morphine consumption was significantly lower in weeks 4-7 (inclusive) following the procedure in the CPB group and continued to be lower thereafter, though not significantly so. Although the PS score slightly improved at the 2nd week after CPB, it was not improved by the start of the NSAID-morphine treatment. Self-assessed QOL scores did not ameliorate statistically after CPB; however, they did deteriorate remarkably in the patients treated only with morphine-NSAID during their survival periods, while they deteriorated only slightly in the CPB group. There were fewer side effects after CPB. These results indicate CPB does not directly improve QOL in patients with pancreatic cancer pain, but it may prevent deterioration in QOL by the long-lasting analgesic effect, limitation of side effects and the reduction of morphine consumption, compared to treatment only with NSAID-morphine. Dysmenorrhea is the most common menstrual complaint in young women, with a prevalence as high as 90%. It is responsible for substantial repeated short-term absenteeism from school and work in young women. Effective treatments are available, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In many countries, a variety of NSAIDs have become available as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs.
                The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of OTC doses of naproxen (400 mg) and naproxen/naproxen sodium (200/220 mg) with acetaminophen (1000 mg), ibuprofen (200 mg), and placebo in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea.
                A pooled analysis of 5 trials was performed. Efficacy was assessed by pain relief, relief of other dysmenorrheic symptoms, time to backup medication or remedication, and treatment preference. Tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events (AEs).
                A total of 443 women were enrolled in the combined studies. Naproxen 400 mg provided greater pain relief than acetaminophen and placebo within 30 minutes of administration (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively). Furthermore, naproxen 400 mg and 200 mg provided greater pain relief than both acetaminophen (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively) and ibuprofen (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively) at 6 hours after administration. Both doses of naproxen had higher scores than placebo for symptom relief and drug preference (all P < 0.001). The AEs and their frequency were similar among the treatment groups. No serious AEs were reported.
                When administered at OTC doses, naproxen was effective in the relief of pain and other symptoms of primary dysmenorrhea and had a good safety profile in the population studied.
Based upon limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID over another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no difference (4 out of 14 papers), a statistically insignificant trend towards superiority (1 out of 14 papers), or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage (9 out of 14 papers), compared with either single entity. The short duration of studies undermines generalization of their findings on efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for cancer pain.