17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and safety profile of combination of tramadol-diclofenac versus tramadol-paracetamol in patients with acute musculoskeletal conditions, postoperative pain, and acute flare of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a Phase III, 5-day open-label study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of tramadol and diclofenac versus a standard approved FDC of tramadol and paracetamol, in patients with acute moderate to severe pain.

          Methods

          A total of 204 patients with moderate to severe pain due to acute musculoskeletal conditions (n=52), acute flare of osteoarthritis (n=52), acute flare of rheumatoid arthritis (n=50), or postoperative pain (n=50) were enrolled in the study at baseline. Each disease category was then randomized to receive either of two treatments for 5 days: group A received an FDC of immediate-release tramadol hydrochloride (50 mg) and sustained-release diclofenac sodium (75 mg) (one tablet, twice daily), and group B received an FDC of tramadol hydrochloride (37.5 mg) and paracetamol (325 mg) (two tablets every 4–6 hours, up to a maximum of eight tablets daily). The primary efficacy end points were reductions in pain intensity from baseline at day 3 and day 5 as assessed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score.

          Results

          Group A showed a significant reduction in the VAS score for overall pain from baseline on day 3 ( P=0.001) and day 5 ( P<0.0001) as compared with group B. The combination of tramadol-diclofenac resulted in few mild to moderate adverse events (nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, and gastritis), which required minimal management, without any treatment discontinuation. The number of adverse events in group A was nine (8.82%) compared with 22 (21.78%) in group B, after 5 days of treatment.

          Conclusion

          An FDC of tramadol-diclofenac showed a significantly greater reduction in pain intensity and was well tolerated compared with tramadol-paracetamol, resulting in better analgesia in patients suffering from moderate to severe pain due to acute musculoskeletal conditions, postoperative pain following orthopedic surgery, or acute flare of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). The SUPPORT Principal Investigators.

          (2015)
          To improve end-of-life decision making and reduce the frequency of a mechanically supported, painful, and prolonged process of dying. A 2-year prospective observational study (phase I) with 4301 patients followed by a 2-year controlled clinical trial (phase II) with 4804 patients and their physicians randomized by specialty group to the intervention group (n = 2652) or control group (n = 2152). Five teaching hospitals in the United States. A total of 9105 adults hospitalized with one or more of nine life-threatening diagnoses; an overall 6-month mortality rate of 47%. Physicians in the intervention group received estimates of the likelihood of 6-month survival for every day up to 6 months, outcomes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and functional disability at 2 months. A specifically trained nurse had multiple contacts with the patient, family, physician, and hospital staff to elicit preferences, improve understanding of outcomes, encourage attention to pain control, and facilitate advance care planning and patient-physician communication. The phase I observation documented shortcomings in communication, frequency of aggressive treatment, and the characteristics of hospital death: only 47% of physicians knew when their patients preferred to avoid CPR: 46% of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders were written within 2 days of death; 38% of patients who died spent at least 10 days in an intensive care unit (ICU); and for 50% of conscious patients who died in the hospital, family members reported moderate to severe pain at least half the time. During the phase II intervention, patients experienced no improvement in patient-physician communication (eg, 37% of control patients and 40% of intervention patients discussed CPR preferences) or in the five targeted outcomes, ie, incidence or timing of written DNR orders (adjusted ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.15), physicians' knowledge of their patients' preferences not to be resuscitated (adjusted ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.49), number of days spent in an ICU, receiving mechanical ventilation, or comatose before death (adjusted ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07), or level of reported pain (adjusted ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33). The intervention also did not reduce use of hospital resources (adjusted ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.12). The phase I observation of SUPPORT confirmed substantial shortcomings in care for seriously ill hospitalized adults. The phase II intervention failed to improve care or patient outcomes. Enhancing opportunities for more patient-physician communication, although advocated as the major method for improving patient outcomes, may be inadequate to change established practices. To improve the experience of seriously ill and dying patients, greater individual and societal commitment and more proactive and forceful measured may be needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diclofenac: an update on its mechanism of action and safety profile.

             Tong Gan (2010)
            Diclofenac is a proven, commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties, and has been shown to be effective in treating a variety of acute and chronic pain and inflammatory conditions. As with all NSAIDs, diclofenac exerts its action via inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) with relative equipotency. However, extensive research shows the pharmacologic activity of diclofenac goes beyond COX inhibition, and includes multimodal and, in some instances, novel mechanisms of action (MOA). Literature retrieval was performed through PubMed/MEDLINE (through May 2009) using combinations of the terms diclofenac, NSAID, mechanism of action, COX-1, COX-2, and pharmacology. Reference citations resulting from publications identified in the literature search were reviewed when appropriate. This article reviews the established, putative, and emerging MOAs of diclofenac; compares the drug's pharmacologic and pharmacodynamic properties with other NSAIDs to delineate its potentially unique qualities; hypothesizes why it has been chosen for further recent formulation enhancement; and evaluates the potential effect of its MOA characteristics on safety. Research suggests diclofenac can inhibit the thromboxane-prostanoid receptor, affect arachidonic acid release and uptake, inhibit lipoxygenase enzymes, and activate the nitric oxide-cGMP antinociceptive pathway. Other novel MOAs may include the inhibition of substrate P, inhibition of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma), blockage of acid-sensing ion channels, alteration of interleukin-6 production, and inhibition of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor hyperalgesia. The review was not designed to compare MOAs of diclofenac with other NSAIDs. Additionally, as the highlighted putative and emerging MOAs do not have clinical data to demonstrate that these models are correct, further research is necessary to ascertain if the proposed pathways will translate into clinical benefits. The diversity in diclofenac's MOA may suggest the potential for a relatively more favorable profile compared with other NSAIDs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Opioid and nonopioid components independently contribute to the mechanism of action of tramadol, an 'atypical' opioid analgesic.

              Tramadol hydrochloride produced dose-related antinociception in mouse abdominal constriction [ED50 = 1.9 (1.2-2.6) mg/kg i.p.], hot-plate [48 degrees C, ED50 = 21.4 (18.4-25.3) mg/kg s.c.; 55 degrees C, ED50 = 33.1 (28.2-39.1) mg/kg s.c.] and tail-flick [ED50 = 22.8 (19.2-30.1) mg/kg s.c.] tests. Tramadol also displayed antinociceptive activity in the rat air-induced abdominal constriction [ED50 = 1.7 (0.7-3.2) mg/kg p.o.] and hot-plate [51 degrees C, ED50 = 19.5 (10.3-27.5) mg/kg i.p.] tests. The antinociceptive activity of tramadol in the mouse tail-flick test was completely antagonized by naloxone, suggesting an opioid mechanism of action. Consistent with this, tramadol bound with modest affinity to opioid mu receptors and with weak affinity to delta and kappa receptors, with Ki values of 2.1, 57.6 and 42.7 microM, respectively. The pA2 value for naloxone obtained with tramadol in the mouse tail-flick test was 7.76 and was not statistically different from that obtained with morphine (7.94). In CXBK mice, tramadol, like morphine, was devoid of antinociceptive activity after intracerebroventricular administration, suggesting that the opioid component of tramadol-induced antinociception is mediated by the mu-opioid receptor. In contrast to the mouse tail-flick test and unlike morphine or codeine, tramadol-induced antinociception in the mouse abdominal constriction, mouse hot-plate (48 degrees or 55 degrees C) or rat hot-plate tests was only partially antagonized by naloxone, implicating a nonopioid component. Further examination of the neurochemical profile of tramadol revealed that, unlike morphine, it also inhibited the uptake of norepinephrine (Ki = 0.79 microM) and serotonin (0.99 microM). The possibility that this additional activity contributes to the antinociceptive activity of tramadol was supported by the finding that systemically administered yohimbine or ritanserin blocked the antinociception produced by intrathecal administration of tramadol, but not morphine, in the rat tail-flick test. These results suggest that tramadol-induced antinociception is mediated by opioid (mu) and nonopioid (inhibition of monoamine uptake) mechanisms. This hypothesis is consistent with the clinical experience of a wide separation between analgesia and typical opioid side effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2014
                12 August 2014
                : 7
                : 455-463
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopedics & Traumatology, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
                [2 ]Vasantha Subramanian Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
                [3 ]Vijay Hospital, Pondicherry, India
                [4 ]Medical Services Department, Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India
                [5 ]Clinical Research Department, Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Swati Biswas, Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd, 1st floor, D Mart Bldg, Mulund-Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai 400080, India, Tel +91 982 076 1009, Fax +91 223 953 6665, Email swatiabiswas@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                jpr-7-455
                10.2147/JPR.S67817
                4140236
                © 2014 Chandanwale et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article