1. Home
  2. acute pain

acute pain

Therapeutic Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review

Author/s: 
Michael Hsu, Arya Shah, Ayana Jordan, Mark S Gold, Kevin P Hill

Importance: Approximately 27% of adults in the US and Canada report having ever used cannabis for medical purposes. An estimated 10.5% of the US population reports using cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical compound extracted from cannabis that does not have psychoactive effects, for therapeutic purposes.

Observations: Conditions for which cannabinoids have approval from the US Food and Drug Administration include HIV/AIDS-related anorexia, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and certain pediatric seizure disorders. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials reported a small but significant reduction in nausea and vomiting from various causes (eg, chemotherapy, cancer) when comparing prescribed cannabinoids (eg, dronabinol, nabilone) with placebo or active comparators (eg, alizapride, chlorpromazine; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.29 [95% CI, -0.39 to -0.18]). A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials among patients with HIV/AIDS reported that cannabinoids had a moderate effect on increasing body weight compared with placebo (SMD, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.92]). Evidence-based guidelines do not recommend the use of inhaled or high-potency cannabis (≥10% or 10 mg Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol [Δ9-THC]) for medical purposes. High-potency cannabis compared with low-potency cannabis use is associated with increased risk of psychotic symptoms (12.4% vs 7.1%) and generalized anxiety disorder (19.1% vs 11.6%). A meta-analysis of observational studies reported that 29% of individuals who used cannabis for medical purposes met criteria for cannabis use disorder. Daily inhaled cannabis use compared with nondaily use was associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (2.0% vs 0.9%), myocardial infarction (1.7% vs 1.3%), and stroke (2.6% vs 1.0%). Evidence from randomized clinical trials does not support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most conditions for which it is promoted, such as acute pain and insomnia. Before considering cannabis or cannabinoids for medical use, clinicians should consult applicable institutional, state, and national regulations; evaluate for drug-drug interactions; and assess for contraindications (eg, pregnancy) or conditions in which risks likely outweigh benefits (eg, schizophrenia or ischemic heart disease). For patients using cannabis or cannabinoids for treatment of medical conditions, clinicians should discuss harm reduction strategies, including avoiding concurrent use with alcohol or other central nervous system depressants such as benzodiazepines, using the lowest effective dose, and avoiding use when driving or operating machinery.

Conclusions and relevance: Evidence is insufficient for the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most medical indications. Clear guidance from clinicians is essential to support safe, evidence-based decision-making. Clinicians should weigh benefits against risks when engaging patients in informed discussions about cannabis or cannabinoid use.

Keywords 
medical marijuana cannabis

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute dental pain

Author/s: 
Victoria G Green, Deborah E Polk, Michael A Turturro, Paul A Moore, Alonso Carrasco-Labra

Objective: In the United States, on average, every 15 s, someone visits a hospital emergency department (ED) for a dental condition. This commentary summarizes the recommendations from a 2024 clinical practice guideline for the pharmacological management of acute dental pain associated with tooth extractions and toothache applicable to ED settings, hospitals, and urgent care clinics where definitive dental treatment is not immediately available.

Methods: A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association, the ADA Science & Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and Penn Dental Medicine examined the effect of opioid and non-opioid analgesics; local anesthetics, including blocks; corticosteroids; and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence; the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision Framework was used to formulate 18 recommendations and six good practice statements.

Results: A beneficial net balance favors the use of non-opioid medications compared with opioid medications. When not contraindicated, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile compared with opioids.

Conclusion: NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain following tooth extraction(s) and temporarily managing toothache. Opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when first-line therapy is insufficient or contraindications to NSAIDs exist.

Keywords 
Acute dental pain analgesics Tooth extractions Toothache

Conservative Treatments in the Management of Acute Painful Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Author/s: 
Assil-Ramin Alimy, Athanasios D Anastasilakis, John J Carey, Stella D'Oronzo, Anda M Naciu, Julien Paccou, Maria P Yavropoulou, Willem F Lems, Tim Rolvien

Importance: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) frequently cause substantial pain and reduced mobility, posing a major health problem. Despite the critical need for effective pain management to restore functionality and improve patient outcomes, the value of various conservative treatments for acute VCF has not been systematically investigated.

Objective: To assess and compare different conservative treatment options in managing acute pain related to VCF.

Data sources: On May 16, 2023, 4 databases-PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL-were searched. In addition, a gray literature search within Scopus and Embase was also conducted.

Study selection: Included studies were prospective comparative and randomized clinical trials that assessed conservative treatments for acute VCF.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data extraction and synthesis were performed by 2 authors according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analyses recommendations. A frequentist graph-theoretical model and a random-effects model were applied for the meta-analysis.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were short-term (4 weeks) pain during activity and long-term (latest available follow-up) nonspecified pain in patients with acute VCF.

Results: The study included 20 trials, encompassing 2102 patients, and evaluated various interventions for managing VCF. Calcitonin (standardized mean difference [SMD], -4.86; 95% CI, -6.87 to -2.86) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; SMD, -3.94; 95% CI, -7.30 to -0.58) were beneficial regarding short-term pain during activity compared with placebo. For long-term nonspecific pain management, bisphosphonates were associated with inferior pain outcomes compared with daily (SMD, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.11 to 2.31) or weekly (SMD, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 2.21) administration of teriparatide, with no treatment being superior to NSAIDs. The qualitative analysis of adverse events highlighted that typical adverse events associated with these medications were observed.

Conclusions and relevance: NSAIDs and teriparatide may be the preferred treatment options for pain management in acute osteoporotic VCF. Although calcitonin also proved to be beneficial, its safety profile and potential adverse effects restrict its widespread application. The limited evidence on braces and analgesics underscores the urgent need for future research.

Keywords 
pain management Spinal Fractures acute pain pain management Compression Fractures
Subscribe to acute pain