ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Selective Nav1.8 inhibition by suzetrigine, a novel nonopioid analgesic for acute pain management: A systematic review and metanalysis.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interpreting heterogeneity and effect size in meta-analysis of Suzetrigine for acute pain.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Suzetrigine, a novel nonopioid analgesic, selectively inhibits voltage-gated sodium channel 1.8 (NaV1.8) and has recently been approved for the management of moderate to severe acute pain. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of suzetrigine by cumulating data from available evidence. Methods: A literature search was conducted using ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review, with four RCTs in the meta-analysis. The primary efficacy outcomes were time-weighted sum of pain intensity difference over 48 h (SPID 48) and 24 h (SPID 24) between suzetrigine and placebo. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants achieving ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% reduction in numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores at 48 h and safety analysis. Results: Suzetrigine showed significantly better efficacy versus placebo in reducing pain, with a standard mean difference of 5.55 (95% CI 2.97-8.13, Conclusion: Suzetrigine appears to be an effective, well-tolerated option for acute pain management, showing superiority to placebo and comparable efficacy to HB/APAP, with a better safety profile. However, future long-term studies are needed to assess its efficacy and safety in various acute pain settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.