Ibuprofen and acetaminophen in the relief of acute pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period.

OBJECTIVES

1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

Pain relief with combination acetaminophen/codeine or ibuprofen following third-molar extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled studies that, following third-molar extraction, utilized either a combination of acetaminophen (600 mg) with codeine (60 mg) or ibuprofen (400 mg) for pain management.

DESIGN

We searched PubMed, and the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov databases with the keywords "molar or molars", "tooth or teeth", "extraction" and "pain". Selected studies were: (1) randomized, blinded, placebo controlled, (2) utilized either a single-dose combination acetaminophen (600 mg) with codeine (60 mg) (A/C) or ibuprofen, and (3) recorded standardized pain relief (PR) at 6 hours, or summed total pain relief over 6 hours (TOTPAR6). Of the 2,949 articles that were identified, 79 were retrieved for full-text analysis, and 20 of these studies met our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

For A/C, the weighted, standardized mean difference (SMD) for TOTPAR6 was 0.796 (0.597-0.995, 95% confidence interval), P < 0.001, and for PR at 6 h, the SMD was 0.0186 (0.007 to 0.378; P = 0.059), whereas for ibuprofen the SMD for TOTPAR6 was 3.009 (1.283 to 4.735; P = 0.001), and for PR at 6 h, the SMD was 0.854 (95% CI, 0.712 to 0.996; P < 0.001). A SMD of 0.8 or larger is indicative of a large effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that single dose of ibuprofen (400 mg) is an effective pain reducer for post third molar extraction pain.

Evaluation of Fixed-Dose Combinations of Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen in the Treatment of Postsurgical Dental Pain: A Pilot, Dose-Ranging, Randomized Study

Introduction

Ibuprofen and acetaminophen provide analgesia via different mechanisms of action and do not exhibit drug–drug interactions; therefore, combining low doses of each may provide greater efficacy without compromising safety.

Objectives

The present study assessed the analgesic efficacy of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of ibuprofen/acetaminophen (IBU/APAP) compared with ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo.

Methods

This 12-h, double-blind, proof-of-concept study compared three FDCs of IBU/APAP (200 mg/500 mg, 250 mg/500 mg, and 300 mg/500 mg) with ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following third molar extraction. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted sum of pain relief and pain intensity difference scores from 0 to 8 h after dosing (SPRID[4]_0–8). Time to meaningful pain relief (TMPR), duration of pain relief, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

Results

In total, 394 patients were randomized. All active treatments were superior to placebo for SPRID[4]_0–8 (all p < 0.001) but not significantly different from ibuprofen 400 mg. Median TMPR with FDCs and ibuprofen (44.5–54.1 and 56.2 min, respectively) was faster than with placebo (> 720 min; all p < 0.001 vs. placebo). Duration of pain relief was similar with the FDCs and ibuprofen 400 mg (9.7 –11.1 h) and longer than with placebo (1.6 h; all p < 0.001). AE incidence was comparable with all treatments.

Conclusion

Each IBU/APAP FDC provided analgesic efficacy comparable to that with ibuprofen 400 mg and superior to that with placebo. Each FDC provided MPR in < 1 h, duration of pain relief > 9 h, and tolerability similar to that with ibuprofen and placebo.

ClinicalTrials.gov Registration

NCT01559259

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40268-020-00310-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Opioids in Postsurgical Dental Pain

Postsurgical dental pain is mainly driven by inflammation, particularly through the generation of prostaglandins via the cyclooxygenase system. Thus, it is no surprise that numerous randomized placebo-controlled trials studying acute pain following the surgical extraction of impacted third molars have demonstrated the remarkable efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, etodolac, diclofenac, and ketorolac in this prototypic condition of acute inflammatory pain. Combining an optimal dose of an NSAID with an appropriate dose of acetaminophen appears to further enhance analgesic efficacy and potentially reduce the need for opioids. In addition to being on average inferior to NSAIDs as analgesics in postsurgical dental pain, opioids produce a higher incidence of side effects in dental outpatients, including dizziness, drowsiness, psychomotor impairment, nausea/vomiting, and constipation. Unused opioids are also subject to misuse and diversion, and they may cause addiction. Despite these risks, some dental surgical outpatients may benefit from a 1- or 2-d course of opioids added to their NSAID regimen. NSAID use may carry significant risks in certain patient populations, in which a short course of an acetaminophen/opioid combination may provide a more favorable benefit versus risk ratio than an NSAID regimen.

A randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, multi-country, multi-center parallel group trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of 400 mg ibuprofen and 100 mg caffeine compared with ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo in patients with acute lower back or neck pain

Background

Ibuprofen is a well-established analgesic for acute pain symptoms. In several acute pain models, caffeine has demonstrated an analgesic adjuvant effect. This randomized trial (NCT03003000) was designed to compare the efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of ibuprofen and caffeine with ibuprofen or placebo for the treatment of acute lower back/neck pain.

Methods

Patients with acute lower back/neck pain resulting in pain on movement (POM) ≥5 on a 10-point numerical rating scale were randomized 2:2:1 to receive orally, three times daily for 6 days, 400 mg ibuprofen+100 mg caffeine, 400 mg ibuprofen or placebo, respectively. The primary endpoint was change in POM_WP (POM triggering highest pain score at baseline [worst procedure]) between baseline and the morning of day 2. Key secondary endpoints included POM_WP area under curve (AUC) between baseline and the morning of day 4 (POM_WPAUC_72h) and day 6 (POM_WPAUC_120h).

Results

In total, 635 patients were randomized (256 ibuprofen + caffeine: 253 ibuprofen: 126 placebo). Active treatments exhibited similar reductions in POM_WP, with an adjusted mean reduction of 1.998 (standard error [SE]: 0.1042) between baseline and day 2 for ibuprofen, 1.869 (SE: 0.1030) for ibuprofen + caffeine and 1.712 (SE: 0.1422) for placebo. Similar results were observed for POM_WPAUC_72h and POM_WPAUC_120h. Safety and tolerability was as expected.

Conclusion

A decrease in lower back/neck pain, indicated by reduced POM_WP, was shown in all active treatment arms; however, treatment effects were small versus placebo. Ibuprofen plus caffeine was not superior to ibuprofen alone or placebo for the treatment of acute lower back/neck pain in this setting.

Analgesic Efficacy of a New Immediate-Release/Extended-Release Formulation of Ibuprofen: Results From Single- and Multiple-Dose Postsurgical Dental Pain Studies

Analgesic effects of ibuprofen immediate‐release/extended‐release (IR/ER) 600‐mg tablets were evaluated in 2 randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled dental pain studies. Patients 16–40 years old with moderate–severe pain following third‐molar extraction received single‐dose ibuprofen 600 mg IR/ER (formulation A or B), naproxen sodium 220 mg, or placebo (2:2:2:1; study 1) or 4 doses of ibuprofen 600 mg IR/ER (formulation A) or placebo (1:1; study 2). In study 1 (n = 196), mean (standard deviation [SD]) time‐weighted sum of pain intensity difference scores for placebo, ibuprofen IR/ER A, ibuprofen IR/ER B, and naproxen, respectively, were 0.05 (9.2), 16.87 (9.4), 17.34 (10.5), and 12.66 (10.0) over 0–12 hours and ‐0.03 (4.1), 6.57 (4.4), 7.14 (5.2), and 5.14 (5.0) over 8–12 hours (all P < .001 vs placebo). In study 2 (n = 106), mean (SD) time‐weighted sum of pain relief and pain intensity difference scores were 18.2 (20.0) versus 41.5 (21.0) at 0–12 hours and 10.3 (12.0) versus 18.4 (12.1) at 8–12 hours for placebo versus ibuprofen IR/ER, respectively (P < .001 for both); efficacy was sustained over each of the four 12‐hour dosing intervals with ibuprofen. Gastrointestinal adverse events predominated with placebo both after study medication administration and after rescue medication use, if applicable. Ibuprofen 600 mg IR/ER provided safe and effective analgesia after single and multiple doses.

Onset of analgesia and efficacy of ibuprofen sodium in postsurgical dental pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled study versus standard ibuprofen

Objectives:

A novel, immediate-release tablet formulation of ibuprofen (IBU) sodium dihydrate, Advil Film Coated Tablets (IBU_Na), has been developed that is absorbed faster than standard IBU tablets. The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy and onset of analgesia of this new formulation with standard IBU tablets after a single dose.

Materials and Methods:

Patients (N=316) with at least moderate baseline postsurgical dental pain were randomized to 400 mg IBU_Na, Advil (IBU_Adv), Motrin (IBU_Mot), or placebo. Primary endpoints were time-weighted sum of pain relief (PR) and pain intensity differences over 8 hours (SPRID 0-8) and time to onset of meaningful pain relief (TMPR) measured by the double-stopwatch method.

Results:

SPRID 0-8 was significantly greater for IBU_Na and the other active treatments versus placebo (P<0.001). IBU_Na had a significantly earlier TMPR versus placebo, pooled IBU_Adv/IBU_Mot, and IBU_Mot (P<0.001 for all), and a marginally faster TMPR (P=0.075) versus IBU_Adv. Results for secondary endpoints were similar. Adverse events were comparable across treatment groups, with gastrointestinal disorders being most frequently reported. Most adverse events were mild or moderate.

Discussion:

This novel formulation of IBU_Na provided superior overall PR compared with placebo and more rapid onset of analgesic effect compared with standard IBU tablets. Rapid PR is important in the treatment of acute pain, including dental pain, and this IBU_Na formulation represents a new treatment option for rapid PR.

Adverse drug reactions and drug-drug interactions with over-the-counter NSAIDs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen have a long history of safe and effective use as both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics/antipyretics. The mechanism of action of all NSAIDs is through reversible inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) including gastrointestinal bleeding as well as cardiovascular and renal effects have been reported with NSAID use. In many cases, ADRs may occur because of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between the NSAID and a concomitant medication. For example, DDIs have been reported when NSAIDs are coadministered with aspirin, alcohol, some antihypertensives, antidepressants, and other commonly used medications. Because of the pharmacologic nature of these interactions, there is a continuum of risk in that the potential for an ADR is dependent on total drug exposure. Therefore, consideration of dose and duration of NSAID use, as well as the type or class of comedication administered, is important when assessing potential risk for ADRs. Safety findings from clinical studies evaluating prescription-strength NSAIDs may not be directly applicable to OTC dosing. Health care providers can be instrumental in educating patients that using OTC NSAIDs at the lowest effective dose for the shortest required duration is vital to balancing efficacy and safety. This review discusses some of the most clinically relevant DDIs reported with NSAIDs based on major sites of ADRs and classes of medication, with a focus on OTC ibuprofen, for which the most data are available.

Combining ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute pain management after third-molar extractions: translating clinical research to dental practice

BACKGROUND

Effective and safe drug therapy for the management of acute postoperative pain has relied on orally administered analgesics such as ibuprofen, naproxen and acetaminophen, or N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (APAP), as well as combination formulations containing opioids such as hydrocodone with APAP. The combination of ibuprofen and APAP has been advocated in the last few years as an alternative therapy for postoperative pain management. The authors conducted a critical analysis to evaluate the scientific evidence for using the ibuprofen-APAP combination and propose clinical treatment recommendations for its use in managing acute postoperative pain in dentistry.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors used quantitative evidence-based reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration to determine the relative analgesic efficacy and safety of combining ibuprofen and APAP. They found additional articles by searching the Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the quantitative systematic reviews indicated that the ibuprofen-APAP combination may be a more effective analgesic, with fewer untoward effects, than are many of the currently available opioid-containing formulations. In addition, the authors found several randomized controlled trials that also indicated that the ibuprofen-APAP combination provided greater pain relief than did ibuprofen or APAP alone after third-molar extractions. The adverse effects associated with the combination were similar to those of the individual component drugs. Practical Implications. Combining ibuprofen with APAP provides dentists with an additional therapeutic strategy for managing acute postoperative dental pain. This combination has been reported to provide greater analgesia without significantly increasing the adverse effects that often are associated with opioid-containing analgesic combinations. When making stepwise recommendations for the management of acute postoperative dental pain, dentists should consider including ibuprofen-APAP combination therapy.

Onset of analgesia with ibuprofen sodium in tension-type headache: a randomized trial

Background

Ibuprofen is known to be efficacious in the treatment of tension-type headache, the most common form of primary headache. A novel tablet formulation of ibuprofen sodium is more rapidly absorbed than standard ibuprofen. This study evaluated onset of analgesia and overall efficacy of ibuprofen sodium in episodic-type tension headache (ETTH) compared with standard ibuprofen and placebo.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, single-center, parallel-group study included adults aged 18–65 years with ≥4 moderately severe ETTHs per month for 6 months. Within 45 minutes of onset of at least moderately severe ETTH, subjects were randomized 2:2:1 to receive a single oral dose of ibuprofen sodium tablets (Advil® Film Coated; 2 × 256 mg [equivalent to 400 mg standard ibuprofen]), standard ibuprofen tablets (Motrin®; 2 × 200 mg), or placebo. The coprimary end points were time-weighted sum of pain relief rating and pain intensity difference scores over 3 hours (SPRID 0–3) and time to meaningful pain relief (MPR) assessed by double-stopwatch method.

Results

A total of 226 subjects were randomized to ibuprofen sodium (n = 91), standard ibuprofen (n = 89), and placebo (n = 46). Demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Mean SPRID 0–3 scores were significantly superior (P < .001) for ibuprofen sodium (9.6) and standard ibuprofen (9.8) versus placebo (3.5), but were not significantly different from each other (P = .812). Time to MPR was significantly (P < .001) shorter for ibuprofen sodium and standard ibuprofen compared with placebo (median 40.6, 48.5, and >180 minutes, respectively). Time to MPR was numerically faster for ibuprofen sodium than standard ibuprofen. This difference was not statistically significant (P = .253) using the protocol-specified analysis but was (P = .022) in a post hoc analysis using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which assigns higher weights to earlier events. (The post hoc analysis was performed because Kaplan-Meier graphs and results for time to first perceptible relief favored ibuprofen sodium over standard ibuprofen at earlier time points.) There were no adverse events.

Conclusions

This novel ibuprofen sodium tablet provided rapid, efficacious relief of ETTH and was well tolerated.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01362491.

Safety of a novel formulation of ibuprofen sodium compared with standard ibuprofen and placebo

BACKGROUND

Ibuprofen (IBU) is an efficacious over-the-counter analgesic/antipyretic with adverse event (AE) rates comparable to placebo. IBU sodium (IBU(Na)) is a newer, more soluble form that is absorbed faster than standard IBU, leading to more rapid analgesia. Although its safety and tolerability are expected to be comparable to standard IBU, this has not yet been reported.

METHODS

Pooled analysis comparing the safety of single-dose IBU(Na) (512 mg; equivalent to 400 mg IBU free acid; n = 362) with standard IBU tablets (400 mg; n = 342) and placebo (n = 187) across five Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies evaluating IBU(Na) for treatment of postoperative dental pain, tension-type headache, or fever.

RESULTS

Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 5% of cases in the IBU(Na) group (25 events), 6.4% of cases in the standard IBU group (41 events), and 10.2% of cases in the placebo group (31 events). The most frequent TEAEs were in the following Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Classes: gastrointestinal disorders (2.8, 3.2, and 5.9% for IBU(Na), standard IBU, and placebo, respectively), nervous system disorders (1.4, 3.5, and 3.7% for IBU(Na), standard IBU, and placebo, respectively), and general disorders and administration-site conditions (1.1, 1.5, and 2.1% for IBU(Na), standard IBU, and placebo, respectively). Nausea was the most common TEAE (2.5, 2.6, and 5.9% for IBU(Na), standard IBU, and placebo, respectively). Only two AEs were considered related to treatment: pruritus (n = 1, IBU(Na)) and nausea (n = 1, placebo). Of those subjects reporting ≥ 1 TEAE, 44.4, 36.4, and 89.5% of subjects in the IBU(Na), standard IBU, and placebo groups, respectively, received rescue medication.

CONCLUSION

IBU(Na) has a favorable safety profile comparable to those of standard IBU tablets and placebo in single-dose studies evaluating analgesic or antipyretic efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov Registry Numbers: Dental pain studies: NCT01098747 and NCT01216163; headache studies: NCT01077973 and NCT01362491; pyresis study: NCT01035346.

Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs

BACKGROUND

False and misleading advertising for drugs can harm consumers and the healthcare system, and previous research has demonstrated that physician-targeted drug advertisements may be misleading. However, there is a dearth of research comparing consumer-targeted drug advertising to evidence to evaluate whether misleading or false information is being presented in these ads.

OBJECTIVE

To compare claims in consumer-targeted television drug advertising to evidence, in order to evaluate the frequency of false or misleading television drug advertising targeted to consumers.

DESIGN

A content analysis of a cross-section of television advertisements for prescription and nonprescription drugs aired from 2008 through 2010. We analyzed commercial segments containing prescription and nonprescription drug advertisements randomly selected from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive, a census of national news broadcasts.

MAIN MEASURES

For each advertisement, the most-emphasized claim in each ad was identified based on claim iteration, mode of communication, duration and placement. This claim was then compared to evidence by trained coders, and categorized as being objectively true, potentially misleading, or false. Potentially misleading claims omitted important information, exaggerated information, made lifestyle associations, or expressed opinions. False claims were factually false or unsubstantiated.

KEY RESULTS

Of the most emphasized claims in prescription (n = 84) and nonprescription (n = 84) drug advertisements, 33 % were objectively true, 57 % were potentially misleading and 10 % were false. In prescription drug ads, there were more objectively true claims (43 %) and fewer false claims (2 %) than in nonprescription drug ads (23 % objectively true, 7 % false). There were similar numbers of potentially misleading claims in prescription (55 %) and nonprescription (61 %) drug ads.

CONCLUSIONS

Potentially misleading claims are prevalent throughout consumer-targeted prescription and nonprescription drug advertising on television. These results are in conflict with proponents who argue the social value of drug advertising is found in informing consumers about drugs.

[The role of non-opioid analgesics in the management of postoperative pain.]

At present, intramuscular application of opioids given on request is the most widespread form of postoperative analgesia. This method is widely recognized as often being inadequate, however. As advanced techniques of pain management, such as patient-controlled analgesia, are not generally available, the question arises as to whether non-opioid analgesics should routinely be used in order to improve this situation. A review of the literature indicates that apart from when used following abdominal surgery, in particular, operations on the biliary tract, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) offer effective postoperative pain control. Following minor surgery, the quality of analgesia can be better than that achieved with the weak opioids. The discrepancy between biliary tract operations and all other forms of surgery raises the question whether in the former case pain may have been partly due to spasms of visceral smooth muscle and hence be less readily amenable to the action of NSAIDS. A potential problem with the perioperative use of NSAIDS is that they inhibit platelet aggregation. Apart from tonsillectomy, there are no reports of increased intra- or postoperative bleeding when these drugs have been used for minor surgery, and only isolated reports following major operations. Despite these results, it must be borne in mind that most studies have been carried out on patients of ASA groups I and II and that conclusions drawn from the literature are not necessarily representative for the elderly and for patients with organ failure. Alternative substances have received relatively little attention. Of these, the pyrazolone derivative, metamizol, may well prove to be of value for patients in whom the use of NSAIDS is contraindicated or relatively ineffective such as after biliary tract surgery.

Utility and Sensitivity of the Sore Throat Pain Model: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial on the COX-2 Selective Inhibitor Valdecoxib

The sore throat pain model was employed in this randomized, placebo-controlled trial to examine the sensitivity of the model in testing the efficacy of valdecoxib as an acute analgesic drug. Changes were made to the study design by employing a different diagnostic index for tonsillo-pharyngitis, a different rating scale (derived from Lasagna's pain thermometer), and alternative analyses, individual responder rates. Under double-blind conditions, 197 patients with painful pharyngitis were randomly allocated to valdecoxib 20 mg bid (n = 65), valdecoxib 40 mg qd (n = 66), or placebo (n = 66) for 24 hours. The expanded Tonsillo-Pharyngitis Assessment and the Lasagna Pain Scale were validated as sensitive study instruments. Both dosage regimens provided significantly greater pain relief compared with placebo on standard efficacy measures over the 24-hour study (all P < .05). Tests for individual response (eg, percentage of patients with at least moderate relief) confirmed these results, and other response rates identified the high sensitivity of the model itself (eg, only 5% of placebo-treated patients achieved >or=50% of maximum total pain relief over 6 hours). These findings indicate that sore throat is a sensitive model to assess analgesic efficacy.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized pilot study of cerebral blood flow patterns employing SPECT imaging in dental postsurgical pain patients with and without pain relief

BACKGROUND

Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) has been employed in the study of altered regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) in experimental and chronic pain. CBF patterns have not been evaluated in patients with acute postoperative pain.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this pilot study was to employ SPECT to measure CBF distribution associated with postoperative dental pain and to compare these CBF patterns to subsequent images in the same patients who were experiencing pain relief versus continued or worsening pain who had received active or placebo analgesic interventions. The primary outcome measure was the percentage change in blood flow in various regions of interest.

METHODS

Twenty-two healthy individuals (10 males and 12 females, age range 20-29 years) who underwent the removal of ≥1 partial or full bony impacted mandibular third molars were evaluated for pain intensity as the local anesthesia dissipated, employing a 0 to10 numeric rating scale (0 = no pain; 10 = worst imaginable). When the subjects' pain level reached ≥4/10, they were injected intravenously with 260 MBq of technetium Tc 99m bicisate (ethyl cysteinate dimer). Under double-blind conditions and 10 minutes before being placed in the SPECT scanner, the first 10 subjects were randomized to receive intravenous ketorolac 15 mg or saline while the remaining 12 subjects were randomized to receive by mouth either ibuprofen 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg, acetaminophen 1000 mg, or placebo. One hour after drug administration, subjects were reevaluated for pain, injected with 925 MBq of technetium Tc 99m bicisate, given rescue medication if required, and then rescanned. CBF ratios were obtained for regions of interest and by normalizing to average whole brain activity.

RESULTS

Subjects generally had a moderate degree (mean [SD], 7.3% [4.0%]) of thalamic asymmetry on initial scans with pain; after treatment, subjects reporting worsening pain regardless of the intervention had higher thalamic asymmetry (8.1% vs 2.8%) than those reporting relief of pain. Subjects who reported reduced pain after the intervention had significantly different (P < 0.05) mean CBF changes compared with those reporting worsening pain in the left prefrontal cortex, left sensorimotor area, right anterior cingulate, and right caudate.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute postoperative dental pain was associated with moderate thalamic asymmetry that improved following successful pain management. Sustained or worsening pain was associated with increased CBF in brain regions associated with pain pathways, whereas pain relief was associated with decreased activity in the same areas.

Efficacy and Safety of Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen in Children and Adults: A Meta-Analysis and Qualitative Review

Objective:

To evaluate the analgesic and antipyretic efficacy and safety of ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen in children and adults.

Data Sources:

Literature searches were performed using PubMed/MEDLINE (through August 2009) and EMBASE (through January 2008) and were restricted to the English language. In PubMed/MEDLINE, search terms used were ibuprofen, acetaminophen, paracetamol, clinical trials, and randomized controlled trials. EMBASE search terms included ibuprofen and acetaminophen, restricted to human and clinical trials.

Study Selection And Data Extraction:

All English-language articles identified from the data sources were reviewed. Multiple review articles were studied for any pertinent references and this yielded additional articles. Only articles that directly compared ibuprofen and acetaminophen were eligible for this review.

Data Synthesis:

Eighty-five studies that directly compared ibuprofen to acetaminophen were identified; 54 contained analgesic efficacy data, 35 contained antipyretic/temperature reduction data, and 66 contained safety data (some articles contained more than 1 type of data). Qualitative review of the literature revealed that, for the most part, ibuprofen was more efficacious than acetaminophen for the treatment of pain and fever in both pediatric and adult populations, and that these 2 drugs were equally safe. Meta-analyses on the subset of randomized clinical trial articles that reported sufficient quantitative information to calculate either an odds ratio (adverse event [AE]) or standardized mean difference (pain and fever) confirmed the qualitative results for adult (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.69; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.81) and pediatric (SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.46) pain at 2 hours postdose and pediatric fever (SMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.41) at 4 hours postdose. Conclusions regarding adult fever/temperature reduction could not be made due to a lack of evaluable data. The combined odds ratio for the proportion of adult subjects experiencing at least 1 AE slightly favored ibuprofen; however, the difference was not statistically significant (1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25). No significant difference between drugs in AE incidence was found for pediatric patients (0.82; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12).

Conclusions:

Ibuprofen is as or more efficacious than acetaminophen for the treatment of pain and fever in adult and pediatric populations and is equally safe.

Combined acetaminophen and ibuprofen for pain relief after oral surgery in adults: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Acetaminophen is often used with a non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug for acute pain. Hitherto, these drugs have had to be given separately, typically at different time intervals. Maxigesic^® tablets combine acetaminophen and ibuprofen in clinically appropriate doses to simplify administration and dosage regimen. We compared this combination with each of the constituent drugs for the relief of pain after extraction of third molar teeth.

Methods

Adults (more than 16 yr) having one or more wisdom teeth removed under general or local anaesthesia were instructed to take two tablets before operation, then two tablets every 6 h for up to 48 h of: (i) a combination of acetaminophen 500 mg and ibuprofen 150 mg per tablet (Maxigesic^®); (ii) acetaminophen 500 mg per tablet alone; or (iii) ibuprofen 150 mg per tablet alone. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC) of the 100 mm visual analogue scale pain measurements taken for up to 48 h after surgery, divided by time, at rest and on activity. Pharmacokinetic data were collected in a subset of patients.

Results

The mean (sem) time-corrected AUC on rest and activity, respectively, were: combination group 22.3 (3.2) and 28.4 (3.4); acetaminophen group 33.0 (3.1) and 40.4 (3.3); and ibuprofen group 34.8 (3.2) and 40.2 (3.4); P<0.01 for each of the four comparisons of combination vs constituent drug. There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between acetaminophen and ibuprofen administered together.

Conclusions

Maxigesic^® tablets provide superior pain relief after oral surgery to acetaminophen or ibuprofen alone.

Single dose oral ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates a 1999 Cochrane review showing that ibuprofen at various doses was effective in postoperative pain in single dose studies designed to demonstrate analgesic efficacy. New studies have since been published. Ibuprofen is one of the most widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) analgesics both by prescription and as an over-the-counter medicine. Ibuprofen is used for acute and chronic painful conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen in single oral doses for moderate and severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered ibuprofen (any formulation) in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk and number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals were collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-two studies compared ibuprofen and placebo (9186 participants). Studies were predominantly of high reporting quality, and the bulk of the information concerned ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg. For at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo the NNT for ibuprofen 200 mg (2690 participants) was 2.7 (2.5 to 3.0) and for ibuprofen 400 mg (6475 participants) it was 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). The proportion with at least 50% pain relief was 46% with 200 mg and 54% with 400 mg. Remedication within 6 hours was less frequent with higher doses, with 48% remedicating with 200 mg and 42% with 400 mg. The median time to remedication was 4.7 hours with 200 mg and 5.4 hours with 400 mg. Sensitivity analysis indicated that pain model and ibuprofen formulation may both affect the result, with dental impaction models and soluble ibuprofen salts producing better efficacy estimates. Adverse events were uncommon, and not different from placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The very substantial amount of high quality evidence demonstrates that ibuprofen is an effective analgesic in treating postoperative pain. NNTs for 200 mg and 400 mg ibuprofen did not change significantly from the previous review even when a substantial amount of new information was added. New information is provided on remedication.

Single dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2004 - this original review had been split from a previous title on 'Single dose paracetamol (acetaminophen) with and without codeine for postoperative pain'. The last version of this review concluded that paracetamol is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain, but additional trials have since been published. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol using current data, and to compare the findings with other analgesics evaluated in the same way.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of single dose oral paracetamol for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database and reference lists of articles to update an existing version of the review in July 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with paracetamol or placebo experiencing at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, using validated equations. Number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) was calculated, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use, were sought as measures of duration of analgesia. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies, with 5762 participants, were included: 3277 participants were treated with a single oral dose of paracetamol and 2425 with placebo. About half of participants treated with paracetamol at standard doses achieved at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, compared with about 20% treated with placebo. NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours following a single dose of paracetamol were as follows: 500 mg NNT 3.5 (2.7 to 4.8); 600 to 650 mg NNT 4.6 (3.9 to 5.5); 975 to 1000 mg NNT 3.6 (3.4 to 4.0). There was no dose response. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant effect of trial size or quality on this outcome.About half of participants needed additional analgesia over four to six hours, compared with about 70% with placebo. Five people would need to be treated with 1000 mg paracetamol, the most commonly used dose, to prevent one needing rescue medication over four to six hours, who would have needed it with placebo. Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and often incomplete. Reported adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and occurred at similar rates with 1000 mg paracetamol and placebo. No serious adverse events were reported. Withdrawals due to adverse events were uncommon and occurred in both paracetamol and placebo treatment arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of paracetamol provides effective analgesia for about half of patients with acute postoperative pain, for a period of about four hours, and is associated with few, mainly mild, adverse events.

Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol has been commonly used for the relief of postoperative pain following oral surgery. In this review we investigated the optimal dose of paracetamol and the optimal time for drug administration to provide pain relief, taking into account the side effects of different doses of the drug. This will inform dentists and their patients of the best strategy for pain relief after the surgical removal of wisdom teeth.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, compared to placebo, at different doses and administered postoperatively.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE and the Current Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to manufacturers of analgesic pharmaceuticals, we searched personal references in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 24th August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, parallel group, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trials of paracetamol for acute pain, following third molar surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All trials identified were scanned independently and in duplicate by two review authors, any disagreements were resolved by discussion, or if necessary a third review author was consulted. The proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief was calculated for both paracetamol and placebo. The number of patients experiencing adverse events, and/or the total number of adverse events reported were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2048 patients were initially enrolled in the trials (1148 received paracetamol, and 892 the placebo) and of these 1968 (96%) were included in the meta-analysis (1133 received paracetamol, and 835 the placebo). Paracetamol provided a statistically significant benefit when compared with placebo for pain relief and pain intensity at both 4 and 6 hours. Most studies were found to have moderate risk of bias, with poorly reported allocation concealment being the main problem. Risk ratio values for pain relief at 4 hours 2.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89 to 4.29), and at 6 hours 3.32 (95% CI 1.88 to 5.87). A statistically significant benefit was also found between up to 1000 mg and 1000 mg doses, the higher the dose giving greater benefit for each measure at both time points. There was no statistically significant difference between the number of patients who reported adverse events, overall this being 19% in the paracetamol group and 16% in the placebo group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol is a safe, effective drug for the treatment of postoperative pain following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth.

A randomised controlled trial of clinical outreach education to rationalise antibiotic prescribing for acute dental pain in the primary care setting

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of educational outreach visits on antibiotic prescribing for acute dental pain in primary care.

STUDY DESIGN

RCT.

SETTING

General dental practices in four health authority areas in Wales.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

General dental practitioners were recruited to the study and randomly allocated to one of the three study groups (control group, guideline group or intervention group). Following the intervention, practitioners completed a standardised questionnaire for each patient that presented with acute dental pain.

INTERVENTIONS

The control group received no intervention. The guideline group received educational material by post. The intervention group received educational material by post and an academic detailing visit by a trained pharmacist. The educational material included evidence-based guidelines on prescribing for acute dental pain and patient information leaflets.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number of antibiotic prescriptions issued to patients presenting with dental pain and the number of 'inappropriate' antibiotic prescriptions. Antibiotics were considered to be inappropriate if the patient did not have symptoms indicative of spreading infection.

RESULTS

A total of 1,497 completed questionnaires were received from 23, 20 and 27 general dental practitioners in the control, guideline and intervention group respectively. Patients in the intervention group received significantly fewer antibiotic prescriptions than patients in the control group (OR (95% CI) 0.63 (0.41, 0.95)) and significantly fewer inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions (OR (95% CI) 0.33 (0.21, 0.54)). However, antibiotic and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing were not significantly different in the guideline group compared to the control group (OR (95% CI) 0.83 (0.55, 1.21) and OR (95% CI) 0.82 (0.53, 1.29) respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies based upon educational outreach visits may be successfully employed to rationalise antibiotic prescribing by dental practitioners.

Predicting postoperative analgesia outcomes: NNT league tables or procedure-specific evidence?

Number needed to treat (NNT) values have been recommended and used to assess efficacy of analgesics for acute pain management. However, the data analysed come from a variety of procedures, which may potentially hinder the interpretation of the NNT value for specific procedures. We reanalysed available NNT data with acetaminophen in relation to the magnitude of surgical injury. Acetaminophen was less effective for pain relief after orthopaedic procedures than after dental procedures. The relative risk ratio for more than 50% pain relief, compared with placebo, was only 1.87 compared with 3.77 (P<0.05). Although NNT can give a valuable overview of efficacy, this concept is not necessarily applicable to all types of surgery. We suggest that estimates of NNT should be related to specific surgical procedures.

Combination oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg for the treatment of pain after abdominal or pelvic surgery in women: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

The sensation of pain arises from both central and peripheral sites, and inflammation may be one of its underlying causes. Combination therapy with analgesic agents having multimodal mechanisms of action and complementary pharmacokinetic properties enhances pain relief by addressing the different pathways of pain while limiting individual drug doses and, therefore, the potential for adverse effects caused by any single agent. Oxycodone and ibuprofen each have been used effectively as monotherapy and in other combinations for the treatment of acute pain; a fixed combination of these analgesics may improve pain relief in the setting of abdominal or pelvic surgery, where trauma and any resultant inflammation may be present at the same time.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated and compared the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single-dose combination tablet containing oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg with either agent alone and with placebo in women who had undergone abdominal or pelvic surgery.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind,placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group trial, women experiencing moderate to severe pain between 14 and 48 hours after surgery were randomized per protocol to receive a single dose of study medication in a 3:3:1:1 ratio (combination oxycodone/ibuprofen, ibuprofen, oxycodone, and placebo, in that order). Over a 6-hour study period, patients recorded their assessments of pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale and 4-point scale), relief from starting pain, and overall evaluation of study drug based on prespecified definitions and rating scales. Based on these data, the following primary efficacy end points were determined: total pain relief 6 hours after dosing (TOTPAR6) and sum of pain intensity differences 6 hours after dosing (SPID6). Other end points included the time to onset of pain relief, time to use of rescue medication, and patient's global rating of analgesic effectiveness. Tolerability was evaluated on the basis of observed and patient-reported adverse events and findings on physical examination.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-six women participated in the study. They were primarily white and had a mean age of 41.6 years and a mean body weight of 171.5 pounds. Combination treatment was associated with significantly better TOTPAR6 and SPID6 scores compared with ibuprofen alone (P < 0.02 and P < 0.015, respectively), oxycodone alone (P < 0.009 and P < 0.001), or placebo (both, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving combination treatment required rescue medication, and the time to use of rescue medication was significantly longer in the combination-treatment group compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). Patients' global ratings of analgesic efficacy were significantly higher in the combination-treatment group compared with all other groups (P < 0.044 vs ibuprofen alone; P < 0.001 vs oxycodone alone and placebo). The onset of pain relief occurred within 15 minutes of dosing with all 4 regimens. Nausea was the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event in all 4 groups. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was highest with placebo (55.0%), followed by oxycodone alone (44.2%), ibuprofen alone (42.3%), and combination treatment (40.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of women who had undergone abdominal or pelvic surgery, the combination of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was significantly more effective than either agent alone or placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain.

Addition of ibuprofen to pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis experience many nasal and concomitant nonnasal symptoms. Many patients also experience headaches and facial pain, pressure, or discomfort. Standard over-the-counter therapy with antihistamines and nasal decongestants often does not completely relieve all symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To establish the contribution of ibuprofen when used with pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine, a standard over-the-counter regimen, to relieve the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In this 7-day, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, qualified subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups that received combined ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (200/30/2 mg or 400/60/4 mg), combined pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (30/2 mg), or placebo. Therapy began when the subject experienced a minimum of moderate allergy-associated pain, and it continued 3 times a day for 7 consecutive days.

RESULTS

Mean pain intensity reduction in both ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment groups was 40% greater than in the placebo group and 33% greater than in the pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment group (P < .001). Mean changes from baseline in total and nonpain symptom scores for both ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine doses were significantly greater than for placebo (P < .001) and pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (P < .001-.05) but were not different from each other. Ibuprofen enhanced the chlorpheniramine and pseudoephedrine effects, resulting in incremental 33% to 34% pain relief and 17% to 22% allergy symptom relief compared with pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine.

CONCLUSIONS

In both doses of the triple combination, ibuprofen added to the effects of chlorpheniramine and pseudoephedrine, resulting in superior relief of pain and all nonpain allergy symptoms compared with pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment. Furthermore, the superior efficacy of the lower dose of the triple combination allowed for a decrease in the incidence of adverse effects.

Combination oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg for the treatment of postoperative pain: A double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and safety of a single dose of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg versus its individual components and placebo in a third-molar extraction model.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group investigation, subjects with moderate to severe pain within 5 hours after extraction of > or =2 ipsilateral bony impacted third molars were randomized to single doses of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, oxycodone 5 mg, or placebo. Primary efficacy variables were the sum of pain intensity difference over 6 hours (SP1D6) and total pain relief through 6 hours (TOTPAR6). The pharmacokinetics of oxycodone and ibuprofen, alone and in combination, were also determined in a subset of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 498 subjects were randomized to treatment (187 to oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, 186 to ibuprofen 400 mg, 63 to oxycodone 5 mg, and 62 to placebo). Baseline demographics were generally similar among treatment groups, despite differences in sex (P = 0.041) and race (P = 0.023). Combination therapy was associated with greater analgesia than ibuprofen alone, oxycodone alone, or placebo (mean [SE] TOTPAR6: 13.3 [0.52], 12.2 [0.52], 4.3 [0.82], and 4.2 [0.83], respectively [P < 0.001 vs oxycodone or placebo, P = 0.012 vs ibuprofen]; mean [SE] SP1D6: 6.54 [0.42], 5.41 [0.44], 0.14 [0.60], and 0.32 [0.59], respectively [P < 0.001 vs oxycodone or placebo, P = 0.002 vs ibuprofen]). Combination therapy was well tolerated. Pharmacokinetic results implied no interaction between oxycodone and ibuprofen.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a single dose of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was fast-acting, effective, and well tolerated in subjects with moderate to severe pain after dental surgery. Oxycodone 5 mg alone did not provide an efficacy benefit over placebo in this study.

The IPSO study: ibuprofen, paracetamol study in osteoarthritis. A randomised comparative clinical study comparing the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen and paracetamol analgesic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic efficacy of single and multiple doses of ibuprofen with that of paracetamol in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (IPSO study).

METHOD

222 patients were randomised in a double blind, multicentre study-156 (70%) had a painful knee joint and 66 (30%) a painful hip joint. The main efficacy criterion was pain intensity assessment after a single dose (ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol 1000 mg). Functional disability assessment and patient global assessment were carried out over 14 days.

RESULTS

The sum of the pain intensity difference over 6 hours after the first administration was significantly higher (p = 0.046) in the ibuprofen group than in the paracetamol group. Over 14 days pain intensity decreased from the first day and was significantly lower in the ibuprofen group than in the paracetamol group (p<0.05). The functional disability of the patient was assessed using the WOMAC; the ibuprofen group improved significantly over 2 weeks compared with the paracetamol group for each of the subscales: stiffness (p<0.002), pain (p<0.001), physical function (p<0.002). The drugs were equally safe.

CONCLUSION

The IPSO study shows that for the treatment of osteoarthritic pain, ibuprofen 400 mg at a single and multiple dose (1200 mg/day) for 14 days is more effective than paracetamol, either as a single dose of 1000 mg or a multiple dose (3000 mg/day). Because ibuprofen and paracetamol have similar tolerability, this study indicates that the efficacy/tolerability ratio of ibuprofen is better than that of paracetamol in this indication over 14 days.

Single dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for the relief of mild and moderate pain arising from headache, musculoskeletal conditions and dysmenorrhoea. A prior Cochrane systematic review concluded that paracetamol is also effective for postoperative pain, but additional trials have since been published. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol using current data, and to compare the findings with other analgesics evaluated in the same way.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of single dose oral paracetamol for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2002), the trials register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care group (November 2002); MEDLINE (1966 to May 1996); PubMed (1996 to August 2001); EMBASE (1980 to 1996); the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994); and reference lists of articles in order to update an existing version of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the 'pain relief versus time' curve was used to derive the proportion of patients with paracetamol or placebo experiencing least 50% pain relief over four to six hours using validated equations. The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals. Information on adverse effects was also collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven reports that enrolled 4186 patients (2561 patients were treated with a single oral dose of paracetamol and 1625 with placebo) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. The NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours following a single dose of paracetamol were as follows: 325 mg NNT 3.8 (2.2 to 13.3); 500 mg NNT 3.5 (2.7 to 4.8); 600/650 mg NNT 4.6 (3.9 to 5.5); 975/1000 mg NNT 3.8 (3.4 to 4.4); and 1500 mg NNT 3.7 (2.3 to 9.5). Sub-group analysis showed no significant differences between smaller and larger trials, or lower and higher quality trials. Drug-related study withdrawals were rarely reported. Studies reported a variable incidence of adverse effects that were generally mild and transient. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of reported adverse effects between paracetamol 975/1000 mg and placebo.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Single doses of paracetamol are effective analgesics for acute postoperative pain and give rise to few adverse effects.

High altitude headache: efficacy of acetaminophen vs. ibuprofen in a randomized, controlled trial

Ibuprofen has been shown to be more effective than placebo in the treatment of high altitude headache (HAH), but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents have been linked to increased incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects and high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE). We postulated that acetaminophen, which does not share ibuprofen's theorized causal link to GI side effects or HAPE, could provide effective HAH therapy. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial of ibuprofen vs. acetaminophen in the Solu Khumbu, Nepal: Mt. Everest Base Camp, Pheriche, Dingboche (4240 m to 5315 m). Seventy-four consecutive patients (ages 13 to 61 years) were randomized, were assessed with the Lake Louise Acute Mountain Sickness (AMS) criteria, and received a physical examination (which included vital signs, oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (SpO(2)), and assessment of clinical Lake Louise AMS criteria). Patients then received either 400 mg of ibuprofen (IBU) or 1000 mg of acetaminophen (ACET), and were asked to rate their cephalgia using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Thirty-nine patients received IBU, and 35 received ACET. Baseline Lake Louise AMS scores were identical in the two groups (mean = 5.9). No differences in mean VAS scores between IBU and ACET groups were noted at time 0 (presentation), 30, 60, or 120 min. No cases of HAPE or high altitude cerebral edema were noted during the study period. In this study population, acetaminophen was as effective as ibuprofen in relieving the pain of HAH.

A randomized, double-blind crossover trial of paracetamol 1000 mg four times daily vs ibuprofen 600 mg: effect on swelling and other postoperative events after third molar surgery

AIMS

To evaluate the effect of a 3-day regimen of ibuprofen 600 mg x 4 on acute postoperative swelling and pain and other inflammatory events after third molar surgery compared with a traditional regimen of paracetamol 1000 mg x 4.

METHODS

A controlled, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study where 36 patients (26 females, 10 males) with mean age 23 (range 19-27) years acted as their own controls. All patients were subjected to surgical removal of bilateral third molars. After one operation the patients received tablets of ibuprofen 600 mg x 4 for 3 days. After the other operation they received an identical regimen of paracetamol 1000 mg tablets. Swelling was objectively measured (mm) with a standardized face bow and the patients scored their pain intensity (PI) on a 100-mm visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between paracetamol and ibuprofen treatment with respect to effect on acute postoperative swelling. Swelling after paracetamol on the third postoperative day was 1.8% less than that after ibuprofen. Mean (95% CI) difference between treatments was -0.3 (-4.7, 4.1) mm. On the sixth postoperative day swelling after ibuprofen was 2.3% less than that after paracetamol. Mean (95% CI) between treatments was 0.2 (-2.4, 2.8) mm. There was no statistically significant difference in pain intensity between the paracetamol and the ibuprofen regimen on the day of surgery. The mean (95% CI) difference between the treatments for summed pain intensity on the day of surgery (SUMPI 3.5-11) was 3.31 (-47.7, 54.3) mm. Two patients developed fibrinolysis of the blood clot (dry socket) after receiving ibuprofen while none did this after paracetamol treatment. There was no noticeable difference between treatments with respect to appearance of haematomas/ecchymoses or adverse effects which all were classified as mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

A 3-day regimen of ibuprofen 600 mg x 4 daily does not offer any clinical advantages compared with a traditional paracetamol regimen 1000 mg x 4 daily with respect to alleviation of acute postoperative swelling and pain after third molar surgery.

Comparative effect of paracetamol, NSAIDs or their combination in postoperative pain management: a qualitative review

BACKGROUND

Quantitative reviews of postoperative pain management have demonstrated that the number of patients needed to treat for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief (NNT) is 2.7 for ibuprofen (400 mg) and 4.6 for paracetamol (1000 mg), both compared with placebo. However, direct comparisons between paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have not been extensively reviewed. The aims of this review are (i) to compare the analgesic and adverse effects of paracetamol with those of other NSAIDs in postoperative pain, (ii) to compare the effects of combined paracetamol and NSAID with those of either drug alone, and (iii) to discuss whether the adverse effects of NSAIDs in short-term use are justified by their analgesic effects, compared with paracetamol.

METHODS

Medline (1966 to January 2001) and the Cochrane Library (January 2001) were used to perform a systematic, qualitative review of postoperative pain studies comparing paracetamol (minimum 1000 mg) with NSAID in a double-blind, randomized manner. A quantitative review was not performed as too many studies of high scientific standard (27 out of 41 valid studies, including all major surgery studies) would have been excluded.

RESULTS

NSAIDs were clearly more effective in dental surgery, whereas the efficacy of NSAIDs and paracetamol seemed without substantial differences in major and orthopaedic surgery, although firm conclusions could not be made because the number of studies was limited. The addition of an NSAID to paracetamol may confer additional analgesic efficacy compared with paracetamol alone, and the limited data available also suggest that paracetamol may enhance analgesia when added to an NSAID, compared with NSAIDs alone.

CONCLUSION

Paracetamol is a viable alternative to the NSAIDs, especially because of the low incidence of adverse effects, and should be the preferred choice in high-risk patients. It may be appropriate to combine paracetamol with NSAIDs, but future studies are required, especially after major surgery, with specific focus on a potential increase in side-effects from their combined use.

Pain control with paracetamol from a sustained release formulation and a standard release formulation after third molar surgery: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of a sustained release (SR) paracetamol formulation (Panadol Extend) with a standard immediate release (IR) formulation (Panadol) after third molar surgery.

DESIGN

A multi-centre, double-blind, randomised clinical trial.

METHODS

Patients received either a single oral dose of SR paracetamol or IR paracetamol for pain after the removal of at least one impacted third molar requiring bone removal under general anaesthesia. Post-operative pain and pain relief assessments were undertaken at time intervals up to 8 hours. Global assessments of effectiveness were made at 4 and 8 hours. Any adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

Of 627 randomised patients, 314 were treated with SR paracetamol and 313 with IR paracetamol. In the per protocol population at 4 hours, 35.1% of the 252 patients on SR paracetamol rated the study medication as very good or excellent compared with 27.7% of the 258 patients on IR paracetamol. There were few statistically significant differences among the secondary parameters but where they did occur they favoured SR paracetamol. Trends in favour of SR paracetamol were observed among the secondary parameters and these tended to emerge at the later time points. For example, while there was no statistically significant difference in time to re-medication between the treatment groups, the estimated time to re-medication was longer for patients treated with SR paracetamol (4 hr 5 min) compared with IR paracetamol (3 hr 10 min). The high rate of re-medication observed is consistent with that reported for IR paracetamol using the post-operative dental pain model(4,6). No difference was observed between the SR paracetamol and IR paracetamol treatment groups in distribution, incidence or severity of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

SR paracetamol and IR paracetamol are clinically and statistically equivalent. While SR paracetamol and IR paracetamol were similar in terms of both onset of analgesia and peak analgesic effect, SR paracetamol had a longer duration of activity than IR paracetamol. The safety profiles of SR paracetamol and IR paracetamol were found to be very similar.

Ibuprofen liquigel for oral surgery pain

BACKGROUND

Ibuprofen liquigel is a solubilized potassium ibuprofen 200-mg gelatin capsule formulation that was approved for over-the-counter use in 1995.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen liquigel 200 mg, ibuprofen liquigel 400 mg, acetaminophen caplets 1000 mg, and placebo in patients experiencing moderate or severe pain after surgical removal of impacted third molars.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 6-hour study was conducted in 210 patients experiencing moderate or severe postoperative pain. Ratings of pain intensity and pain relief were recorded every 15 minutes for the first hour, at 90 and 120 minutes, and then hourly through hour 6. The onsets of first perceptible relief and meaningful relief were recorded using 2 stopwatches. An analysis of variance model was employed to test for significant differences (P < or = 0.05) between treatment groups with respect to pain relief, pain intensity difference, total pain relief (TOTPAR), and summed pain intensity difference (SPID). Stopwatch measures were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Drug tolerability was assessed by monitoring the occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

During the first 2 hours of the study (TOTPAR 2 and SPID 2), all active treatments were significantly more efficacious than placebo (P < 0.001), with ibuprofen liquigel 200 and 400 mg significantly more efficacious than acetaminophen 1000 mg (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). For the entire duration of the study (TOTPAR 6 and SPID 6), only the 2 doses of ibuprofen liquigel were significantly more efficacious than placebo (P < 0.001). Ibuprofen liquigel 200 and 400 mg were also significantly more efficacious than acetaminophen 1000 mg on the summary measures TOTPAR 6 and SPID 6 (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). Analysis of the stopwatch data revealed that all active treatments displayed significantly more rapid onsets to confirmed first perceptible relief (P < 0.001 to < 0.05) and meaningful relief (P < 0.001 to < 0.01) than did placebo, with ibuprofen liquigel 400 mg displaying a significantly more rapid onset to meaningful relief than acetaminophen 1000 mg (P < 0.05) and a significantly more rapid onset to confirmed first perceptible relief than acetaminophen 1000 mg (P < 0.001) and ibuprofen liquigel 200 mg (P < 0.01). All adverse events were considered mild or moderate, with an overall incidence of 11.5% in the ibuprofen liquigel 200-mg group, 6.8% in the ibuprofen liquigel 400-mg group, 19.0% in the acetaminophen 1000-mg group, and 25.9% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen liquigel provided greater peak and overall analgesic effects and a more rapid onset to analgesia than did acetaminophen 1000 mg.

Solubilized ibuprofen: evaluation of onset, relief, and safety of a novel formulation in the treatment of episodic tension-type headache

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative efficacy of a new solubilized formulation of ibuprofen compared with acetaminophen caplets.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, parallel group study evaluated 154 subjects taking a single dose of solubilized ibuprofen, 400 mg; acetaminophen, 1000 mg; or placebo for the relief of episodic tension-type headache. Time to relief was measured using a stopwatch, and overall efficacy was measured using traditional categorical pain and relief scales.

RESULTS

Ibuprofen capsules (liquigel), 400 mg, were significantly faster than both acetaminophen, 1000 mg, and placebo for all time-to-relief measures. Ibuprofen liquigel had a median time to first perceptible pain relief of 39 minutes compared with 47 minutes for acetaminophen and 113 minutes for placebo. For median time to meaningful relief, ibuprofen liquigel had a time of 39 minutes compared with 53 minutes for acetaminophen and more than 180 minutes for placebo (P</=.02 for both measures). In addition, ibuprofen liquigels demonstrated significantly superior overall analgesic efficacy compared with acetaminophen, 1000 mg, for the relief of episodic tension-type headache. Both active treatments had a side effect profile similar to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several other studies have demonstrated the overall analgesic superiority of ibuprofen to acetaminophen, this study demonstrated that the liquigel formulation also provides a clinically relevant advantage for time to analgesic effects.

Over-the-counter analgesics and antipyretics: a critical assessment

BACKGROUND

It is just 100 years since the introduction of aspirin to medicine. Since then, aspirin and its derivatives have been joined by acetaminophen, and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs--ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, and ketoprofen--as the only over-the-counter (OTC) agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the short-term treatment of pain, headache, dysmenorrhea, and fever. Recently the prescription use of aspirin has expanded to include a number of antiplatelet indications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to review critically the history, mechanisms of action, efficacy, and tolerability of OTC analgesic and antipyretic products. Relatively new and potential future indications for these drugs are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

Although all of the OTC analgesic/antipyretic agents seem to share a common mechanism of prostaglandin inhibition, there are important differences in their pharmacology, efficacy, and side-effect profiles. Considering their often-unsupervised use, the risk-benefit ratio of this class of drugs has been extremely favorable. However, when used inappropriately, even these drugs pose significant risks to certain patient populations.

Oral ibuprofen and diclofenac in post-operative pain: a quantitative systematic review

Surveys show consistently that pain is not treated well. Improvement depends on knowing which treatments are the most effective. We used systematic review to compare the relative efficacy of two common analgesics, ibuprofen and diclofenac, in post-operative pain. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 1996), EMBASE (1980 to Jan 1997), the Cochrane Library (Aug 1996), Biological Abstracts (Jan 1985 to Dec 1996) and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994). We sought randomised, controlled, single-dose comparisons of oral ibuprofen or diclofenac against placebo. Summed pain relief or pain intensity difference over 4-6 h was extracted and converted into dichotomous information yielding the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was then used to calculate the relative benefit and the number-needed-to-treat for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief. Thirty-four reports compared ibuprofen and placebo (3591 patients), six compared diclofenac with placebo (840 patients), and there were two direct comparisons of diclofenac 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg (130 patients). In post-operative pain, the numbers-needed-to-treat for ibuprofen 200 mg were 3.3 (95% confidence interval 2.8-4.0) compared with placebo, for ibuprofen 400 mg 2.7 (2.5-3.0), for ibuprofen 600 mg 2.4 (1.9-3.3), for diclofenac 50 mg 2.3 (2.0-2.7) and for diclofenac 100 mg 1.8 (1.5-2.1). Direct comparisons of diclofenac 50 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg showed no significant difference between the two. Both drugs worked well. Choosing between them is an issue of dose, safety and cost. Copyright 1998 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Single dose oral ibuprofen and diclofenac for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Ibuprofen and diclofenac are two widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) analgesics. It is therefore important to know which drug should be recommended for postoperative pain relief. This review seeks to compare the relative efficacy of the two drugs, and also considers the issues of safety and cost.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen and diclofenac in single oral doses for moderate to severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised trials were identified by searching Medline (1966 to December 1996), Embase (1980 to January 1997), the Cochrane Library (Issue 3 1996), Biological Abstracts (January 1985 to December 1996) and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994). Date of the most recent searches: July 1998.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria used were: full journal publication, postoperative pain, postoperative oral administration, adult patients, baseline pain of moderate to severe intensity, double-blind design, and random allocation to treatment groups which compared either ibuprofen or diclofenac with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and trials were quality scored. Summed pain relief or pain intensity difference over four to six hours was extracted, and converted into dichotomous information yielding the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was then used to calculate the relative benefit and the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four trials compared ibuprofen and placebo (3,591 patients), six compared diclofenac with placebo (840 patients) and there were two direct comparisons of diclofenac 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg (130 patients). In postoperative pain the NNTs for ibuprofen 200 mg were 3.3 (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 4.0) compared with placebo, for ibuprofen 400 mg 2.7 (2.5 to 3.0), for ibuprofen 600 mg 2.4 (1.9 to 3.3), for diclofenac 50 mg 2.3 (2.0 to 2.7) and for diclofenac 100 mg 1.8 (1.5 to 2.1). Direct comparisons of diclofenac 50 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg showed no significant difference between the two.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Both drugs work well. Choosing between them is an issue of dose, safety and cost.

Single dose paracetamol (acetaminophen), with and without codeine, for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Patient surveys have shown that postoperative pain is often not managed well, and there is a need to assess the efficacy and safety of commonly used analgesics as newer treatments become available. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is an important non-opiate analgesic, commonly prescribed, as well as being available for retail sale. This review seeks to examine the efficacy of paracetamol alone and in combination with codeine, and also considers adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single dose of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) alone and in combination with codeine for moderate to severe postoperative pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Published trials were identified from: Medline (1966 to May 1996), Embase (1980 to 1996), Cochrane Library (Issue 2 1996) and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994). Additional trials were identified from reference lists of retrieved studies. Date of most recent searches: July 1998.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: full journal publication, postoperative pain, postoperative oral administration, adult patients, baseline pain of moderate to severe intensity, double-blind design, and random allocation to treatment groups which compared paracetamol with placebo or a combination of paracetamol and codeine with either placebo or the same dose of paracetamol alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and trials were quality scored. Summed pain intensity and pain relief data were extracted and converted into dichotomous information to yield the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was used to calculate the relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours compared with placebo. Adverse effects were used to calculate relative risk and number-needed-to-harm (NNH).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 40 trials of paracetamol against placebo (4171 patients), 22 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against placebo (1407 patients) and 12 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against the same dose of paracetamol (794 patients). In postoperative pain paracetamol 1000 mg had an NNT of 4.6 (3.8-5.4) for at least 50% pain relief when compared with placebo, and paracetamol 600/650 mg had an NNT of 5.3 (4.1-7.2). Paracetamol 600/650 mg plus codeine 60 mg had an NNT of 3. 6 (2.9-4.5). Comparing paracetamol plus codeine 60 mg with the same dose of paracetamol alone gave an NNT of 7.7 (5.1-17) for at least 50% pain relief. Adverse effects: Relative risk estimates for paracetamol 600/650 mg plus codeine 60 mg versus placebo showed a significant difference for 'drowsiness'/somnolence (NNH 11 (7.5- 0)) and dizziness (NNH 27 (15-164)) but no significant difference for nausea/vomiting.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol is an effective analgesic with a low incidence of adverse effects. The addition of codeine 60 mg to paracetamol produces additional pain relief even in single oral doses, but may be accompanied by an increase in drowsiness and dizziness.

Tube placement: a prospective, randomized double-blind study

Bilateral myringotomy with tympanostomy tube placement is the second most frequently performed pediatric surgical procedure, next to circumcision. Postoperative pain relief for children undergoing this procedure has been an ongoing concern. The authors undertook a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study in 200 consecutive children to investigate the efficacy of oral acetaminophen, acetaminophen with codeine, ibuprofen, and placebo administered preoperatively in relieving postoperative pain in children undergoing this procedure. All children received topical analgesia consisting of antibiotic eardrops mixed with 4% lidocaine intraoperatively. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain score between the four groups (P > 0.4447). Thus it is likely that the intraoperative administration of antibiotic eardrops mixed with 4% lidocaine is all that is required to alleviate postoperative pain in children undergoing myringotomy with tympanostomy tube placement. Preoperative oral analgesics are apparently of little added benefit.