Efficacy and quality of ibuprofen and acetaminophen plus codeine analgesia

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.

Resolving Issues About Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Codeine in Combination Analgesic Drugs: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this systematic review is to reflect on assumptions in relation to codeine use in combination with other analgesics.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched according to the predetermined keywords and criteria. Only English language studies were taken into consideration and the outcome data of the final studies were extracted by two reviewers independently from each other and were checked by the third reviewer. Additionally, the available codeine-related Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) retrieved from EudraVigilance were reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixteen placebo-controlled studies that involved 3378 subjects suffering from acute pain were analyzed for the efficacy of low-dose codeine (≤ 30 mg) combination products. Twelve of them found low-dose codeine combinations more efficient in relieving pain than the assigned comparator. According to 20 randomized clinical trials which included at least one dose of codeine (from 30 to 240 mg daily), the vast majority of reported side-effects were mild or moderate in severity. A total of 20 ICSRs for dependence were identified in the EudraVigilance database with codeine as a suspect drug for the 10-year time period for the European region.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose codeine combinations are effective after a single application in treating acute pain. Codeine in doses ≤ 30 mg and higher was considered safe since only mild to moderate side-effects were observed. There is no indication in the available sources which clearly links low doses of codeine to substance use disorder in non-dependent subjects.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-dose Codeine-containing Combination Analgesics for Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of combination analgesic products containing low-dose codeine (up to 30 mg/dose) for pain.

METHODS

Electronic databases were used to identify eligible placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Data were pooled using a random-effects model with the strength of evidence assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The primary outcome was immediate pain relief (3 hours post administration) on a 0 to 100 pain scale.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were eligible. There is low-quality evidence (4 RCTs, n=211 participants) that a single dose of a combination analgesic product (with an nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) containing low-dose codeine (15 to 30 mg) provides small pain relief for acute dental pain (mean difference [MD], -12.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -18.5 to -6.9) and moderate-quality evidence (1 RCT, n=93) of small pain relief for post-episiotomy pain and orthopedic surgery pain (MD,, -10.0; 95% CI, -19.0 to -1.0 and MD, -11.0; 95% CI, -20.7 to -1.3), respectively. There is low-quality evidence (1 RCT, n=80) that a multiple-dose regimen provides small pain relief for acute pain following photorefractive keratectomy (MD, -16.0; 95% CI, -24.5 to -7.5) and moderate-quality evidence of moderate pain relief for certain chronic pain conditions: for hip osteoarthritis (MD, -19.0; 95% CI, -31.2 to -6.8) and for temporomandibular joint pain (MD, -26.0; 95% CI, -44.5 to -7.5). Two studies reported a higher incidence of drowsiness in the treatment group compared with the placebo group (relative risk, 8.50; 95% CI, 1.96, 36.8 and 19.3; 95% CI, 1.2-306.5, respectively).

DISCUSSION

There is low to moderate level evidence that combination analgesic products containing low-dose codeine provide small to moderate pain relief for acute and chronic pain conditions in the immediate short term with limited trial data on use beyond 24 hours. Further research examining regular use of these medicines is needed with more emphasis on measuring potential harmful effects.

Do nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs affect the outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair?

To achieve pain control after arthroscopic shoulder surgery, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a complement to other analgesics. However, experimental studies have raised concerns that these drugs may have a detrimental effect on soft tissue-to-bone healing and, thus, have a negative effect on the outcome. We wanted to investigate if there are any differences in the clinical outcome after the arthroscopic Bankart procedure for patients who received NSAIDs prescription compared with those who did not. 477 patients with a primary arthroscopic Bankart procedure were identified in the Norwegian shoulder instability register and included in the study. 32.5% received prescription of NSAIDs post-operatively. 370 (78%) of the patients answered a follow-up questionnaire containing the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index (WOSI). Mean follow-up was 21 months. WOSI at follow-up were 75% in the NSAID group and 74% in the control group. 12% of the patients in the NSAID group and 14% in the control group reported recurrence of instability. The reoperation rate was 5% in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Prescription of short-term post-operative NSAID treatment in the post-operative period did not influence on the functional outcome after arthroscopic Bankart procedures.

[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.

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) with codeine for postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 1998. Combining drugs from different classes with different modes of action may offer opportunity to optimise efficacy and tolerability, using lower doses of each drug to achieve the same degree of pain relief. Previously we concluded that addition of codeine to paracetamol provided additional pain relief, but at expense of additional adverse events. New studies have been published since. This review sought to evaluate efficacy and safety of paracetamol plus codeine using current data, and compare findings with other analgesics evaluated similarly.

OBJECTIVES

Assess efficacy of single dose oral paracetamol plus codeine in acute postoperative pain, increase in efficacy due to the codeine component, and associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database in October 2008 for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of paracetamol plus codeine, compared with placebo or the same dose of paracetamol alone, for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies, with 2295 participants, were included comparing paracetamol plus codeine with placebo. Significant dose response was seen for the outcome of at least 50% pain relief over four-to-six hours, with NNTs of 2.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.9) for 800 to 1000 mg paracetamol plus 60 mg codeine, 3.9 (2.9 to 4.5) for 600 to 650 mg paracetamol plus 60 mg codeine, and 6.9 (4.8 to 12) for 300 mg paracetamol plus 30 mg codeine. Time to use of rescue medication was over four hours with paracetamol plus codeine and two hours with placebo. The NNT to prevent remedication was 5.6 (4.0 to 9.0) for 600 mg paracetamol plus 60 mg codeine over four to six hours. Adverse events increased of mainly mild to moderate severity with paracetamol plus codeine than placebo.Fourteen studies, with 926 participants, were included in the comparison of paracetamol plus codeine with the same dose of paracetamol alone. Addition of codeine increased proportion of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four-to-six hours by 10 to 15%, increased time to use of rescue medication by about one hour, and reduced proportion of participants needing rescue medication by about 15% (NNT to prevent remedication 6.9 (4.2 to 19). Adverse events were mainly mild to moderate in severity and incidence did not differ between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update confirms previous findings that combining paracetamol with codeine provided clinically useful levels of pain relief in about 50% of patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain, compared with under 20% with placebo. New information for remedication shows that the combination extended the duration of analgesia by about one hour compared to treatment with the same dose of paracetamol alone. At higher doses, more participants experienced adequate pain relief, but the amount of information available for the 1000 mg paracetamol plus 60 mg codeine dose was small, and based on limited information.

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.

Paracetamol versus paracetamol-codeine in the treatment of post-operative dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Codeine is frequently added to paracetamol to treat post-operative dento-alveolar pain; studies have shown effectiveness in relief of post-operative pain at high doses but at the expense of central nervous and gastrointestinal side effects. There has been no trial to compare the efficacy and safety of paracetamol 1000 mg with paracetamol 1000 mg combined with codeine 30 mg.

METHOD

A randomized, single centre, double-blind prospective parallel group trial was performed to compare paracetamol 1000 mg with paracetamol 1000 mg with codeine 30 mg for the relief of pain following surgical removal of impacted third molars, and analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Eighty-two patients were assigned randomly to receive either drug for a maximum of three doses. Patients recorded their pain intensity one hour after surgery and hourly thereafter for 12 hours.

RESULTS

The average increase in pain intensity over 12 hours was significantly less in patients receiving paracetamol plus codeine than in those receiving paracetamol alone (p=0.03) -1.81 cm/h compared with 0.45 cm/h - a difference of 1.13 cm/h (95 per cent CI: 0.18 to 2.08). Of the patients who received the paracetamol codeine combination, 62 per cent used escape medication compared with 75 per cent of those on paracetamol alone (p=0.20). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events (p=0.5).

CONCLUSION

A combination of 1000 mg paracetamol and 30 mg codeine was significantly more effective in controlling pain for 12 hours following third molar removal, with no significant difference of side effects during the 12 hour period studied.

Pharmacology of oral combination analgesics: rational therapy for pain

No single analgesic agent is perfect and no single analgesic can treat all types of pain. Yet each agent has distinct advantages and disadvantages compared to the others. Hence, clinical outcomes might be improved under certain conditions with the use of a combination of analgesics, rather than reliance on a single agent. A combination is most effective when the individual agents act through different analgesic mechanisms and act synergistically. By activating multiple pain-inhibitory pathways, combination analgesics can provide more effective pain relief for a broader spectrum of pain, and might also reduce adverse drug reactions. This overview highlights the therapeutic potential of combining analgesic medications with different mechanisms of action, particularly a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or acetaminophen with an opioid or tramadol.

Using evidence from different sources: an example using paracetamol 1000 mg plus codeine 60 mg

BACKGROUND

Meta-analysis usually restricts the information pooled, for instance using only randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. This neglects other types of high quality information. This review explores using different information for the combination of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg in acute postoperative pain.

RESULTS

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg had an NNT of 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.9) for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours in three trials with 197 patients. Computer simulation of randomised trials demonstrated 92% confidence that the simulated NNT was within +/- 0.5 of the underlying value of 2.2 with this number of patients. The result was supported a rational dose-response relationship for different doses of paracetamol and codeine in 17 additional trials with 1,195 patients. Three controlled trials lacking a placebo and with 117 patients treated with of paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg had 73% (95%CI 56% to 81%) of patients with at least 50% pain relief, compared with 57% (48% to 66%) in placebo controlled trials. Six trials in acute pain were omitted because of design issues, like the use of different pain measures or multiple dosing regimens. In each paracetamol 1000 mg and codeine 60 mg was shown to be better than placebo or comparators for at least one measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Different designs of high quality trials can be used to support limited information used in meta-analysis without recourse to low quality trials that might be biased.

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.

Analgesic efficacy of paracetamol and its combination with codeine and caffeine in surgical pain--a meta-analysis

The objective of this study was to quantify the analgesic efficacy of paracetamol and its combination with codeine or caffeine through a systematic overview and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic retrieval of relevant clinical trials was carried out using computerized searches, historical searches and communication with manufacturers. The results of RCTs were pooled to estimate (i) the difference in percentage improvement of total pain relief (TOTPAR%) and the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID%); (ii) the proportions of patients obtaining moderate to excellent pain relief relative to placebo (ResRR) and (iii) the ratio of patients requiring analgesic re-medication (RemRR). Head-to-head comparisons were also undertaken for paracetamol versus its combination with codeine or caffeine. A total of 80 RCT reports describing 103 placebo comparisons and 26 head-to-head comparisons were identified. The total pain relief score in the single dose studies increased by 38 percentage points for paracetamol and by 24 points for placebo. The difference (d) in TOTPAR% between the two was highly significant (d = 14, 95% CI: 12, 16). For the difference in SPID%, d = 12, 95% CI: 11, 13. Patients were more than twice as likely to obtain moderate to excellent pain relief on paracetamol than on placebo (ResRR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.89, 3.02), and less likely to require re-medication (RemRR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.88). There was no significant (P > 0.05) dose-response relationship. The analgesic efficacy of paracetamol 600 mg was enhanced with the addition of codeine 60 mg (using TOTPAR% as outcome) in both indirect and head-to-head comparisons. SPID%, but not ResRR and RemRR, data supported this conclusion. Much weaker effects were observed with the caffeine combination. Adverse effects were mild. Surprisingly, drowsiness was seen more often with paracetamol and paracetamol-codeine combinations than with placebo. The relative risks (95% CI) were 1.83 (1.29, 2.59) and 2.39 (1.58, 3.57), respectively. In conclusion paracetamol is an effective analgesic for post-surgical pain. Caffeine adds little to the analgesic effect of paracetamol. However, there is some evidence that codeine 60 mg adds to the analgesic effects of paracetamol 600 mg, using pain relief or pain intensity scores as outcomes, but this is not necessarily translated into an increase in number of patients who obtain moderate to excellent pain relief.

Blood pressure reactivity and perception of pain during the forehead cold pressor test

The relationship between blood pressure reactivity and the perception of pain was examined during a series of three forehead cold pressor tests given every other day to a group of 18 male college students. Subjects classified as high reactors on the basis of peak increases in mean blood pressure during cold pressor tests perceived the cold pressor stimulus as more painful than subjects classified as low reactors. The propensity to rate the cold pressor stimulus as painful was positively correlated with the individual level of blood pressure reactivity (baseline-free partial r = .62). Intra-individual correlations between pain and blood pressure responses were unrelated to subjects' reactivity status. Across the 3-min test, correlations between pain and blood pressure reactivity (with the effects of baseline blood pressure levels partialled out) were significant only during periods when levels of responses were relatively high. The heart rate responses were unrelated to pain ratings. Generalizability theory was applied to the analysis of temporal stability of cold pressor reactions. Both blood pressure and pain responses were highly reproducible across three sessions, appearing to express stable individual differences. The efficacy of 800 mg oral ibuprofen in controlling the cold pressor pain was also tested. Analgesic activity of the drug during the cold pressor test could not be demonstrated.

Codeine plus paracetamol versus paracetamol in longer-term treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hip. A randomised, double-blind, multi-centre study

This randomized, double-blind, multi-centre study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment for 4 weeks with codeine plus paracetamol versus paracetamol in relieving chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hip. A total of 158 outclinic patients entered the study. Eighty-three patients (mean age 66 years) were treated with codeine 60 mg plus paracetamol 1 g 3 times daily, and 75 patients (mean age 67 years) with paracetamol 1 g 3 times daily. Ibuprofen 400 mg was prescribed as rescue medication. Due to an unexpected high rate of adverse drug reactions, the study was closed before the planned 400 patients had entered. Over weeks 1-4, 87%, 64%, 61% and 52% of patients in the codeine plus paracetamol group, and 38%, 31%, 22% and 29% of patients in the paracetamol group had one or more adverse drug reactions. Significantly more patients in the codeine plus paracetamol group had adverse drug reactions in each of the 4 weeks. Nausea, dizziness, vomiting and constipation were predominant adverse reactions in the codeine plus paracetamol group. During the first week of treatment, 30 patients (36%) in the codeine plus paracetamol group and 9 (12%) in the paracetamol group dropped out. As evaluated from patients completing the first week of treatment, the pain intensity during that week compared to their baseline pain was significantly lower in the codeine plus paracetamol group than in the paracetamol group. Moreover, during the first week the paracetamol group received rescue medicine significantly more frequently. In conclusion, when evaluated after 7 days of treatment, the daily addition of codeine 180 mg to paracetamol 3 g significantly reduced the intensity of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hip joint. However, several adverse drug reactions, mainly of the gastrointestinal tract, and the larger number of patients withdrawing from treatment means that the addition of such doses of codeine cannot be recommended for longer-term treatment of chronic pain in elderly patients.