Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or combined, for pain relief in acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood infectious diseases. Pain is the key symptom of AOM and central to children's and parents' experience of the illness. Because antibiotics provide only marginal benefits, analgesic treatment including paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is regarded as the cornerstone of AOM management. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs, alone or combined, compared with placebo or no treatment in relieving pain in children with AOM. Our secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of NSAIDs as compared with paracetamol in children with AOM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 5, April 2023; MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to May 2023), Embase (from 1947 to May 2023), CINAHL (from 1981 to May 2023), LILACS (from 1982 to May 2023), and Web of Science Core Collection (from 1955 to May 2023). We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for completed and ongoing trials (23 May 2023).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for pain relief in non-hospitalised children aged six months to 16 years with AOM. We also included trials of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for children with fever or upper respiratory tract infections if we were able to extract subgroup data on pain relief in children with AOM either directly or after obtaining additional data from study authors. We extracted and summarised data for the following comparisons: paracetamol versus placebo, NSAIDs versus placebo, NSAIDs versus paracetamol, and NSAIDs plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We rated the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials (411 children) which were assessed at low to high risk of bias. Paracetamol versus placebo Data from one trial (148 children) informed this comparison. Paracetamol may be more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (proportion of children with pain 10% versus 25%, risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on fever at 48 hours (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.12; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.93; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for our other outcomes of interest. NSAIDs versus placebo Data from one trial (146 children) informed this comparison. Ibuprofen may be more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (proportion of children with pain 7% versus 25%, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; NNTB 6; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen on fever at 48 hours (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.57; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.10; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for our other outcomes of interest. NSAIDs versus paracetamol Data from four trials (411 children) informed this comparison. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol in relieving ear pain at 24 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; 3 RCTs, 183 children; low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.23; 2 RCTs, 38 children; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on mean pain score at 24 hours (0.29 lower, 95% CI 0.79 lower to 0.20 higher; 3 RCTs, 111 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (0.25 lower, 95% CI 0.66 lower to 0.16 higher; 3 RCTs, 108 children; very low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (0.30 higher, 95% CI 1.78 lower to 2.38 higher; 2 RCTs, 31 children; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol in resolving fever at 24 hours (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.00; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence); 48 to 72 hours (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.44; 3 RCTs, 182 children; low-certainty evidence); and four to seven days (RR 2.75, 95% CI 0.12 to 60.70; 2 RCTs, 39 children; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.90; 3 RCTs, 281 children; very low-certainty evidence); reconsultations (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 53 children; very low-certainty evidence); and delayed antibiotic prescriptions (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 53 children; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available on time to resolution of pain. NSAIDs plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone Data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone came from two trials that provided crude subgroup data for 71 children with AOM. The small sample provided imprecise effect estimates, therefore we were unable to draw any firm conclusions (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite explicit guideline recommendations on the use of analgesics in children with AOM, the current evidence on the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, in children with AOM is limited. Paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies may be more effective than placebo in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM. The evidence is very uncertain for the effect of ibuprofen versus paracetamol on relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM, as well as for the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone, thereby preventing any firm conclusions. Further research is needed to provide insights into the role of ibuprofen as adjunct to paracetamol, and other analgesics such as anaesthetic eardrops, for children with AOM.

Immediate oral versus immediate topical versus delayed oral antibiotics for children with acute otitis media with discharge: the REST three-arm non-inferiority electronic platform-supported RCT

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media is a painful infection of the middle ear that is commonly seen in children. In some children, the eardrum spontaneously bursts, discharging visible pus (otorrhoea) into the outer ear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of immediate topical antibiotics or delayed oral antibiotics with the clinical effectiveness of immediate oral antibiotics in reducing symptom duration in children presenting to primary care with acute otitis media with discharge and the economic impact of the alternative strategies.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, three-arm, individually randomised (stratified by age < 2 vs. ≥ 2 years), non-inferiority, open-label trial, with economic and qualitative evaluations, supported by a health-record-integrated electronic trial platform [TRANSFoRm (Translational Research and Patient Safety in Europe)] with an internal pilot.

SETTING

A total of 44 English general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged ≥ 12 months and < 16 years whose parents (or carers) were seeking medical care for unilateral otorrhoea (ear discharge) following recent-onset (≤ 7 days) acute otitis media.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) Immediate ciprofloxacin (0.3%) solution, four drops given three times daily for 7 days, or (2) delayed 'dose-by-age' amoxicillin suspension given three times daily (clarithromycin twice daily if the child was penicillin allergic) for 7 days, with structured delaying advice. All parents were given standardised information regarding symptom management (paracetamol/ibuprofen/fluids) and advice to complete the course.

COMPARATOR

Immediate 'dose-by-age' oral amoxicillin given three times daily (or clarithromycin given twice daily) for 7 days. Parents received standardised symptom management advice along with advice to complete the course.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time from randomisation to the first day on which all symptoms (pain, fever, being unwell, sleep disturbance, otorrhoea and episodes of distress/crying) were rated 'no' or 'very slight' problem (without need for analgesia).

METHODS

Participants were recruited from routine primary care appointments. The planned sample size was 399 children. Follow-up used parent-completed validated symptom diaries.

RESULTS

Delays in software deployment and configuration led to small recruitment numbers and trial closure at the end of the internal pilot. Twenty-two children (median age 5 years; 62% boys) were randomised: five, seven and 10 to immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotics, respectively. All children received prescriptions as randomised. Seven (32%) children fully adhered to the treatment as allocated. Symptom duration data were available for 17 (77%) children. The median (interquartile range) number of days until symptom resolution in the immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotic arms was 6 (4-9), 4 (3-7) and 4 (3-6), respectively. Comparative analyses were not conducted because of small numbers. There were no serious adverse events and six reports of new or worsening symptoms. Qualitative clinician interviews showed that the trial question was important. When the platform functioned as intended, it was liked. However, staff reported malfunctioning software for long periods, resulting in missed recruitment opportunities. Troubleshooting the software placed significant burdens on staff.

LIMITATIONS

The over-riding weakness was the failure to recruit enough children.

CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to answer the main research question because of a failure to reach the required sample size. Our experience of running an electronic platform-supported trial in primary care has highlighted challenges from which we have drawn recommendations for the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the research community. These should be considered before such a platform is used again.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12873692 and EudraCT 2017-003635-10.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A multi-centre, pragmatic, three-arm, individually randomised, non-inferiority, open trial to compare immediate orally administered, immediate topically administered or delayed orally administered antibiotics for acute otitis media with discharge in children: The Runny Ear Study (REST): study protocol

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common painful infection in children, with around 2.8 million cases presenting to primary care in England and Wales annually. Nearly all children who present to their general practitioner (GP) with AOM or AOM with discharge (AOMd) are treated with orally administered antibiotics. These can cause side effects; contribute to the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance, and more rarely, allergic reactions. Alternative treatments, such as an antibiotic eardrops, or 'delayed' orally administered antibiotics, could be at least as effective and safe as immediate orally administered antibiotics for children with AOMd.

METHODS/DESIGN

REST is a pragmatic, three-arm, individually randomised, non-inferiority trial being conducted in 175 GP practices across the United Kingdom (UK). The study aims to recruit 399 children aged (≥ 12 months and < 16 years) presenting to their GP with AOMd. Children will be randomised to one of three arms: immediate ciprofloxacin 0.3% eardrops; delayed orally administered amoxicillin (clarithromycin if penicillin allergic) or immediate orally administered amoxicillin (clarithromycin). Recruitment, including eligibility screening, randomisation and data collection, are conducted using the innovative, TRANSFoRm electronic trial management platform. Integrated within the primary care electronic medical records it provides automatic eligibility checking, part-filling of e-CRFs, study workflow management and routine NHS follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is time to resolution of all significant symptoms and will be collected by the parent using a Symptom Recovery Questionnaire (SRQ). Secondary outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, duration of moderately bad or worse symptoms and repeat AOMd episodes, will be collected at day-14 and at 3 months.

DISCUSSION

It is unclear whether prescribing orally administered antibiotics to children with AOMd results in a reduction in symptoms or a shorter duration of illness. The REST trial should allow us to compare the non-inferiority of: immediate topically administered ciprofloxacin ear drops, or delayed orally administered amoxicillin (clarithromycin) against immediate orally administered amoxicillin (clarithromycin). We aim to recruit 399 patients from 175 practices in the UK. Using the TRANSFoRm software to randomise participants to the trial will enable recruitment for a relatively uncommon condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of Registry: ISCRTN Registration Number: ISRCTN12873692. This contains all items required to comply with the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set Date of Registration: 24 April 2018 Name of Registry: EudraCT Registration Number: 2017-003635-10 Date of Registration: 6 September 2017.

Qualitative interview study of antibiotics and self-management strategies for respiratory infections in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To explore perceptions of illness, the decisions to consult and the acceptability of delayed antibiotic prescriptions and self-help treatments for respiratory tract infections (RTIs).

DESIGN

Qualitative semistructured interview study.

SETTING

UK primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

20 adult patients who had been participating in the 'PIPS' (Pragmatic Ibuprofen Paracetamol and Steam) trial in the South of England.

METHOD

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with participants to explore their experiences and views on various treatments for RTI.

RESULTS

Participants had concerns about symptoms that were not clinically serious and were mostly unaware of the natural history of RTIs, but were aware of the limitations of antibiotics and did not expect them with every consultation. Most viewed delayed prescriptions positively and had no strong preference over which technique is used to deliver the delayed antibiotic, but some patients received mixed messages, such as being told their infection was viral then being given an antibiotic, or were sceptical about the rationale. Participants disliked self-help treatments that involved taking medication and were particularly concerned about painkillers in combination. Steam inhalation was viewed as only moderately helpful for mild symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Delayed prescribing is acceptable no matter how the delay is operationalised, but explanation of the rationale is needed and care taken to minimise mixed messages about the severity of illnesses and causation by viruses or bacteria. Better access is needed to good natural history information, and the signs and symptoms requiring or not requiring general practitioner advice. Significant concerns about paracetamol, ibuprofen and steam inhalation are likely to need careful exploration in the consultation.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or combined, for pain relief in acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood infectious diseases and a significant reason for antibiotic prescriptions in children worldwide. Pain from middle ear infection and pressure behind the eardrum is the key symptom of AOM. Ear pain is central to children's and parents' experience of the illness. Because antibiotics provide only marginal benefits, analgesic treatment including paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is regarded as the cornerstone of AOM management in children.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs, alone or combined, compared with placebo or no treatment in relieving pain in children with AOM. Our secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of NSAIDs compared with paracetamol in children with AOM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 7, July 2016; MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to August 2016), Embase (from 1947 to August 2016), CINAHL (from 1981 to August 2016), LILACS (from 1982 to August 2016) and Web of Science (from 1955 to August 2016) for published trials. We screened reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional trials. We searched WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR) for completed and ongoing trials (search date 19 August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for pain relief in children with AOM. We also included trials of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for children with fever or upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) if we were able to extract subgroup data on pain relief in children with AOM either directly or after obtaining additional data from study authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality of the included trials and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (327 children) which were assessed at low to moderate risk of bias.One RCT included 219 children with AOM, and used a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design to compare paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus placebo. All children also received antibiotics and those with fever > 39 °C could have received paracetamol (30 mg to 60 mg) additionally to the studied treatments.Another RCT involved 156 febrile children (26 of whom had AOM). The study design was a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol.The third RCT included 889 children with respiratory tract infections (82 of whom had AOM). This study applied a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial, open-label design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol. Study participants were randomised to one of the three treatment groups as well as two dosing groups (regular versus as required) and two steam inhalation groups (steam versus no steam).Authors of two RCTs provided crude subgroup data on children with AOM. We used data from the remaining trial to inform comparison of paracetamol versus placebo (148 children) and ibuprofen versus placebo (146 children) assessments. Data from all included RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen versus paracetamol (183 children); data from the two RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone (71 children).We found evidence, albeit of low quality, that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies were more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (paracetamol versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 10% versus 25%, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 7; ibuprofen versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 7% versus 25%, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Very low quality evidence suggested that adverse events did not significantly differ between children treated with either paracetamol, ibuprofen or placebo.We found insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving ear pain at 24 hours (2 RCTs, 39 children; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; very low quality evidence), 48 to 72 hours (3 RCTs, 183 children; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; low quality evidence) and four to seven days (2 RCTs, 38 children; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.23; very low quality evidence).Data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone came from two RCTs that provided crude subgroup data for 71 children with AOM. The small sample provided imprecise effect estimates and we were consequently unable to draw any firm conclusions (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite explicit guideline recommendations on its use, current evidence on the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, in relieving pain in children with AOM is limited. Low quality evidence indicates that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies are more effective than placebo in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM. There is insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM, whereas data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone were insufficient to draw any firm conclusions. Further research is needed to provide insights into the role of ibuprofen as adjunct to paracetamol, and other analgesics such as anaesthetic eardrops, for children with AOM.

A practical approach to the treatment of low-risk childhood fever

Fever is a common symptom of childhood infections that in itself does not require treatment. The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises home-based antipyretic treatment for low-risk feverish children only if the child appears distressed. The recommended antipyretics are ibuprofen or paracetamol (acetaminophen). They are equally recommended for the distressed, feverish child; therefore, healthcare professionals, parents and caregivers need to decide which of these agents to administer if the child is distressed. This narrative literature review examines recent data on ibuprofen and paracetamol in feverish children to determine any clinically relevant differences between these agents. The data suggest that these agents have similar safety profiles in this setting and in the absence of underlying health issues, ibuprofen seems to be more effective than paracetamol at reducing NICE’s treatment criterion, ‘distress’ (as assessed by discomfort levels, symptom relief, and general behavior).

Can oral corticosteroids reduce the severity or duration of an acute cough, and the associated National Health Service and societal costs, in adults presenting to primary care? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is one of the most common conditions managed internationally and is costly to health services and patients. Despite good evidence that antibiotics are not effective for improving the symptoms of uncomplicated LRTI, they are widely prescribed, contributing to antimicrobial resistance. Many of the symptoms observed in LRTI are mediated by inflammatory processes also observed in exacerbations of asthma, for which there is strong evidence of corticosteroid effectiveness. The primary aim of the OSAC (Oral Steroids for Acute Cough) Trial is to determine whether oral prednisolone (40 mg daily for 5 days) can reduce the duration of moderately bad (or worse) cough and the severity of all its associated symptoms on days 2 to 4 post-randomisation (day 1 is trial entry) by at least 20% in adults ≥18 years with acute LRTI presenting to primary care.

METHODS/DESIGN

OSAC is a two-arm, multi-centre, placebo-controlled, randomised superiority trial. The target sample size is 436 patients, which allows for a 20% dropout rate. Patients will be recruited from primary care sites (General Practitioner surgeries) across England and followed up until symptom resolution. The two primary clinical outcomes are the duration of moderately bad (or worse) cough, and the severity of all its associated symptoms on days 2 to 4 post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: antibiotic consumption; symptom burden; adverse events; participant satisfaction with treatment and intention to consult for future similar illnesses. A parallel economic evaluation will investigate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

DISCUSSION

Results from the OSAC trial will increase knowledge regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of corticosteroids for LRTI, and will establish the potential of a new treatment option that could substantially improve patient health. We have chosen a relatively high 'efficacy dose' as this will enable us to decide on the potential for further research into lower dose oral and/or inhaled corticosteroids. This trial will also contribute to a growing body of research investigating the natural course of this very common illness, as well as the effects of steroids on the undesirable inflammatory symptoms associated with infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57309858 (31 January 2013).

An evaluation of the impact and costs of three strategies used to recruit acutely unwell young children to a randomised controlled trial in primary care

Background

Recruitment to primary care trials, particularly those involving young children, is known to be difficult. There are limited data available to inform researchers about the effectiveness of different trial recruitment strategies and their associated costs.

Purpose

To describe, evaluate, and investigate the costs of three strategies for recruiting febrile children to a community-based randomised trial of antipyretics.

Methods

The three recruitment strategies used in the trial were termed as follows: (1) ‘local’, where paediatric research nurses stationed in primary care sites invited parents of children to participate; (2) ‘remote’, where clinicians at primary care sites faxed details of potentially eligible children to the trial office; and (3) ‘community’, where parents, responding to trial publicity, directly contacted the trial office when their child was unwell.

Results

Recruitment rates increased in response to the sequential introduction of three recruitment strategies, which were supplemented by additional recruiting staff, flexible staff work patterns, and improved clinician reimbursement schemes. The three strategies yielded different randomisation rates. They also appeared to be interdependent and highly effective together. Strategy-specific costs varied from £297 to £857 per randomised participant and represented approximately 10% of the total trial budget.

Limitations

Because the recruitment strategies were implemented sequentially, it was difficult to measure their independent effects. The cost analysis was performed retrospectively.

Conclusions

Trial recruiter expertise and deployment of several interdependent, illness-specific strategies were key factors in achieving rapid recruitment of young children to a community-based randomised controlled trial (RCT). The ‘remote’ recruitment strategy was shown to be more cost-effective compared to ‘community’ and ‘local’ strategies in the context of this trial. Future trialists should report recruitment costs to facilitate a transparent evaluation of recruitment strategy cost-effectiveness.

Missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the current state of play

Randomised controlled trial (RCT)-based cost-effectiveness analyses, which are prone to missing data, are increasingly used in healthcare technology assessment. This has highlighted the need for appropriate methodological approaches to the handling of missing data. This paper reviews missing data methodology used in RCT-based cost-effectiveness analyses since 2003. Complete case analysis, which may lead to inappropriate conclusions, is still the most popular approach and its use has increased with time. The degree of missing data in cost-effectiveness analyses was often poorly reported and the methodology was often unclear. Reporting of missing data sensitivity analyses would improve article transparency.

Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether paracetamol (acetaminophen) plus ibuprofen are superior to either drug alone for increasing time without fever and the relief of fever associated discomfort in febrile children managed at home.

DESIGN

Individually randomised, blinded, three arm trial.

SETTING

Primary care and households in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged between 6 months and 6 years with axillary temperatures of at least 37.8 degrees C and up to 41.0 degrees C.

INTERVENTION

Advice on physical measures to reduce temperature and the provision of, and advice to give, paracetamol plus ibuprofen, paracetamol alone, or ibuprofen alone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were the time without fever (<37.2 degrees C) in the first four hours after the first dose was given and the proportion of children reported as being normal on the discomfort scale at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were time to first occurrence of normal temperature (fever clearance), time without fever over 24 hours, fever associated symptoms, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

On an intention to treat basis, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol for less time with fever in the first four hours (adjusted difference 55 minutes, 95% confidence interval 33 to 77; P<0.001) and may have been as good as ibuprofen (16 minutes, -7 to 39; P=0.2). For less time with fever over 24 hours, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol (4.4 hours, 2.4 to 6.3; P<0.001) and to ibuprofen (2.5 hours, 0.6 to 4.4; P=0.008). Combined therapy cleared fever 23 minutes (2 to 45; P=0.025) faster than paracetamol alone but no faster than ibuprofen alone (-3 minutes, 18 to -24; P=0.8). No benefit was found for discomfort or other symptoms, although power was low for these outcomes. Adverse effects did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Parents, nurses, pharmacists, and doctors wanting to use medicines to supplement physical measures to maximise the time that children spend without fever should use ibuprofen first and consider the relative benefits and risks of using paracetamol plus ibuprofen over 24 hours.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26362730.