A double-blind comparison of ibuprofen, ASA-codeine-caffeine compound and placebo in the treatment of dental surgery pain

Analgesic efficacy of naproxen sodium versus hydrocodone/acetaminophen in acute postsurgical dental pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Opioid/acetaminophen combinations may be overly prescribed in many post-surgical situations where a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with equal or greater efficacy, fewer central nervous system side effects, and no risk for opioid abuse could be substituted. We compared a single, non-prescription dose of naproxen sodium 440 mg (NapS) against hydrocodone plus acetaminophen 10/650 mg (HYD+APAP) in post-impaction surgery pain.

METHODS

Single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in moderate-severe pain after surgical removal of impacted third molars (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04307940). Patients (n = 212) received NapS, HYD+APAP, or placebo and were assessed over 12 hours. Primary endpoint: summed pain intensity difference from 0 to 12 hours (SPID_0-12). Secondary endpoints: pain intensity, pain relief, time to rescue medication, duration of pain at least half gone. Others: onset of pain relief, global assessment of treatment, adverse events.

RESULTS

All 221 randomized patients formed the safety population and were included in the intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis. Nine patients discontinued treatment or had protocol violations, and 212 patients were included in the per-protocol, primary efficacy population. Both active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo. NapS was significantly more effective than HYD+APAP regarding SPID_0-12 (p = 0.01; primary endpoint), total pain relief (0-6 and 0-12 hours; p < 0.05), time to rescue medication (p < 0.001), and duration of pain at least half gone (p < 0.001). HYD+APAP was not statistically superior to NapS for any endpoint. More adverse events were reported with HYD+APAP (n = 63) than NapS (n = 2) and placebo (n = 20), including nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.

CONCLUSION

In moderate-to-severe postsurgical dental pain, a single dose of NapS was at least as effective as HYD+APAP in the early hours, significantly more effective at reducing pain intensity and providing greater pain relief over 12 hours, and was better tolerated. When not contraindicated, NapS should be considered a preferred alternative to opioid combinations for acute pain. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04307940; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04307940).

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.

[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 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.

Efficacy and quality of ibuprofen and acetaminophen plus codeine analgesia

Ibuprofen, 400 mg, was compared with 300 mg acetaminophen plus 30 mg of codeine and placebo in 120 post-orthopedic surgery patients with moderate to severe pain. The study was designed as a double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group analgesic efficacy assay. Estimates of analgesia were obtained up to 6 h using categorical and visual analog measures of pain intensity and pain relief. Estimates of selected elements of mood and of sensory and affective components of pain were obtained at 0 and 2 h using contrasting mood word/phrase pairs and a portion of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, respectively. Drugs were distinguishable from placebo in total analgesic effect, and ibuprofen was more effective than acetaminophen plus codeine, especially in terms of duration. While peak effects were comparable, they occurred 1 h later following ibuprofen. Differences among treatments were more discernible using visual analog measures. Side effects were minimal. Ibuprofen provided greater improvement in selected elements of mood than acetaminophen plus codeine at comparable levels of pain relief. While decreases in the sensory component of pain were most highly associated with pain relief provided by ibuprofen, decreases in the affective component were most highly associated with pain relief following acetaminophen plus codeine. These latter results indicate that mood assessment and the discrimination between sensory and affective components of pain could be particularly useful within analgesic drug assays, especially when comparing analgesics of differing pharmacologic class and when comparing the results of such assays in pain syndromes characterized by differing pain quality.

Photogrammetry used to assess post-operative facial swelling in a drug trial

A trial was designed to test the efficacy of ibuprofen in controlling post-operative pain and swelling following the surgical removal of lower third molar teeth. Because of the rigid criteria imposed on the trial it was not satisfactorily completed but the method of measuring the volume of the swelling by stereometric photogrammetry, which is reproducible, versatile and non-invasive, was considered to be worth reporting in context.

Double-blind parallel comparison of single oral doses of ketoprofen, codeine, and placebo in patients with moderate to severe dental pain

Ketoprofen, 25, 50, and 100 mg, was compared with 90 mg codeine and placebo for relief of pain due to removal of impacted third molar teeth. Treatment was self-administered as a single oral dose under double-blind conditions in five parallel groups established by a random code in healthy young adults. Based on 129 patient evaluations of pain experience and pain relief, ketoprofen was shown to have a more rapid onset and longer duration of action than codeine. In the derived variables of SPID (Sum of Pain Intensity Differences) and TOPAR (Total Pain Relief), all three doses of ketoprofen, with no dose-related differences among them, were found to provide statistically superior analgesia to codeine and placebo. All five treatments were associated with some adverse reactions.

The effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the metabolism of 14C-arachidonic acid by human gingival tissue in vitro

We investigated the effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on prostaglandins (PGs) and 12-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid (12-HETE) formation by inflamed human gingival tissues. Gingival tissue homogenates were incubated with 14C-arachidonic acid in the presence of indomethacin, piroxicam, or ibuprofen, and the organic solvent extracts were chromatographed on silica gel plates with standards for radiometric assay. There was a significant negative trend between the doses (10(-7)-10(-3) M) of each of indomethacin, piroxicam, and ibuprofen, and the amounts of PGF2 alpha, PGE2, PGD2, and 15-keto-PGE2 produced. All three drugs have a significant inhibitory effect on PGs and 12-HETE production at 10(-3) M when compared with the control. The rank order effectiveness of the drugs, at 10(-3) M, on PG inhibition was indomethacin greater than piroxicam greater than ibuprofen, and on 12-HETE inhibition was indomethacin greater than ibuprofen greater than piroxicam.