When acetaminophen use becomes toxic. Treating acute accidental and intentional overdose

Can NSAIDs and Acetaminophen Effectively Replace Opioid Treatment Options for Acute Pain?

INTRODUCTION

Opioid analgesia for acute painful conditions has come under increasing scrutiny with the public health crisis of opioid overdose, leading clinicians to seek nonopioid alternatives, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen (paracetamol).

AREAS COVERED

This perspective evaluates recent clinical trials of nonopioids, opioids, and combination therapy for use in acute pain. Acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) often provide adequate analgesia, although these agents are not without risks. Combination therapy using a small amount of opioid together with a nonopioid pain reliever has been shown effective and reduces opioid consumption.

EXPERT OPINION

The short-term use of opioids under close clinical supervision, such as in-hospital use of opioid analgesics for postoperative pain, may be appropriate, but even here, combination therapy or nonopioid therapy may be preferred. The use of opioids even for acute pain of short duration has been questioned. The ideal analgesic has yet to be developed, but effective pain control pharmacological regimens for acute pain are available.

Cysteine/Glutathione Deficiency: A Significant and Treatable Corollary of Disease

Glutathione (GSH) deficiency may play a pivotal role in a variety of apparently unrelated clinical conditions and diseases. Orally administered N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which replenishes the cysteine required for GSH synthesis, has been tested in a large number of randomized placebo-controlled trials involving these diseases and conditions. This chapter focused on developing a base of evidence suggesting that NAC administration improves disease by increasing cysteine and/or GSH in a variety of diseases, thereby implying a significant role for GSH deficiency in the clinical basis of many diseases. To develop this base of evidence, we systematically selected studies which considered the hypothesis that the therapeutic efficacy for NAC is an indication that cysteine and/or GSH deficiency is a pathophysiological part of the diseases studied. In this manner we focus this chapter on explaining the biological mechanisms of NAC therapy in a wide variety of disorders and demonstrate its ubiquitous role in improving disease that involves disrupted GSH and/or cysteine metabolism.

Acetaminophen hepatotoxicity and acute liver failure

Acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity is a common consequence of acetaminophen overdose and may lead to acute liver failure (ALF). Currently acetaminophen is the most common cause of ALF in both United States and United Kingdom, with a trend to increasing incidence in the United States. N-acetylcysteine is the most effective drug to prevent progression to liver failure with acetaminophen hepatotoxicity. Liver transplantation is the only definitive therapy that will significantly increase the chances of survival for advanced ALF. This communication reviews current information regarding causes and management of acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity and ALF.

Treatment of Persistent Pain Associated With Osteoarthritis With Controlled-Release Oxycodone Tablets in a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study, lasting up to 90 days, was undertaken in patients with osteoarthritis with persistent moderate to severe pain uncontrolled by standard therapy (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and/or short-acting opioids) to evaluate functional outcomes, as well as efficacy and safety, of controlled-release oxycodone versus placebo.

METHODS

One hundred seven patients received either controlled-release oxycodone or placebo every 12 hours in this double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Stable previous regimens of acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents were allowed to continue. Primary efficacy variables included Brief Pain Inventory average pain intensity scores at completion of initial titration, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores at days 30 and 60, and the percentage of patients discontinuing due to inadequate pain control.

RESULTS

Controlled-release oxycodone was significantly superior to placebo in decreasing average pain intensity and in reducing pain-induced interference with general activity, walking ability (except at day 30), and normal work, as well as mood, sleep, relations with people (at days 60 and 90), and enjoyment in life. Daily functioning, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, was also significantly improved in the controlled-release oxycodone group. In the placebo group, a significantly greater percentage of patients discontinued due to inadequate pain control. Adverse events were consistent with opioid adverse events, and no safety concerns were noted.

DISCUSSION

Treatment with controlled-release oxycodone of patients with osteoarthritis with persistent moderate to severe pain uncontrolled by standard therapy resulted in significant pain control and improvements in physical functioning.

Paracetamol poisoning: Which nomogram should we use?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the type of paracetamol nomograms used in Australasian EDs. To review the literature to determine the evidence base for existing nomograms.

METHODS

A cross sectional descriptive study via postal survey of all Australasian EDs accredited for specialist emergency medicine training by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM). A literature review using Knowledge Finder search engine was employed.

RESULTS

The response rate was 87%. The most commonly used nomogram had a four-hour treatment level of 1300 mumol/L (69%). A total of 22% of respondents used a four-hour treatment level of 1000 mumol/L. Two departments (3%) treated all patients above the 660 mumol/L line. Eleven departments (15%) did not have a treatment line below 1300 mumol/L.

CONCLUSION

Practice varies in Australasian EDs. Patients with paracetamol levels below the 1300 mumol/L have been reported in the literature to develop hepatotoxicity, and deaths have been documented. N-acetylcysteine is extremely safe when used in the recommended dosages.

Update: the clinical importance of acetaminophen hepatotoxicity in non-alcoholic and alcoholic subjects

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is one of the most commonly used over-the-counter medications. Taken in doses greater than 150 mg/kg/day (>10 g), it usually causes acute liver failure. The authors review mainly the management of acetaminophen toxicity in both users and nonusers of alcohol. Chronic alcoholics are a special subgroup, who risk serious toxicity when taking acetaminophen, even in therapeutic doses. The acetaminophen-alcohol interaction is complex, because acute and chronic ethanol have opposite effects. This review also considers physiological and clinical changes, as well as the diagnosis and treatment of acetaminophen poisoning.

Combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen versus combination codeine and acetaminophen for the treatment of chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg with that of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg for the treatment of chronic pain.

BACKGROUND

Hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg is the only approved fixed-dose combination analgesic containing an opioid and ibuprofen.

METHODS

In this randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, repeated-dose, active-comparator, 4-week, multicenter study, 469 patients were randomly assigned to receive a 1-tablet (n = 156) or 2-tablet (n = 153) dose of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg (HI1 and HI2, respectively) or a 2-tablet dose of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg (CA, n = 160), the active comparator, every 6 to 8 hours as needed for pain. Efficacy was measured through pain relief scores, number of daily doses of study medication, number of daily doses of supplemental analgesics, number of patients who discontinued therapy due to an unsatisfactory analgesic response, and global assessment scores.

RESULTS

Of the 469 patients, 255 (54.4%) were female and 214 (45.6%) were male. The mean age was 51.1 years. Types of chronic pain included back (214; 45.6%), arthritic (145; 30.9%), other musculoskeletal (65; 13.9%), cancer (6; 1.3%), diabetic neuropathic (3; 0.6%), postherpetic neuralgic (5; 1.1%), other neurologic (21; 4.5%), and other unclassified chronic pain (10; 2.1%). During the 48 hours prior to the study, 351 (74.8%) patients had been treated with opioid or opioid-nonopioid combination analgesics. The overall mean daily pain relief score was significantly greater in the HI2 group (2.25+/-0.89) than in the HI1 group (1.98+/-0.87) (P = 0.003) or the CA group (1.85+/-0.96) (P < 0.001). The overall mean number of daily doses of study medication was significantly less in the HI2 group (2.94+/-0.99) than in the HI1 group (3.23+/-0.76) (P = 0.036) or the CA group (3.26+/-0.75) (P = 0.014). The overall mean number of daily doses of supplemental analgesics was significantly less in the HI2 group (0.24+/-0.49) than in the HI1 group (0.34+/-0.58) (P = 0.021) or CA group (0.49+/-0.85) (P = 0.010). The number of patients who discontinued treatment due to an unsatisfactory analgesic response was significantly less in the HI2 group (2; 1.3%) than in the CA group (12; 7.5%) (P = 0.008). HI2 was more effective than HI1 and CA as measured by pain relief scores for week 1 (P < 0.001 vs HI1 and CA), week 2 (P < 0.001 vs HI1 and CA), and week 3 (P = 0.008 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA); daily doses of study medication for week 1 (P = 0.019 vs HI1 and P = 0.011 vs CA); daily doses of supplemental analgesics for week 1 (P = 0.010 vs HI1 and CA); and global assessment scores for week 1 (P = 0.018 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA), week 2 (P = 0.005 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA), and week 4 (P = 0.013 vs HI1 and P = 0.023 vs CA). There were no significant differences between HI1 and CA in any efficacy variable. There were no significant differences in the number of patients experiencing adverse events in the HI2 (127; 83%), HI1 (124; 79.5%), and CA (129; 80.6%) groups. However, the mean number of patients who discontinued treatment due to adverse events was significantly greater in the HI2 group (40; 26.1%) than in the HI1 group (23; 14.7%) (P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that 2-tablet doses of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg may be more effective than either 1-tablet doses of this combination or 2-tablet doses of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg. Moreover, 1-tablet doses of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg may be as effective as 2-tablet doses of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg.

Combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen versus combination oxycodone and acetaminophen in the treatment of postoperative obstetric or gynecologic pain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen with that of combination oxycodone and acetaminophen in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative obstetric or gynecologic pain.

BACKGROUND

Hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg is the only approved fixed-dose combination analgesic containing an opioid and ibuprofen.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose, active-comparator, placebo-controlled study compared the effects of a 2-tablet dose of hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg with those of a 2-tablet dose of oxycodone 5 mg and acetaminophen 325 mg and placebo. Analgesia was assessed over 8 hours.

RESULTS

Mean pain relief (PR) scores were similar for the hydrocodone with ibuprofen and oxycodone with acetaminophen groups (n = 61 and 59, respectively) at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and 7 hours and significantly greater for the hydrocodone with ibuprofen group at 5, 6, and 8 hours (P < or = 0.05). Mean pain intensity difference (PID) scores were similar for hydrocodone with ibuprofen and oxycodone with acetaminophen at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 hours and significantly greater for hydrocodone with ibuprofen at 5, 6, 7, and 8 hours (P < or = 0.05). Total PR scores were similar for hydrocodone with ibuprofen and oxycodone with acetaminophen for the 0- to 3- and 0- to 4-hour intervals and significantly greater for hydrocodone with ibuprofen for the 0- to 6- and 0- to 8-hour intervals (P < 0.05). The sum of the PID scores was similar for hydrocodone with ibuprofen and oxycodone with acetaminophen for the 0- to 3-, 0- to 4-, 0- to 6-, and 0- to 8-hour intervals. The median estimated time to onset of analgesia, mean peak PR score, median time to remedication, and mean global assessment score were similar for hydrocodone with ibuprofen and oxycodone with acetaminophen. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated by the presence of statistically significant differences between both active treatments and placebo (n = 60). The number of patients experiencing adverse events was similar for each of the 3 groups (11 [18.0%], hydrocodone with ibuprofen; 7 [11.9%], oxycodone with acetaminophen; and 6 [10.0%], placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a 2-tablet dose of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg was as effective as a 2-tablet dose of combination oxycodone 5 mg and acetaminophen 325 mg in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative obstetric or gynecologic pain. Both treatments were superior to placebo. The results of this study suggest that the combination of hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg may offer prescribers an additional option in combination pain therapy.