Efficacy and safety of oxymorphone immediate release for the treatment of mild to moderate pain after ambulatory orthopedic surgery: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of 5 mg of oxymorphone immediate release (IR) for mild to moderate pain. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Ambulatory surgical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients (age, > or = 18 y) undergoing knee arthroscopy. INTERVENTION: Randomization to 5 mg of oxymorphone IR or placebo hourly as needed for up to 8 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) from baseline to 8 hours. RESULTS: Among 122 patients randomized, 70.5% and 28.7% had moderate or mild postsurgical pain at baseline, respectively. The mean SPID score was significantly greater in the oxymorphone IR group, showing greater pain relief, compared with the placebo group (least squares mean difference +/- standard error, 76.9+/-28.09; 95% confidence interval, 21.26-132.59; P=.007). More placebo patients (48.4%) required rescue medication than oxymorphone IR patients (16.7%), with median times to use of rescue medication of 6 hours 54 minutes and more than 8 hours, respectively (P<.001). More patients (47.4%) rated oxymorphone IR "very good" or "excellent" for pain relief versus placebo (25.0%). No oxymorphone IR-treated patients discontinued because of adverse events (AEs) or experienced serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Five milligrams of oxymorphone IR was well tolerated and effective at relieving mild or moderate postsurgical pain after outpatient knee surgery.     

Ibuprofen liquigel for oral surgery pain

BACKGROUND: Ibuprofen liquigel is a solubilized potassium ibuprofen 200-mg gelatin capsule formulation that was approved for over-the-counter use in 1995. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen liquigel 200 mg, ibuprofen liquigel 400 mg, acetaminophen caplets 1000 mg, and placebo in patients experiencing moderate or severe pain after surgical removal of impacted third molars. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 6-hour study was conducted in 210 patients experiencing moderate or severe postoperative pain. Ratings of pain intensity and pain relief were recorded every 15 minutes for the first hour, at 90 and 120 minutes, and then hourly through hour 6. The onsets of first perceptible relief and meaningful relief were recorded using 2 stopwatches. An analysis of variance model was employed to test for significant differences (P < or = 0.05) between treatment groups with respect to pain relief, pain intensity difference, total pain relief (TOTPAR), and summed pain intensity difference (SPID). Stopwatch measures were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Drug tolerability was assessed by monitoring the occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: During the first 2 hours of the study (TOTPAR 2 and SPID 2), all active treatments were significantly more efficacious than placebo (P < 0.001), with ibuprofen liquigel 200 and 400 mg significantly more efficacious than acetaminophen 1000 mg (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). For the entire duration of the study (TOTPAR 6 and SPID 6), only the 2 doses of ibuprofen liquigel were significantly more efficacious than placebo (P < 0.001). Ibuprofen liquigel 200 and 400 mg were also significantly more efficacious than acetaminophen 1000 mg on the summary measures TOTPAR 6 and SPID 6 (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). Analysis of the stopwatch data revealed that all active treatments displayed significantly more rapid onsets to confirmed first perceptible relief (P < 0.001 to < 0.05) and meaningful relief (P < 0.001 to < 0.01) than did placebo, with ibuprofen liquigel 400 mg displaying a significantly more rapid onset to meaningful relief than acetaminophen 1000 mg (P < 0.05) and a significantly more rapid onset to confirmed first perceptible relief than acetaminophen 1000 mg (P < 0.001) and ibuprofen liquigel 200 mg (P < 0.01). All adverse events were considered mild or moderate, with an overall incidence of 11.5% in the ibuprofen liquigel 200-mg group, 6.8% in the ibuprofen liquigel 400-mg group, 19.0% in the acetaminophen 1000-mg group, and 25.9% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen liquigel provided greater peak and overall analgesic effects and a more rapid onset to analgesia than did acetaminophen 1000 mg.     

A double-blind,single-dose comparison of the analgesic efficacy of tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets,hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination tablets,and placebo after oral surgery

BACKGROUND: Improved clinical outcomes have been documented with combinations of oral analgesic agents, particularly those with complementary activities. However, because not all combinations or dose ratios lead to enhanced analgesia or reduced adverse events (AEs), each combination and dose ratio must be evaluated individually in carefully designed preclinical and clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 37.5 mg tramadol/325 mg acetaminophen tablets (T/APAP), 10 mg hydrocodone bitartrate/650 mg acetaminophen tablets (HC/APAP), and placebo in the treatment of postoperative dental pain. METHODS: This was a single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled study in adults with at least moderate pain (score > or =50 on a 100-mm pain visual analog scale) after extraction of > or =2 impacted third molars. Patients were randomized to receive 1 or 2 T/APAP tablets, 1 HC/APAP tablet, or placebo. Scores for hourly pain relief (PAR), pain intensity difference (PID), and combined PAR and PID (PRID) were based on reported pain at 30 minutes and each successive hour for 8 hours. Primary efficacy measures were summary pain intensity and pain relief scores (total pain relief [TOTPAR], sum of pain intensity differences [SPID], and sum of pain relief and pain intensity differences [SPRIDI) for 0 to 4 hours, 4 to 8 hours, and 0 to 8 hours. Secondary efficacy measures were hourly PAR, PID, and PRID scores; onset and duration of pain relief; time to remedication with a supplemental analgesic agent; and patients' overall assessment of medication. RESULTS: Two hundred adults took part in the study (50 per treatment group) and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. T/APAP 75/650 mg and HC/APAP were statistically superior to placebo on the primary efficacy measures of TOTPAR, SPID, and SPRID (P < or = 0.024), as well as on hourly PAR, PID, and PRID over 6 hours (P < or = 0.045). All active treatments were statistically superior to placebo in terms of onset of pain relief (P < or = 0.001), duration of pain relief (P < or = 0.024), time to remedication (P < 0.001), and patients' overall assessment of medication (P < 0.001). A statistically significant dose response with T/APAP (2 tablets > 1 tablet > placebo) was seen for TOTPAR, SPID, and SPRID (all, P < or = 0.018). The median time to onset of pain relief was approximately 34.0 minutes with 2 T/APAP tablets and 25.4 minutes with HC/APAP. Although the median time to onset of pain relief was shorter with HC/APAP, two T/APAP tablets had comparable efficacy to HC/APAP. The median time to remedication with a supplemental analgesic agent was 169.0 minutes in the T/APAP 75/650 mg group and 204.0 minutes in the HC/APAP group. However, the duration of pain relief, as defined by time to remedication, was not significantly different between these 2 groups. The overall incidence of AEs was lower with T/APAP (0% treatment-related AEs) than with HC/APAP (4%) or placebo (10%). The incidence of nausea (18% T/APAP, 36% HC/APAP) and vomiting (12% T/APAP, 30% HC/APAP) was approximately 50% lower with 2 T/APAP tablets than with HC/APAP (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: T/APAP tablets provided effective, rapid (< or = 34 minutes), dose-dependent analgesia for the treatment of postoperative dental pain. Two T/APAP tablets provided analgesia comparable to that provided by HC/APAP with better tolerability.     

Efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol immediate release and oxycodone HCl immediate release in patients awaiting primary joint replacement surgery for end-stage joint disease: A 10-day,phase III,randomized, double-blind,active- and placebo-controlled study

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol immediate release (IR) in patients who were candidates for joint replacement surgery due to end-stage joint disease. A secondary objective was to compare tapentadol IR with oxycodone HCl IR with respect to efficacy and prespecified tolerability end points.Methods: This 10-day, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol IR, oxycodone HCl IR, and placebo in patients with uncontrolled osteoarthritis pain who were candidates for primary replacement of the hip or knee as a result of end-stage degenerative joint disease. Patients received tapentadol IR 50 mg, tapentadol IR 75 mg, oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg, or placebo every 4 to 6 hours during waking hours. The primary end point was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 5 days. Secondary efficacy end points included 2- and 10-day SPID; 2-, 5-, and 10-day total pain relief (TOTPAR); and the sum of total pain relief and pain intensity difference (SPRID). Prespecified noninferiority comparisons with oxycodone HCl IR were performed with respect to efficacy (based on 5-day SPID) and tolerability (based on incidence of the reported adverse events (AEs) of nausea and/or vomiting and constipation).Results: Of 666 patients originally enrolled, 659 were included in the efficacy analysis (51% male; 91% white; mean age, 61.2 years; mean weight, 97 kg). Five-day SPID was significantly lower in those treated with tapentadol IR (tapentadol IR 50 mg: least squares mean difference [LSMD] = 101.2 [95% CI, 54.58- 147.89]; tapentadol IR 75 mg: LSMD = 97.5 [95% CI, 51.81-143.26]) or oxycodone HCl IR (LSMD = 111.9 [95% CI, 66.49-157.38]) (all, P < 0.001). Tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg and oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg were associated with significant reductions in pain intensity compared with placebo, based on 2- and 10-day SPID and 2-, 5-, and 10-day TOTPAR and SPRID (all, P < 0.001). The efficacy of tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg was noninferior to that of oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg; however, the incidence of selected gastrointestinal AEs (nausea, vomiting, and constipation) was significantly lower for both doses of tapentadol IR compared with oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg (nominal P < 0.001). The odds ratios for nausea and/or vomiting for tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg relative to oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.128-0.339) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.204-0.501), respectively; for constipation, the corresponding odds ratios were 0.13 (95% CI, 0.057-0.302) and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.098-0.398). Rates of treatment discontinuation were 18% (28/157) in the tapentadol IR 50-mg group, 26% (43/168) in the tapentadol IR 75-mg group, 35% (60/172) in the oxycodone HCl IR 10-mg group, and 10% (17/169) in the placebo group. In a post hoc analysis, tapentadol IR 50 mg was associated with a significantly lower incidence of treatment discontinuation than was oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg (P < 0.001).Conclusions: In these patients with uncontrolled osteoarthritis pain who were awaiting joint replacement surgery, tapentadol IR 50 and 75 mg were associated with analgesia that was noninferior to that provided by oxycodone HCl IR 10 mg. Tapentadol treatment was associated with improved gastrointestinal tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00361582.     

Celecoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: Results from two randomized,double-blind,active- and placebo-controlled,crossover studies

Background: Celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, has established analgesic efficacy for the treatment of acute pain resulting from a variety of causes.Objective: This article describes 2 studies designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in patients with primary dysmenorrhea.Methods: Two identical, 3-day, multiple-dose, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover studies were carried out in women aged 18 to 44 years with primary dysmenorrhea (studies 1 and 2). The studies employed a 6-sequence, 3-period, complete-block crossover design over 3 menstrual cycles. Patients received celecoxib 400 mg, followed by celecoxib 200 mg no sooner than 12 hours after first dose (day 1), then celecoxib 200 mg q12h as necessary (days 2 and 3); naproxen sodium 550 mg followed by naproxen sodium 550 mg no sooner than 12 hours after first dose (day 1), then naproxen sodium 550 mg q12h as necessary (days 2 and 3); or placebo. Primary efficacy measures were time-weighted sum of total pain relief and time-weighted sum of pain intensity difference at 8 hours after administration of the first dose of study medication (TOTPAR[8] and SPID[8], respectively). Tolerability was assessed using routine physical examination, including vital sign measurements, and clinical laboratory analyses at screening and end of study.Results: In total, 149 and 154 patients were randomized to 1 of the 6 treatment sequences in studies 1 and 2, respectively. Across treatment sequences, mean age ranges were 23.4 to 26.9 years (study 1) and 28.3 to 34.1 years (study 2). Mean weight ranges were 62.7 to 74.5 kg (study 1) and 69.2 to 86.7 kg (study 2). Most patients (96.6% in study 1, 80.5% in study 2) were white. Mean TOTPAR[8] values with celecoxib (study 1/study 2, 18.28/17.98) and naproxen sodium (20.59/21.27) were significantly greater than with placebo (12.82/12.98) (all, P < 0.001). Mean SPID[8] values were significantly greater with celecoxib (10.06/9.60) and naproxen sodium (11.48/11.71) than with placebo (5.96/6.41) (all, P < 0.001). Naproxen sodium was significantly different from celecoxib in TOTPAR[8] (study 2 only) and SPID[8] (both studies) (all, P < 0.001). In both studies, the adverse-events (AEs) profile was not significantly different between treatments, with the majority of AEs being related to primary dysmenorrhea and not medication. Less than 10% of patients experienced severe AEs in any treatment period.Conclusions: In these 2 identically designed studies in women aged 18 to 44 years, celecoxib 400 mg (followed by 200 mg q12h) was more effective, as measured using pain scores, in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea compared with placebo. In each study, the primary efficacy measures—TOTPAR[8] and SPID[8] scores—were significantly improved with celecoxib and naproxen sodium compared with placebo. SPID[8] in both studies and TOTPAR[8] in study 2 were significantly improved with naproxen sodium compared with celecoxib. Both celecoxib and naproxen sodium were well tolerated and provided relief from menstrual pain within 1 hour of administration.     

Tolerability and efficacy of a combination of paracetamol and caffeine in the treatment of tension-type headache: a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, cross-over study versus placebo and naproxen sodium

The main aim of this study was to confirm in an Italian population affected by tension-type headache (TTH) the good profile of safety and tolerability of the combination paracetamol 1,000 mg–caffeine 130 mg (PCF) observed in previous studies, by a comparison with naproxen sodium 550 mg (NAP) and placebo (PLA). A secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of PCF in the acute treatment of TTH. This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover, placebo-controlled trial. Tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events by the patient in the 4-h post-dose treatment. To assess the efficacy, the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) and the total pain relief (TOTPAR) were calculated. Comparing PCF and NAP and PCF and PLA for tolerability, the difference was nonsignificant but the result regarding noninferiority was inconclusive, whilst NAP was noninferior to PLA. As regards SPID and TOTPAR, both PCF and NAP were better than placebo (P < 0.05), but not significantly different from each other. In conclusion, PCF was well-tolerated and effective in the treatment of acute TTH.     

Effects of the 2-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-proprionic acid/kainate antagonist LY293558 on spontaneous and evoked postoperative pain

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that 2-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-proprionic acid (AMPA)/kainate antagonists reduce experimentally induced pain. There have been no studies of AMPA/kainate antagonists in clinical pain. METHODS: Analgesic efficacy of intravenous LY293558 (0.4 or 1.2 mg/kg) was compared with that of intravenous ketorolac tromethamine (INN, ketorolac; 30 mg) and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study after oral surgery (n = 70). Study drugs were administered at the onset of moderate pain; pain intensity and relief were measured for 240 minutes. RESULTS: High-dose LY293558 and ketorolac tromethamine were superior to placebo (P < .05) for pain evoked by mouth opening and one of several measures of spontaneous pain: SPID240 +/- SEM for pain evoked by mouth opening was highest for ketorolac tromethamine (151 +/- 58), intermediate for high-dose LY293558 (-45 +/- 35), and least for low-dose LY293558 (-151 +/- 39) and placebo (-162 +/- 50). High-dose LY293558 was superior to placebo at individual time points (45 to 240 minutes) for pain evoked by mouth opening but not for spontaneous pain. The spontaneous summed pain intensity difference over 240 minutes (SPID240 +/- SEM) was highest for ketorolac tromethamine (303 +/- 84), intermediate for high-dose LY293558 (-51 +/- 40) and low-dose LY293558 (-96 +/- 45), and least for placebo (-180 +/- 24). LY293558 was well tolerated, with dose-dependent and reversible side effects including hazy vision in 20% of patients and sedation in 15%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first evidence that an AMPA/kainate antagonist reduces clinical pain. Tests of evoked pain may be more sensitive to certain analgesics than those of spontaneous pain. The evaluation of evoked pain as an outcome measure in analgesic trials may identify potentially useful compounds otherwise missed if only spontaneous pain is evaluated.     

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

BACKGROUND: The sensation of pain arises from both central and peripheral sites, and inflammation may be one of its underlying causes. Combination therapy with analgesic agents having multimodal mechanisms of action and complementary pharmacokinetic properties enhances pain relief by addressing the different pathways of pain while limiting individual drug doses and, therefore, the potential for adverse effects caused by any single agent. Oxycodone and ibuprofen each have been used effectively as monotherapy and in other combinations for the treatment of acute pain; a fixed combination of these analgesics may improve pain relief in the setting of abdominal or pelvic surgery, where trauma and any resultant inflammation may be present at the same time. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated and compared the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single-dose combination tablet containing oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg with either agent alone and with placebo in women who had undergone abdominal or pelvic surgery. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind,placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group trial, women experiencing moderate to severe pain between 14 and 48 hours after surgery were randomized per protocol to receive a single dose of study medication in a 3:3:1:1 ratio (combination oxycodone/ibuprofen, ibuprofen, oxycodone, and placebo, in that order). Over a 6-hour study period, patients recorded their assessments of pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale and 4-point scale), relief from starting pain, and overall evaluation of study drug based on prespecified definitions and rating scales. Based on these data, the following primary efficacy end points were determined: total pain relief 6 hours after dosing (TOTPAR6) and sum of pain intensity differences 6 hours after dosing (SPID6). Other end points included the time to onset of pain relief, time to use of rescue medication, and patient's global rating of analgesic effectiveness. Tolerability was evaluated on the basis of observed and patient-reported adverse events and findings on physical examination. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-six women participated in the study. They were primarily white and had a mean age of 41.6 years and a mean body weight of 171.5 pounds. Combination treatment was associated with significantly better TOTPAR6 and SPID6 scores compared with ibuprofen alone (P < 0.02 and P < 0.015, respectively), oxycodone alone (P < 0.009 and P < 0.001), or placebo (both, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving combination treatment required rescue medication, and the time to use of rescue medication was significantly longer in the combination-treatment group compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). Patients' global ratings of analgesic efficacy were significantly higher in the combination-treatment group compared with all other groups (P < 0.044 vs ibuprofen alone; P < 0.001 vs oxycodone alone and placebo). The onset of pain relief occurred within 15 minutes of dosing with all 4 regimens. Nausea was the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event in all 4 groups. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was highest with placebo (55.0%), followed by oxycodone alone (44.2%), ibuprofen alone (42.3%), and combination treatment (40.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of women who had undergone abdominal or pelvic surgery, the combination of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was significantly more effective than either agent alone or placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain.     

Analgesic efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg compared with those of oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg and hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose, parallel-group study in a dental pain model

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy has been widely used for the clinical management of acute pain. By combining 2 drugs with different mechanisms of action, such therapy provides additive analgesic effects while reducing the risk for adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg with those of oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, and placebo in a dental pain model. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group, single-dose study in patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after surgical removal of > or = 2 ipsilateral impacted third molars. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, or placebo. The primary outcome measures were total pain relief through 6 hours after dosing (TOTPAR6), sum of pain intensity differences through 6 hours (SPID6), and adverse events. Secondary efficacy measures included SPID3 and TOTPAR3, peak pain relief, peak pain intensity difference, time to onset of pain relief, time to use of rescue medication, proportion of patients reporting pain half gone, and the patient's global evaluation. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients (43.5% male; 87.5% white; mean age, 19.1 years; mean body weight, 153.6 pounds) were randomized to treatment as follows: 62 to oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, 61 to oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, 63 to hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, and 63 to placebo. Oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg provided significantly greater analgesia compared with oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg, hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg, and placebo (mean [SD] TOTPAR6, 14.98 [5.37], 9.53 [6.77], 8.36 [6.68], and 5.05 [6.49], respectively; P < 0.001, oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg vs all other treatments). SPID6 values also differed significantly for oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg compared with all other treatments (mean: 7.78 [4.11], 3.58 [4.64], 3.32 [4.73], and 0.69 [4.85]; P < 0.001). Oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was significantly more effective compared with the other treatments on all secondary end points (P < 0.001, all variables except peak PID vs oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg [P = 0.006]), with the exception of the time to onset of analgesia. The lowest frequency of nausea and vomiting occurred in the groups that received oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg (6.5% and 3.2%, respectively) and placebo (3.2% and 1.6%). Rates of nausea and vomiting were significantly lower with oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg compared with oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (P = 0.011 and P = 0.009, respectively) but not with hydrocodone 7.5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in patients with moderate to severe pain after surgery to remove impacted third molars, oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg provided significantly better analgesia throughout the 6-hour study compared with the other opioid/nonopioid combinations tested, and was associated with fewer adverse events.     

Analgesic efficacy of two ibuprofen-codeine combinations for the treatment of postepisiotomy and postoperative pain

Our purpose was to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of single oral doses of the combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 60 mg and the combination of ibuprofen 200 mg plus codeine 30 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg alone, codeine sulfate 60 mg alone, and placebo. One hundred ninety-five patients with severe pain resulting from episiotomy, cesarean section, or gynecologic surgery completed a randomized, double-blind, stratified, parallel-group study. Patients were observed during a 4-hour period after medication. Based on the sum of the pain intensity differences (SPID), total pain relief (TOTPAR), and most of the hourly direct measures of pain and relief, both doses of the combination and ibuprofen 400 mg alone were statistically superior to placebo. Codeine 60 mg was statistically superior to placebo based on TOTPAR, the global ratings, and a few hourly measures. The mean effect of the combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 60 mg was significantly superior to the mean effect of ibuprofen 400 mg alone 1/2, 1, and 2 hours after medication and to the mean effect of ibuprofen 400 mg alone and codeine 60 mg alone for SPID, TOTPAR, and other measures as well. The low-dose combination was significantly more effective than codeine 60 mg for a few hourly measures but was not significantly superior to ibuprofen 400 mg. Based on these findings it appears that the combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 60 mg, particularly in the first few hours after medication, is more efficacious than its constituents.     

Relief of sore throat with the anti-inflammatory throat lozenge flurbiprofen 8.75 mg: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety

In this double-blind study, 301 patients with subjective and objective signs of sore throat were randomly assigned to flurbiprofen 8.75 mg (n = 129), flurbiprofen 12.5 mg (n = 43) or placebo (demulcent lozenge without active drug [n = 129]). Efficacy was assessed by changes in subjective rating scales primarily after a single dose and also over a 4-day period. Flurbiprofen 8.75 mg was superior to placebo in a number of efficacy parameters, notably throat soreness. Throat soreness was significantly reduced after 15 minutes (p < 0.05), with effects sustained for at least 2 hours (p < 0.05). Multiple dosing with flurbiprofen 8.75 mg lozenges continued to provide effective symptomatic relief over the 4-day treatment period. The small sample size was considered contributory to the variable results obtained with flurbiprofen 12.5 mg lozenges, but overall these were not inconsistent with previous trials. Both treatments were tolerated well. Flurbiprofen 8.75 mg lozenges provide an effective and well tolerated treatment for sore throat.     

Acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine in combination versus ibuprofen for acute migraine: results from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, single-dose, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of a combination analgesic containing acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine to that of ibuprofen in the treatment of migraine. METHODS: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, single-dose study. A total of 1555 migraineurs were included in the analysis. No patients were excluded solely because of severity of symptoms or degree of disability. A single 2-tablet dose for each of the 3 treatment groups: a combination product containing acetaminophen 250 mg, aspirin 250 mg, and caffeine 65 mg per tablet (AAC); ibuprofen 200 mg per tablet (IB); or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the weighted sum of pain relief (PAR) scores at 2 hours postdose (TOTPAR2) and an important secondary endpoint was the time to onset of meaningful relief. RESULTS: There were 669 patients in the AAC group, 666 patients in the IB group, and 220 patients in the placebo group. The 3 treatment groups had similar demographic profiles, migraine histories, and baseline symptom profiles. While both active treatments were significantly better than placebo in relieving the pain and associated symptoms of migraine, AAC was superior to IB for TOTPAR2, as well as for PAR, time to onset of meaningful PAR, pain intensity reduction, headache response, and pain free. The mean TOTPAR2 scores for AAC, IB, and placebo were 2.7, 2.4, and 2.0, respectively (AAC vs. IB, P < .03). The median time to meaningful PAR for AAC was 20 minutes earlier than that of IB (P < .036). CONCLUSION: AAC and IB are safe, cost-effective treatments for migraine; AAC provides significantly superior efficacy and speed of onset compared with IB.     

Fentanyl buccal tablet for the relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients with chronic neuropathic pain: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic noncancer pain, including neuropathic pain, may have transitory exacerbations of pain (median duration, 60 minutes), termed breakthrough pain (BTP), that may reach peak intensity within minutes. Typical short-acting oral opioids may not provide sufficiently rapid relief (30- to 60-minute onset of analgesia). The fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) provides a rapid onset of analgesia (10-15 minutes) by enhancing fentanyl absorption across the buccal mucosa. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of FBT in opioid-tolerant patients with BTP associated with chronic noncancer neuropathic pain. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in men and women aged 18 to 80 years who were opioid tolerant; had a >/= 3-month history of chronic persistent neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic injury, or complex regional pain syndrome; and reported having episodes of BTP. After an open-label titration period to identify an effective FBT dose (the dose at which the patient reported receiving adequate pain relief within 30 minutes after administration of a single tablet of that dose during at least 2 of 3 BTP episodes), patients were randomly assigned to treat 9 consecutive episodes of BTP over the next 21 days with 1 of 3 double-blind dose sequences of FBT and placebo tablets. Pain intensity (PI) (rated on an 11-point pain scale, from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain) and other outcomes were assessed before dosing and for 2 hours after dosing. The primary efficacy measure was the sum of PI differences (PIDs) for the first 60 minutes (SPID(60)). Secondary efficacy measures included the proportion of BTP episodes with >/= 33% and >/= 50% improvement in PI from baseline; PID at other time points (5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after dosing); pain relief (PR) at the same time points (rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 = none to 4 = complete); proportion of BTP episodes with meaningful PR; time to meaningful PR; and proportion of BTP episodes in which supplemental medication was required after administration of study drug. Adverse events (AEs) spontaneously reported by the patient or elicited by the investigator were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 102 patients in the open-label titration period, 80 identified an effective dose of FBT and 79 entered the double-blind phase. Of these 79 patients, 77 (97%) completed the study and 75 (95%) were evaluable for efficacy. Of the 79 patients who entered the double-blind phase, 63% were women and 92% were white; their mean (SD) age was 48.3 (10.42) years, and their mean weight was 96.8 (33.42) kg. Baseline demographic and pain characteristics were similar between the overall population and the double-blind population. SPID(60) was significantly greater for BTP episodes treated with FBT compared with those in which placebo was administered (mean [SE], 9.63 [0.75] vs 5.73 [0.72], respectively; P < 0.001). Significant differences between FBT and placebo were seen beginning at 10 minutes for PID (mean, 0.740 [0.149] vs 0.427 [0.081]; P < 0.047) and PR (mean, 0.561 [0.087] vs 0.324 [0.056]; P < 0.001). A >/= 33% improvement in PI from baseline was seen in a greater proportion of BTP episodes treated with FBT compared with placebo from 10 minutes (9% vs 3%; P = 0.008) through 2 hours (66% vs 37%; P < 0.001). Patients were almost 4 times less likely to require supplemental opioids when BTP episodes were treated with FBT compared with placebo (odds ratio = 0.28; 95% Cl, 0.18-0.42). AEs were reported by 64 (63%) of 102 patients. The most commonly reported AEs were those typical of opioids (nausea [13%], dizziness [13%], somnolence [10%], and vomiting [5%]) and occurred more often during the dose-titration phase (55/102 [54%]) than during the double-blind phase (22/79 [28%]). CONCLUSION: In these opioid-tolerant patients with chronic neuropathic pain who identified an effective FBT dose, FBT had a rapid onset of action and was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of BTP.     

Residual analgesic effects of morphine in 55 four-period crossover analgesic studies

Subjective response data from 55 postoperative pain studies were examined for the residual analgesic effects of morphine. The studies were planned as four-period crossover designs for four treatments. Each patient received 5 and 10 mg of morphine and two doses of a test preparation. Two measures of analgesia were used: Sum of the Pain Intensity Difference (SPID) and Total Pain Relief (TOTPAR). To facilitate analysis, two two-period groups were defined. Morphine data for periods 1 and 2 were designated as group A, and morphine data for periods 3 and 4 were designated as group B. Residual analgesic effects were 0.12 for both SPID and TOTPAR in group A and were 0.65 and 0.17 for SPID and TOTPAR, respectively, in group B. In these 55 studies, there was no evidence of significant residual analgesic effects. Thus the crossover design is an appropriate method for the evaluation of selected parenteral analgesics in the postoperative pain model.     

A Comparison of Naproxen Sodium, Acetaminophen and Placebo in the Treatment of Muscle Contraction Headache

SYNOPSIS
The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of naproxen sodium (550 mg), acetaminophen (650 mg) and placebo in the treatment of muscle-contraction, or tension headache.
Six investigators participated in this randomized, double-blind, 3-way parallel study, in which 149 patients were entered. Each patient treated one episode of moderate-to-severe headache with the test medication. The intensity of the headache pain was recorded on 10 cm visual analogue scales (VASs) by patients for up to 12 hours after treatment with the study medication. In addition, the degree of pain relief (PR) was recorded in a similar manner. Mean pain intensities (Pls), percentage changes in mean pain intensities, pain intensity differences (PIDs) and the sum of these differences (SPIDs) were calculated.
From the data collected in 124 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, naproxen sodium was shown to provide a significantly greater percentage change in mean PI compared to acetaminophen (p<0.01) or placebo (p<0.001). Mean PID and SPID scores also showed naproxen sodium to be significantly more effective in relieving pain compared to acetaminophen (p<0.02) or placebo (p<0.001). Mean pain relief scores and calculated total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores correlated well with the reduction in pain intensity. During the trial 13 patients reported side effects including nausea, dizziness and drowsiness. None of the side effects were considered clinically significant.
The results from this study demonstrated naproxen sodium to be a well tolerated analgesic, which provided statistically significantly superior analgesia compared to acetaminophen or placebo in the treatment of muscle-contraction or tension headaches.     

Group A streptococcal pharyngitis in adults 30 to 65 years of age.

BACKGROUND: Although the frequency of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in adults is assumed to be low, there is little information on frequency other than in military populations. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was done to determine the frequency of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in adults seen in the emergency department. Throat swabs were obtained on adults (30 to 65 years of age) with sore throat and pharyngitis on examination. Swabs were also obtained in a group of control subjects. RESULTS: Of the 148 adults with pharyngitis, 65 (44%) had throat specimens positive for group A streptococci. In the 50 control subjects, all throat cultures were negative for group A streptococci. A significant number of patients with group A streptococcal pharyngitis had school-aged children at home. CONCLUSION: The high rate of detection of group A streptococci in adults outside the military has not been previously reported.     

Diclofenac sodium in ureteral colic: a double-blind comparison trial with placebo

A randomized prospective double blind study of the analgesic effect of 75 mg intramuscular diclofenac sodium (Voltaren), a potent prostaglandin synthetase inhibitor, versus placebo (saline solution) was carried out in 131 consecutive patients with acute ureteral colic. Diclofenac provided complete relief of pain 25 minutes after the injection in 59% of the cases, while placebo provided relief in 29% (p less than 0.01). Forty patients in the placebo group and seventeen patients in the diclofenac group needed an open injection of 75 mg diclofenac intramuscularly after 25 minutes due to persistent pain. Fifty-four of the fifty-seven patients treated with an open injection of diclofenac achieved complete relief of pain after 30 minutes. There were no side-effects of the treatment.     

A comparison of rofecoxib versus celecoxib in treating pain after dental surgery: a single-center,randomized, double-blind,placebo- and active-comparator-controlled,parallel-group,single-dose study using the dental impaction pain model

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib and celecoxib, selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, have analgesic efficacy similar to that of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to confirm earlier findings that the overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was superior to that of celecoxib 200 mg and to extend the comparison to include celecoxib 400 mg. METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group, single-dose study, patients who experienced moderate or severe pain after surgical extraction of at least 2 third molars received a single oral dose of either rofecoxib 50 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, celecoxib 200 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, or placebo. Patients recorded scores of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessment at prespecified time intervals throughout the 24-hour period after dosing. The end points were total pain relief (TOPAR) score over 8 hours (TOPAR8; primary end point), TOPAR score over 12 hours (TOPAR12), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 8 and 12 hours (SPID8 and SPID12), patient's global assessment of study drug at 8 hours, time to confirmed perceptible pain relief (ie, time to onset of analgesic effect), peak pain intensity difference (PID), peak pain relief, time to first dose of rescue medication (ie, duration of analgesic effect), and percentage of patients using rescue medication. RESULTS: A total of 482 patients (358 females, 124 males; mean age, 22.1 years) were enrolled. Rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 151 patients) demonstrated significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy compared with celecoxib 400 mg (n = 151), as measured by TOPAR8 (least squares mean [SE] 17.2 [0.8] vs 15.0 [0.8]; P < 0.05) and TOPAR12 (25.3 [1.2] vs 21.0 [1.2]; P < 0.05), as well as a significantly longer duration of analgesic effect (P < 0.05). Time to onset of analgesic effect and peak analgesic effect were similar for rofecoxib 50 mg and celecoxib 400 mg. Rofecoxib also showed significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy than did celecoxib 200 mg (n = 90), including greater TOPAR8 scores (17.2 [0.8] vs 11.5 [1.1]; P < 0.001), faster onset of analgesic effect (P < 0.001), greater peak analgesic effect (P < 0.001 for peak pain relief and peak PID), and longer duration of analgesic effect (P < 0.001). The overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of ibuprofen 400 mg (n = 45), except that the duration of analgesic effect of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly longer (P < 0.001). All active treatments produced significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy compared with that of placebo (P < 0.001 for all scores [TOPAR8, TOPAR12, SPID8, SPID12, and patient's global assessment] for all study drugs). The adverse-events (AE) profile was generally similar in all treatment groups. The 3 most common AEs were nausea, postextraction alveolitis, and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, rofecoxib 50 mg provided generally superior overall analgesic efficacy compared with that of celecoxib 400 and 200 mg, including a significantly longer duration of analgesic effect. The overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was generally similar to that of ibuprofen 400 mg, except for a significantly longer duration of analgesic effect.     

Analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) administered as a 2 g starting dose following third molar surgery.

BACKGROUND: The recommended dose for intravenous (IV) paracetamol injection in adults is 1g, however pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings suggest that a better analgesia could be obtained with a 2 g starting dose. METHODS: A single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-parallel group study was performed to demonstrate the analgesic efficacy and safety of IV paracetamol 2 g. Following third molar surgery, patients reporting moderate to severe pain received a single 15-min infusion of either IV paracetamol 2 g, IV paracetamol 1g or placebo. Efficacy and safety were evaluated over 8 h. Laboratory tests were performed before and 48 h after drug administration. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety seven patients (132 = IV paracetamol 2g; 132 = IV paracetamol 1g; 33 = placebo) were randomised and completed the study. The summed pain relief over 6h (TOTPAR6) was significantly superior with IV paracetamol 2 g as compared to IV paracetamol 1g and placebo (p < 0.0001). Pain relief scores of IV paracetamol 2g were significantly superior to IV paracetamol 1g and to placebo from T30' to T8h (p < 0.0001). Median duration of analgesia was significantly longer following IV paracetamol 2 g compared to IV paracetamol 1g and placebo (p < 0.0001). Adverse events occurred with the same frequency in the 3 treatment groups. No clinically significant changes from baseline were observed for vital signs or laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: The analgesic efficacy of a 2 g starting dose of IV paracetamol was superior over the recommended dose of 1g in terms of magnitude and duration of analgesic effect for postoperative pain following third molar surgery, with no significant difference between groups regarding safety.     

Onset of analgesia of a paracetamol tablet containing sodium bicarbonate: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult patients with acute sore throat

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the time to onset of pain relief from a single dose of a tablet formulation of paracetamol (acetaminophen) containing sodium bicarbonate (PSC). METHODS: A single oral dose of PSC or placebo was randomly administered to patients with acute sore throat under double-blind conditions. Patients rated their pain relief using a conventional categorical relief scale every 5 minutes during the first hour postdose to determine the time to onset of pain relief. They continued evaluations of pain relief at less frequent intervals to 6 hours postdose to confirm the overall analgesia of PSC compared with placebo. To determine if food had any effect on the onset of action of PSC, time to onset of analgesia by PSC was compared between patients in the fed and fasted states. Patients were randomized 3:1 to PSC:placebo based on whether they had eaten food within 2 hours of baseline. Adverse events were recorded by questioning throughout the study period. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients were enrolled. Both treatment groups were well matched for age (mean, 20 years), sex (male:female ratio, approximately 1:1.5), sore throat duration (mean, 3 days) and severity (mean score, 8). PSC separated significantly from placebo beginning at 15 minutes postdose (P < or = 0.03). There was no difference for onset of analgesia between PSC in the fed and fasted states. PSC showed significantly greater total pain relief over 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 6 hours compared with placebo (all, P < 0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: PSC was effective beginning 15 minutes postdose and well tolerated compared with placebo in this population of adults with acute onset of sore throat pain.