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.     

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.     

Ibuprofen plus codeine, ibuprofen, and placebo in a single- and multidose cross-over comparison for coxarthrosis pain

The analgesic efficacy of 200 mg ibuprofen plus 30 mg codeine, 200 mg ibuprofen and placebo was investigated in a new analgesic evaluation model using single- and repeated-dose administration. The study was a double-blind randomized cross-over investigation in 26 coxarthrosis patients with persistent pain. After a washout period of at least 2 days with paracetamol available as rescue analgesic, each of the 3 treatments was administered in a total of 6 doses during 24 h. The hourly pain intensity was recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for 8 h after the 1st and the 6th dose. The pretreatment VAS score was 31–37 mm. After the 1st dose the 8-h mean pain intensity values were 25, 27, and 26 mm after ibuprofen plus codeine, ibuprofen, and placebo, respectively. Following another 5 doses every 4 h the corresponding values were 10, 17 and 29 mm. Repeated administration of both active drugs reduced the pain intensity significantly. The analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen plus codeine was significantly superior to that of ibuprofen which was, in turn, superior to that of placebo. In conclusion, analgesic efficacy was better differentiated after repeated-dose than after single-dose administration. The present study design was able to differentiate between 200 mg ibuprofen plus 30 mg codeine and 200 mg ibuprofen alone in a relatively small number of patients.     

Combination oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg for the treatment of postoperative pain: a double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety of a single dose of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg versus its individual components and placebo in a third-molar extraction model. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group investigation, subjects with moderate to severe pain within 5 hours after extraction of > or =2 ipsilateral bony impacted third molars were randomized to single doses of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, oxycodone 5 mg, or placebo. Primary efficacy variables were the sum of pain intensity difference over 6 hours (SP1D6) and total pain relief through 6 hours (TOTPAR6). The pharmacokinetics of oxycodone and ibuprofen, alone and in combination, were also determined in a subset of patients. RESULTS: A total of 498 subjects were randomized to treatment (187 to oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, 186 to ibuprofen 400 mg, 63 to oxycodone 5 mg, and 62 to placebo). Baseline demographics were generally similar among treatment groups, despite differences in sex (P = 0.041) and race (P = 0.023). Combination therapy was associated with greater analgesia than ibuprofen alone, oxycodone alone, or placebo (mean [SE] TOTPAR6: 13.3 [0.52], 12.2 [0.52], 4.3 [0.82], and 4.2 [0.83], respectively [P < 0.001 vs oxycodone or placebo, P = 0.012 vs ibuprofen]; mean [SE] SP1D6: 6.54 [0.42], 5.41 [0.44], 0.14 [0.60], and 0.32 [0.59], respectively [P < 0.001 vs oxycodone or placebo, P = 0.002 vs ibuprofen]). Combination therapy was well tolerated. Pharmacokinetic results implied no interaction between oxycodone and ibuprofen. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a single dose of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was fast-acting, effective, and well tolerated in subjects with moderate to severe pain after dental surgery. Oxycodone 5 mg alone did not provide an efficacy benefit over placebo in this study.     

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.     

A double-blind study of diflunisal and codeine compared with codeine or diflunisal alone in postoperative pain

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study compared the analgesic efficacy of a single oral dose of 500 mg diflunisal, 60 mg codeine, 500 mg diflunisal plus 60 mg codeine given as separate agents, and placebo in 161 patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain. Standard subjective measures were used to evaluate analgesia. Eight-hour sum of pain intensity differences and total pain relief scores for all active treatments were significantly better than were those for placebo (p less than 0.05). Diflunisal plus codeine performed the best followed by diflunisal, codeine, and placebo. Diflunisal plus codeine was better than placebo from 1 1/2 to 8 hours (p less than 0.01), better than codeine from 1 1/2 to 6 hours (p less than 0.05), and better than diflunisal alone from 1/2 to 1 1/2 hours (p less than 0.05) for most measures of analgesia. Factorial analysis demonstrated a significant early codeine effect and a significant diflunisal effect throughout. No significant treatment group differences were observed regarding adverse effects. Our data demonstrate that diflunisal plus codeine is generally well tolerated and provides analgesia superior to that of diflunisal or codeine alone in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain.     

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.     

Paracetamol with and without codeine in acute pain: a quantitative systematic review

In order to assess the analgesia obtained from single oral doses of paracetamol alone and in combination with codeine in postoperative pain, we conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. We found 31 trials of paracetamol against placebo with 2515 patients, 19 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against placebo with 1204 patients and 13 trials of paracetamol plus codeine against the same dose of paracetamol with 874 patients. Pain relief information was extracted, and converted into dichotomous information (number of patients with at least 50% pain relief). Wide variations in responses to placebo (0–72%) and active drug (3–89%) were observed. In postoperative pain states paracetamol 1000 mg alone against placebo had an number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 3.6 (3.0–4.4) and paracetamol 600/650 mg alone an NNT of 5.0 (4.1–6.9). Paracetamol 600/650 mg plus codeine 60 mg against placebo had a better NNT of 3.1 (2.6–3.8), with no overlap of 95% confidence intervals with paracetamol 600/650 mg alone. In direct comparisons of paracetamol plus codeine with paracetamol alone the additional analgesic effect of 60 mg of codeine added to paracetamol was 12 extra patients in every 100 achieving at least 50% pain relief. In indirect comparisons of each with placebo it was 14 extra patients per 100. This was an NNT for adding codeine 60 mg of 9.1 (5.8–24). The results confirm that paracetamol is an effective analgesic, and that codeine 60 mg added to paracetamol produces worthwhile additional pain relief even in single oral doses.     

Ibuprofen, zomepirac, aspirin, and placebo in the relief of postepisiotomy pain

Our purpose was to compare the analgesic efficacy of single oral doses of ibuprofen, zomepirac, aspirin, and placebo in severe postepisiotomy pain. One hundred twenty subjects participated in a double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group, 4-hr trial comparing 400 mg ibuprofen, 100 mg zomepirac sodium, 600 mg aspirin, and placebo. For most parameters, including the sum of the pain intensity differences (SPID) and the sum of the hourly pain relief values (TOTAL), which are summary variables, each of the drugs was more effective than placebo. Ibuprofen was more effective than aspirin and zomepirac. Zomepirac and aspirin were equally effective for most of the analgesic variables. There were no adverse effects. Ibuprofen, 400 mg, is an effective oral analgesic and is more effective than 100 mg zomepirac and 600 mg aspirin in most parameters of pain.     

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.     

A randomised, five-parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of analgesic combinations including a novel single-tablet combination of ibuprofen/paracetamol for postoperative dental pain

Combination analgesia is often recommended for the relief of severe pain. This was a double-blind, 5-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomised, single-dose study designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a novel single-tablet combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol with that of an ibuprofen/codeine combination, and a paracetamol/codeine combination, using the dental impaction pain model. Subjects with at least 3 impacted third molars and experiencing moderate to severe postoperative pain were randomised to receive: 1 or 2 tablets of a single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg; 2 tablets of ibuprofen 200 mg/codeine 12.8 mg; 2 tablets of paracetamol 500 mg/codeine 15 mg; or placebo. Results for the primary endpoint, the sum of the mean scores of pain relief combined with pain intensity differences over 12 hours, demonstrated that 1 and 2 tablets of the single-tablet combination of ibuprofen/paracetamol were statistically significantly more efficacious than 2 tablets of placebo (P < 0.0001) and paracetamol/codeine (P ? 0.0001); furthermore, 2 tablets offered significantly superior pain relief to ibuprofen/codeine (P = 0.0001), and 1 tablet was found noninferior to this combination. Adverse events were uncommon during this study and treatment emergent adverse events were statistically significantly less frequent in the groups taking the ibuprofen/paracetamol combination compared with codeine combinations. In conclusion, 1 or 2 tablets of a single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg provided highly effective analgesia that was comparable with, or superior to, other combination analgesics currently indicated for strong pain.     

Double-blind study of the analgesic effect of indoprofen (K 4277).

In a double-blind study, indoprofen was superior to placebo in decreasing pain in patients with primary and metastatic cancer and with neuralgia. A single oral dose of 200 mg was more active than a 100-mg dose. The preferences of patients proved to be a more sensitive parameter in this study than scores of pain intensity, pain relief, and other related measurements (SPID, TOTPAR, and Peak PID).     

The additive analgesic efficacy of acetaminophen, 1000 mg, and codeine, 60 mg, in dental pain

In a double-blind, randomized, single-dose trial the analgesic contribution of acetaminophen, 1000 mg, and codeine, 60 mg, was determined. The study was a 2 X 2 factorial experiment in which 120 patients suffering from pain as a result of oral surgery rated their pain intensity and pain relief for up to 5 hours after a single dose of one of: 1000 mg acetaminophen, 60 mg codeine, 1000 mg acetaminophen plus 60 mg codeine, or placebo. The factorial analysis showed that both 1000 mg acetaminophen and 60 mg codeine made a statistically significant (P less than 0.05) contribution to the analgesic effectiveness of the combination on all measures of efficacy (sum of pain intensity differences, largest pain intensity difference, total pain relief, largest pain relief, and time to remedication). The incidence of adverse effects did not appear to differ among the treatments, including placebo.     

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.     

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.     

Minimum efficacy criteria for comparisons between treatments using individual patient meta-analysis of acute pain trials: examples of etoricoxib, paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen/paracetamol combinations after third molar extraction

We defined response in acute pain trials according to percentage of maximum possible efficacy. Minimum efficacy criteria (MEC) of 0%, or at least 15%, 30%, 50%, and 70% pain relief were used to examine stability over time using total pain relief and summed pain intensity difference (SPID), sex differences, and sensitivity. We used individual patient data from placebo-controlled third molar extraction trials: 4 with single-dose oral etoricoxib 120 mg, and 2 with paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations. With etoricoxib, numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were stable between response levels of at least 15% (MEC15) and 50% pain relief (MEC50), and similar for total pain relief and SPID. NNTs were higher (worse) at extremes of MEC, especially with SPID. Results for women and men were similar. NNTs of lower efficacy treatments (paracetamol 500 and 1000 mg) rose rapidly at higher MEC. NNTs of high efficacy treatments (ibuprofen plus paracetamol combinations) showed greater separation at higher MEC. The highest degree of discrimination between treatments was with MEC50 and MEC70. Etoricoxib 120 mg (NNT for ?50% maximum 6-hour pain relief 1.7) and ibuprofen 200/400 mg plus paracetamol 500/1000 mg (NNTs 1.5 and 1.6, respectively) produced the lowest (best) NNTs in the dental pain model. Timing of patient request for additional analgesia is an alternative analgesic efficacy outcome measure.     

The Analgesic Interaction of Misoprostol with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of misoprostol when combined with ibuprofen or diclofenac Na. Animal experiments using the inflamed rat paw formalin model suggested that misoprostol potentiates the analgesic effect of some NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) including diclofenac Na but not propionic acid derivatives or opiates. The dental pain model was used to evaluate the clinical relevance of this interaction. Patients received a single oral dose of study medication following surgical removal of impacted teeth. Patients were medicated for moderate to severe postsurgical pain and then filled in an analgesic diary for a 6-h observation period. Several blood samples were taken over the observation period. In addition, microdialysis samples were taken directly from the extraction socket and were analyzed for immunoreactive prostaglandin E(2) levels. The studies were single-dose, parallel group and double-blind assays. In the first study, 70 patients received an oral dose of either placebo (n = 13), misoprostol 200 &mgr;g (n = 18), ibuprofen 200 mg (n = 19), or the combination of misoprostol + ibuprofen (n = 20). Misoprostol alone demonstrated a small analgesic effect compared to placebo. Both the ibuprofen and combination groups were substantially more effective than placebo but not different from each other. The combination group had higher ibuprofen blood levels during the first 45 min but had a lower C(max) and longer time to T(max). The second study evaluated oral doses of placebo (n = 11), misoprostol 200 &mgr;g (n = 21), diclofenac Na 50 mg (n = 18), and the combination of misoprostol + diclofenac Na (n = 20). Relative to placebo, misoprostol performance was similar to the first study. When the results of the two studies were combined, there was a small, but statistically significant, analgesic effect for misoprostol. Diclofenac Na was superior to both placebo and to misoprostol alone. The combination was the most effective treatment, and for hours 4--6 it was significantly better than diclofenac Na alone. Analysis of the blood samples showed an earlier and higher peak effect for the diclofenac Na group compared to the combination, and the combination again had a lower C(max). The microdialysis probe assays demonstrated that misoprostol depressed PGE(2) levels at the peripheral site of trauma over the first 2 h after surgery. These pilot studies used small samples, and the results only suggest trend effects. Both studies demonstrated that misoprostol 200 &mgr;g, a prostaglandin analog, does have an analgesic effect. When combined with ibuprofen, there was no potentiation of analgesia. In contrast, the combination of misoprostol + diclofenac Na demonstrated an enhanced peak effect, total effect for pain intensity difference and pain relief (sum pain intensity difference [SPID] and total pain relief [TOTPAR]), and     

Codeine 20 mg increases pain relief from ibuprofen 400 mg after third molar surgery. A repeat-dosing comparison of ibuprofen and an ibuprofen-codeine combination

A combination of 20 mg codeine base and ibuprofen 400 mg was compared with ibuprofen 400 mg in a randomised double-blind cross-over study of multiple doses in 25 patients after 2-stage bilateral third molar removal. The combination produced significantly greater pain relief and doubled the hours of minimum pain intensity and maximal relief on the day of surgery. The patients rated the combination significantly better than ibuprofen alone, and the combination was preferred by 16 of the 22 patients expressing a preference. There was no significant increase in side-effect incidence with the combination. The 30% increase in analgesic effect may be of clinical benefit, and this trial design, cross-over with multiple dosing in out-patients, may be a sensitive test for analgesics, potentially more predictive of side-effect problems than single-dose studies.     

A double-blind comparison of a new ibuprofen-codeine phosphate combination, codeine phosphate, and placebo in the relief of postepisiotomy pain

In a double-blind single-dose study, the analgesic effect of a new ibuprofen-codeine phosphate combination was compared with those of codeine phosphate alone and placebo for the relief of moderate and severe postepisiotomy pain. In the 113 patients studied, combination therapy was superior to codeine phosphate alone and to placebo, the difference between the combination and codeine phosphate alone reaching statistical significance (P less than 0.05) after two hours. The few side effects reported were not of a serious nature.