Dataset Information

Analgesic effect of oral ibuprofen 400, 600, and 800 mg; paracetamol 500 and 1000 mg; and paracetamol 1000 mg plus 60 mg codeine in acute postoperative pain: a single-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Effect size estimates of analgesic drugs can be misleading. Ibuprofen (400 mg, 600 mg, 800 mg), paracetamol (1000 mg, 500 mg), paracetamol 1000 mg/codeine 60 mg, and placebo were investigated to establish the multidimensional pharmacodynamic profiles of each drug on acute pain with calculated effect size estimates.

Methods

A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-centre, outpatient, and single-dose study used 350 patients (mean age 25 year, range 18 to 30 years) of homogenous ethnicity after third molar surgery. Primary outcome was sum pain intensity over 6 h. Secondary outcomes were time to analgesic onset, duration of analgesia, time to rescue drug intake, number of patients taking rescue drug, sum pain intensity difference, maximum pain intensity difference, time to maximum pain intensity difference, number needed to treat values, adverse effects, overall drug assessment as patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), and the effect size estimates NNT and NNTp.

Results

Ibuprofen doses above 400 mg do not significantly increase analgesic effect. Paracetamol has a very flat analgesic dose-response profile. Paracetamol 1000/codeine 60 mg gives similar analgesia as ibuprofen from 400 mg, but has a shorter time to analgesic onset. Active drugs show no significant difference in maximal analgesic effect. Other secondary outcomes support these findings. The frequencies of adverse effects were low, mild to moderate in all active groups. NNT and NTTp values did not coincide well with PROMs.

Conclusion

Ibuprofen doses above 400 mg for acute pain offer limited analgesic gain. Paracetamol 1000 mg/codeine 60 mg is comparable to ibuprofen doses from 400 mg. Calculated effect size estimates and PROM in our study seem not to relate well as clinical analgesic efficacy estimators.

Trial registration

NCT00699114.

SUBMITTER: Lyngstad G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8585829 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) was evaluated as initial therapy in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients because of its potency, unique resistance profile, and high genetic barrier. Trial 1182.33, an open-label, randomized trial, compared two TPV/r dose combinations versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r). Eligible adults, who had no prior antiretroviral therapy were randomized to twice daily (BID) 500/100 mg TPV/r, 500/200 mg TPV/r, or 400/100 mg LPV/r. Each treatment group also received Tenofovir 300 mg + Lamivudine 300 mg QD. The primary endpoint was a confirmed viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL at week 48 without prior antiretroviral regimen changes. Primary analyses examined CD4-adjusted response rates for non-inferiority, using a 15% non-inferiority margin. At week 48, VL<50 copies/mL was 68.4%, 69.9%, and 72.4% in TPV/r100, TPV/r200, and LPV/r groups, respectively, and TPV/r groups showed non-inferiority to LPV/r. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in TPV/r100 (10.3%) and TPV/r200 (15.3%) recipients versus LPV/r (3.2%) recipients. The frequency of grade ?3 transaminase elevations was higher in the TPV/r200 group than the other groups, leading to closure of this group. However, upon continued treatment or following re-introduction after treatment interruption, transaminase elevations returned to grade ?2 in >65% of patients receiving either TPV/r200 or TPV/r100. The trial was subsequently discontinued; primary objectives were achieved and continuing TPV/r100 was less tolerable than standard of care for initial highly active antiretroviral therapy. All treatment groups had similar 48-week treatment responses. TPV/r100 and TPV/r200 regimens resulted in sustained treatment responses, which were non-inferior to LPV/r at 48 weeks. When compared with the LPV/r regimen and examined in the light of more current regimens, these TPV/r regimens do not appear to be the best options for treatment-naïve patients based on their safety profiles.